[Senate Report 108-105]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                                                       Calendar No. 213
108th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                    108-105

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



 
         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATION BILL, 2004

                                _______
                                

                 July 17, 2003.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 1424]

    The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1424) 
making appropriations for energy and water development for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, 
favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do 
pass.
    The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the 
bill (H.R. 0000) making appropriations for energy and water 
development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and 
for other purposes, reports the same to the Senate with an 
amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass. deg.



Amount in new budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2004

Budget estimates considered by Senate................... $26,946,164,000
Amount of bill as reported to the Senate................  27,313,000,000
The bill as reported to the Senate--
    Above the budget estimate, 2004.....................   1,236,805,000
    Over enacted bill, 2003.............................     366,836,000


                            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...................................     8
        Construction, general....................................    23
        Flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries.........    40
        Operation and maintenance, general.......................    43
        Regulatory program.......................................    65
        Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program..........    66
        General expenses.........................................    67
        Flood control and coastal emergencies....................    69
        General provisions.......................................    70

                                TITLE II

Department of the Interior:
    Central Utah project completion account......................    72
    Bureau of Reclamation: Water and related resources...........    72
    Central Valley project restoration fund......................    82
    California bay-delta restoration.............................    83
    Policy and administration....................................    84
    General provisions...........................................    85

                               TITLE III

Department of Energy:
    Energy Supply................................................    86
        Renewable energy resources...............................    87
        Electricity Energy Assurance.............................    90
        Nuclear energy programs..................................    91
        Environment, safety, and health..........................    94
        Energy supply infrastructure.............................    94
    Non-defense site acceleration completion.....................    95
    Uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund..    96
    Non-defense environmental service............................    97
    Science......................................................    98
        High energy physics......................................    99
        Nuclear physics..........................................    99
        Biological and environmental research....................   100
        Basic energy sciences....................................   101
        Fusion energy sciences...................................   102
    Nuclear waste disposal fund..................................   103
    Departmental administration..................................   104
        Miscellaneous revenues...................................   104
    Inspector General............................................   105
    Atomic energy defense activities:
        National Nuclear Security Administration:
            Weapons activities...................................   106
            Defense nuclear nonproliferation.....................   114
            Naval reactors.......................................   118
            Office of the Administrator..........................   119
    Environmental and other defense activities:
        Defense site acceleration completion.....................   121
        Defense environmental services...........................   125
        Other defense activities.................................   126
        Defense nuclear waste disposal...........................   129
    Power marketing administrations:
        Operation and maintenance, Southeastern Power 
          Administration.........................................   130
        Operation and maintenance, Southwestern Power 
          Administration.........................................   130
        Construction, rehabilitation, operation and maintenance, 
          Western Area Power Administration......................   131
    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.........................   131
        Salaries and expenses--revenues applied..................   132
    General provisions...........................................   146

                                TITLE IV

Independent Agencies:
    Appalachian Regional Commission..............................   148
    Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board......................   148
    Delta Regional Authority.....................................   149
    Denali Commission............................................   149
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission................................   150
        Office of Inspector General..............................   151
    Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.........................   151

                                TITLE V

General provisions...............................................   152
Compliance with paragraph 7, rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of 
  the 
  Senate.........................................................   152
Compliance with paragraph 7(c), rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules 
  of the 
  Senate.........................................................   152
Compliance with paragraph 12, rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of 
  the 
  Senate.........................................................   153
Budgetary impact statement.......................................   154

                                PURPOSE

    The purpose of this bill is to provide appropriations for 
the fiscal year 2004 beginning October 1, 2003, and ending 
September 30, 2004, 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, Delta Regional Authority, 
Denali Commission, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 
title IV.

                SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    The fiscal year 2004 budget estimates for the bill total 
$26,946,164,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The 
recommendation of the Committee totals $27,313,000,000. This is 
$366,836,000 above the budget estimates and $1,236,805,000 over 
the enacted appropriation for the current fiscal year.
    The bill, as recommended, is in compliance with the 
subcommittee allocation agreed to by the Committee and entered 
into the Congressional Record on June 20, 2003.

                         Subcommittee Hearings

    The Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the 
Committee on Appropriations held four sessions in connection 
with the fiscal year 2004 appropriation bill. Witnesses 
included officials and representatives of the Federal agencies 
under the subcommittee's jurisdiction.
    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 2004 therefore, have been developed after 
careful consideration of available data.

                         Votes in the Committee

    By a vote of 29 to 0 the Committee on July 17, 2003, 
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 remains concerned about the level of the 
budget requests for the water resources programs of the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers. The budget request for fiscal year 
2004 is about $450,000,000 less than the amount appropriated to 
the Corps in fiscal year 2003. The budget request is 
extraordinarily unbalanced. Eight projects account for 29 
percent of the proposed Construction, General budget with the 
remainder of the projects severely underfunded. The proposed 
General Investigations budget, which provides funding for 
studies of water resources needs, is decimated. Only studies in 
their final year were adequately funded, the remainder were 
severely underfunded. The proposed Operations and Maintenance 
budget appears to show an increase, however, when accounting 
for inflation and proposed funding transfers that are unlikely 
to be enacted, the final total is less than the amount 
appropriated in fiscal year 2003. The budget proposed for the 
Mississippi River and Tributaries project, is equally 
inadequate.
    If the proposed budget request were enacted, the Corps 
would be forced to terminate on-going construction contracts 
costing the government some $200,000,000 in termination fees, 
demobilization costs, and delays in project schedules.
    As has been the practice for the last several years, the 
budget proposal contained no new construction ``starts''. The 
budget proposal stated that this was done in order to only fund 
the backlog of on-going work (estimated at $23,000,000,000 in 
the budget proposal) and that within 10 years, this backlog 
would be reduced to zero. Followed to conclusion, that would 
mean that within 10 years the Corps would only be an operation 
and maintenance agency to oversee past constructed work. Since 
there are no other nationwide agencies that address water 
resource problems and needs, one can only assume that all water 
resource problems will be solved in the next 10 years or that 
the Federal Government intends to no longer fund water resource 
development.
    The Committee does not share the views in the budget 
proposal and remains concerned about the huge and increasing 
backlog of infrastructure development, maintenance, and repair 
over which the Corps has jurisdiction. The proposed budget 
causes the backlog of unconstructed projects to increase from 
$44,000,000,000 to $52,000,000,000 and ignores an accelerating 
critical maintenance backlog which increases from $960,000,000 
to $1,100,000,000. This maintenance backlog will soon become 
entirely unmanageable under the weight of an aging and 
crumbling inventory. Proposing no new discretionary 
construction starts, underfunding on-going projects, and 
providing minimal O&M funding for completed projects leads the 
Committee to believe that the budget preparation may have been 
influenced by very narrow interest groups as opposed to 
providing for a robust national water resources development 
program. The situation that the proposed budget poses to the 
Nation's economy and quality of life leave the Committee no 
option but to step forward in support of these vital projects.
    The Committee recommendation for the Corps of Engineers 
totals $4,426,700. This is $232,700,000 above the budget 
request for fiscal year 2003, and is $212,127,000 below the 
appropriation for the current year.

                       BUILDING AND SITE SECURITY

    The Committee is aware of the heightened threat of 
terrorist activity since the events of September 11, 2001, and 
the subsequent financial burden this places on the Corps of 
Engineers in managing the security of the many public assets 
and critical infrastructure within its control. In order to 
offset some of the financial burden of the Corps of Engineers, 
the Committee provided $139,000,000 in the fiscal year 2003 
supplemental appropriations bill to defray some of these costs. 
The Committee encourages the administration to include funding 
for specific security related costs in future budget 
submissions for the Corps of Engineers, as many of these costs 
are recurring.

                         CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE

    The Committee is concerned that Corps of Engineers 
technical and planning capabilities have diminished over the 
past decade. This diminished capability has been evident in 
recent controversial studies such as the Upper Mississippi 
River and Illinois Waterway System Navigation Study and the 
Delaware River Deepening Study. The Committee urges the Corps 
of Engineers to review ways in which it can improve its 
capability, to include concentrating its technical and planning 
expertise in regional centers. The Committee believes that 
there is much the Corps can do to leverage its highly skilled 
workforce in an effort to better utilize their expertise on a 
national level. With constrained budgets and ever-changing 
technology, the current work environment lends itself well to 
the movement of knowledge and information across great 
distances in a matter of minutes. Therefore, the Committee 
remains committed to the concept of the regional centers 
because they will enable the Corps to maximize its expertise 
across the country over a wide variety of projects and problems 
just by tapping its own resources. Though many problems are 
regionalized many of their solutions are not. With the 
implementation of regional centers the Corps will be able to 
manage the Agency's workload across the Nation rather than just 
in a district or division.

                           BUDGET CONSTRAINTS

    The budget allocation for non-Defense discretionary 
programs contained in the Energy and Water Development bill for 
fiscal year 2004 are constrained below what is necessary for a 
robust, balanced national water resources program. 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 2004. However, while 
the budget resources for non-Defense discretionary programs 
have remained flat or have declined in real terms, the number 
of requests of the Committee continue to increase. This year 
the Committee received more than 1,200 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 items not contained in the 
President's budget for both fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 
2004.

                           EXPENDITURE RATES

    The Committee is aware that the Corps of Engineers has 
exercised its existing authorities to take advantage of a good 
construction season and as a result, has been executing its 
construction program at an increased rate using funds available 
from under-performing projects. This occurrence has compounded 
over the last 2 years and has resulted in the Corps executing 
construction projects at a rate which far outpaces their 
respective appropriated amount. The Committee is very concerned 
that this practice has led to a situation where the Corps, 
despite Congressional intent expressed in the appropriations 
Act, makes the decision on where to put its scarce resources to 
the best use. Though the Committee understands that the Federal 
government yields project benefits and cost savings when a 
project is completed ahead of schedule or on time, opposed to 
later, the Committee is not in favor of projects proceeding at 
a faster rate than Congress intended without its concurrence. 
The intent of Congress, with respect to water projects, is very 
clear, specifically outlined in the detail tables on a project 
by project basis.
    Therefore, instead of retracting the Corps' reprogramming 
authority, a privilege granted to the Corps, the Committee 
expects the Corps, within 3 months of enactment of this Act, to 
submit a report to the Senate Appropriations Committee on its 
management plan for its appropriations and how it intends to 
rectify the situation. Should the Corps not reign in its 
expenditures to reflect the Congressional intent; the Committee 
will seek to retract the Corps reprogramming authority.

                        TRUST FUND ACCOUNT USAGE

    For fiscal year 2004, the administration proposes to expand 
the use of both the Inland Waterways and the Harbor Maintenance 
trust funds. In the case of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, a 
fuel-tax fund which offsets construction costs of certain 
inland waterways projects, the administration proposes to use 
revenues to pay for one-quarter of the operations and 
maintenance costs for all ``high use'' Federal inland 
waterways, in addition to one-half the operating and 
maintenance costs for all other Federal inland waterways. 
During fiscal year 2004, this proposal would translate to 
$110,000,000 in additional revenue tapped by the Corps. If the 
Congress were to enact this proposal, it would effectively 
raise the inland waterways users' diesel fuel tax from 20 cents 
to 34 cents per gallon.
    As for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, revenue is 
derived from receipts from an ad valorem tax imposed on 
commercial users of specified U.S. ports. The administration 
proposes to use the fund to finance not only 100 percent of the 
Federal share of the operation and maintenance costs for ports 
and harbors, but also all Federal costs associated with coastal 
port and channel construction.
    If the Committee were to enact these two proposals, the 
burden placed upon both trust funds would be so great that the 
funds would likely be bankrupt within a few years' time. The 
Committee believes that the changes contemplated by the 
administration will dilute the funds' target for resources: 
specific construction projects in the inland waterways system 
and the maintenance of certain ports and harbors. Therefore, 
the Committee dismisses the trust fund proposals and encourages 
the administration, if it is indeed as concerned with the 
funding needs of the Corps in these two areas, to increase the 
budget request for direct appropriations for the Corps.

                   BASIS OF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    In development of the fiscal year 2004 funding 
recommendation for the Corps of Engineers, the Committee is not 
able to include any new construction starts, and has 
recommended only a limited number of new study starts in an 
effort to restore balance to the water resource program of the 
Corps, and to address high priority requests made to the 
Committee. 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 all 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. One issue of great concern to the Committee is 
that the fiscal year 2004 budget request only funded 18 of the 
projects in the preconstruction, engineering, and design phase. 
The Committee believes that this was done by the administration 
as a means to constrict the future pressure on construction. 
However, the administration did not responsibly take into 
account the fact that for fiscal year 2003, the Congress 
included funding for 84 of these projects, the majority of 
which have Design Agreements signed, which are legally binding 
contracts. As a result of the administration not funding these 
projects, the Committee used its constrained resources to avoid 
the Government breeching these contracts.

                         GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

Appropriations, 2003....................................    $134,141,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................     100,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     131,700,000

    This appropriation funds studies to determine the need, 
engineering feasibility, economic justification, and the 
environmental and social suitability of solutions to water and 
related land resource problems; and for preconstruction 
engineering and design work, data collection, and interagency 
coordination and research activities.
    The budget request and the recommended Committee allowance 
are shown on the following table:

                                   CORPS OF ENGINEERS--GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Budget estimate        Committee recommendation
                      Project title                      -------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Investigations   Planning   Investigations   Planning
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         ALABAMA

BREWTON AND EAST BREWTON, AL............................           300    ..........           300    ..........
CAHABA RIVER WATERSHED, AL..............................            50    ..........            50    ..........
VILLAGE CREEK, JEFFERSON COUNTY (BIRMINGHAM WATERSHED)..           200    ..........           200    ..........

                         ALASKA

ADAK, AK................................................  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
AKUTAN HARBOR, AK.......................................           100    ..........           100           200
ANCHORAGE HARBOR DEEPENING, AK..........................            50    ..........           200    ..........
BARROW COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION, AK...............           200    ..........         1,000    ..........
COFFMAN COVE, AK........................................  ..............  ..........           200    ..........
CRAIG HARBOR, AK........................................            50    ..........           200    ..........
DELONG MOUNTAIN HARBOR, AK..............................           200    ..........           566    ..........
EKLUTNA RIVER WATERSHED, AK.............................           100    ..........           300    ..........
HAINES HARBOR, AK.......................................           100    ..........           100           200
HOMER HARBOR, AK........................................  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
KAKTOVIK BEACH EROSION STUDY, AK........................  ..............  ..........           200    ..........
KETCHIKAN HARBOR, AK....................................            50    ..........           200    ..........
KLAWOCK HARBOR, AK......................................  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
KNIK BRIDGE CROSSING, AK................................  ..............  ..........           200    ..........
KOTZEBUE SMALL BOAT HARBOR, AK..........................            50    ..........           250    ..........
LITTLE DIOMEDE HARBOR, AK...............................            50    ..........           200    ..........
MATANUSKA, AK...........................................  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
MCGRATH BANK STABILIZATION, AK..........................  ..............  ..........           300    ..........
MEKORYUK HARBOR, AK.....................................            50    ..........           100    ..........
PORT LIONS HARBOR, AK...................................           100    ..........           100           100
REGIONAL PORT STUDY, AK.................................  ..............  ..........           300    ..........
SAINT GEORGE NAVIGATION IMPROVEMETS, AK.................            50    ..........           400    ..........
SKAGWAY, AK.............................................  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
UNALAKLEET HARBOR, AK...................................            50    ..........           200    ..........
UNALASKA HARBOR, AK.....................................           150    ..........           500    ..........
VALDEZ HARBOR EXPANSION, AK.............................            50    ..........            50    ..........
WHITTIER BREAKWATER, AK.................................            50    ..........            50    ..........

                     AMERICAN SOMOA

TUTUILA HARBOR, AS......................................            46    ..........            46    ..........

                         ARIZONA

AGUA FRIA RIVER, AZ.....................................           150    ..........           150    ..........
CANADA DEL ORO WASH, AZ.................................           100    ..........           100    ..........
NAVAJO NATION, AZ, NM AND UT............................           130    ..........           130    ..........
PIMA COUNTY, AZ.........................................           300    ..........           300    ..........
RILLITO RIVER, PIMA COUNTY, AZ..........................           300    ..........           300    ..........
RIO SALADO OESTE, SALT RIVER, AZ........................           250    ..........           250    ..........
SANTA CRUZ RIVER, GRANT RD TO FT LOWELL RD, AZ..........           100    ..........           100    ..........
SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, AZ.............           152    ..........           152    ..........
VA SHLY-AY AKIMEL SALT RIVER RESTORATION PROJECT, AZ....           370    ..........           370    ..........

                        ARKANSAS

ARKANSAS RIVER LEVEES, AR...............................  ..............  ..........  ..............         300
ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION STUDY, AR AND OK..............         1,070    ..........         1,270    ..........
HOT SPRINGS CREEK, AR...................................  ..............  ..........            32    ..........
MAY BRANCH, FORT SMITH, AR..............................  ..............  ..........  ..............         200
NORTH LITTLE ROCK, DARK HOLLOW, AR......................  ..............  ..........  ..............         200
PINE MOUNTAIN DAM, AR...................................  ..............  ..........  ..............         300
RED RIVER NAVIGATION, SWAR, AR AND LA...................  ..............  ..........  ..............         150
WHITE RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, AR AND MO..............           300    ..........           500    ..........
WHITE RIVER MINIMUM FLOWS, AR...........................  ..............  ..........  ..............         100
WHITE RIVER NAVIGATION, AR..............................  ..............  ..........  ..............         100

                       CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM MINI-RAISE), CA....  ..............  ..........         4,000    ..........
ALISO CREEK MAINSTEM, CA................................           150    ..........           150    ..........
ARANA GULCH WATERSHED, CA...............................           100    ..........           100    ..........
ARROYO SECO WATERSHED RESTORATION, CA...................           150    ..........           150    ..........
BALLONA CREEK ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA.................           150    ..........           150    ..........
BOLINAS LAGOON, CA......................................  ..............  ..........           200    ..........
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CA...............................           141    ..........           141    ..........
COAST OF CALIFORNIA, (STORM AND TIDAL), CA..............  ..............  ..........           700    ..........
COYOTE DAM, CA..........................................           100    ..........           100    ..........
DESERT HOT SPRINGS, CA..................................  ..............  ..........           200    ..........
GRAYSON AND MURDERER'S CREEKS, CA.......................           400    ..........           400    ..........
HUMBOLDT BAY LONG TERM SHOAL MANAGEMENT, CA.............  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
CITY OF INGLEWOOD, CA...................................  ..............  ..........           300    ..........
LA RIVER WATERCOURSE, HEADWORKS AREA, CA................           250    ..........           250    ..........
LA RIVER WATERCOURSE, SAN JOSE CREEK, CA................           100    ..........           100    ..........
LAGUNA DE SANTA ROSA, CA................................           150    ..........           150    ..........
LAKE ELSINORE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, CA.............            50    ..........            50    ..........
LLAGAS CREEK, CA........................................  ..............  ..........  ..............         200
LOWER CACHE CREEK, YOLO COUNTY, CA......................  ..............  ..........  ..............         200
LOWER MISSION CREEK, CA.................................  ..............  ..........  ..............         200
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA..................................           150    ..........           150    ..........
MALIBU CREEK WATERSHED, CA..............................           270    ..........           270    ..........
MARINA DEL REY AND BALLONA CREEK, CA....................           150    ..........           150    ..........
MATILIJA DAM, CA........................................           300    ..........           731    ..........
MIDDLE CREEK, CA........................................  ..............  ..........  ..............         100
MORRO BAY ESTUARY, CA...................................           250    ..........           250    ..........
MUGU LAGOON, CA.........................................           150    ..........           150    ..........
N CA STREAMS, LOWER SACRAMENTO RVR RIPARIAN REVEGETATI..           200    ..........           200    ..........
NAPA RIVER, SALT MARSH RESTORATION, CA..................           200    ..........           200    ..........
NAPA VALLEY WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, CA....................           150    ..........           150    ..........
NEWPORT BAY/SAN DIEGO CREEK WATERSHED, CA...............           186    ..........           186    ..........
OCEAN BEACH, CA.........................................           100    ..........           100    ..........
ORANGE COUNTY SHORELINE, LOWER SANTA ANA RIVER WATERSH..           100    ..........           100    ..........
ORANGE COUNTY, SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA................           150    ..........           150    ..........
PAJARO RIVER AT WATSONVILLE, CA.........................  ..............  ..........  ..............         200
PAJARO RIVER BASIN STUDY, CA............................           100    ..........           100    ..........
PINE FLAT DAM, FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT, CA............  ..............  ..........  ..............          50
POSO CREEK, CA..........................................           300    ..........           300    ..........
PRADO BASIN ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, CA...............           100    ..........           100    ..........
RUSSIAN RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA.................           150    ..........           150    ..........
SACRAMENTO--SAN JOAQUIN DELTA, CA.......................         1,100    ..........         1,100    ..........
SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN COMPREHENSIVE BASIN STUDY,...         1,020    ..........  ..............       1,020
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA...............................           100    ..........           100    ..........
SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE, CA..............................           100    ..........           215    ..........
SAN DIEGO SHORELINE, CA.................................  ..............  ..........  ..............         200
SAN FRANCISCO BAY, CA...................................           420    ..........           420    ..........
SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK, CA..............................           100    ..........           100    ..........
SAN JACINTO RIVER, CA...................................           100    ..........           100    ..........
SAN JOAQUIN RB, W STANISLAUS, DEL PUERTO AND SALADO CREE            50    ..........            50    ..........
SAN JOAQUIN RB, WEST STANISLAUS COUNTY, ORESTIMBA CREE..           300    ..........           300    ..........
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, CONSUMNES AND MOKELUMNE                   200    ..........           200    ..........
 RIVERS,................................................
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, FRAZIER CREEK, CA..............           100    ..........           100    ..........
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, TUOLUMNE RIVER, CA.............           350    ..........           350    ..........
SAN JUAN CREEK, SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY, CA.................           100    ..........           100    ..........
SAN PABLO BAY WATERSHED, CA.............................           200    ..........           200    ..........
SANTA ANA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, BIG BEAR LAKE, CA......           200    ..........           200    ..........
SANTA CLARA RIVER, CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CA............           150    ..........           150    ..........
SANTA ROSA CREEK WATERSHED, CA..........................           120    ..........           120    ..........
SOLANA-ENCINITAS SHORELINE FEASIBILITY STUDY, CA........  ..............  ..........           400    ..........
SONOMA CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, CA........................           150    ..........           150    ..........
STRONG AND CHICKEN RANCH SLOUGHS, CA....................            50    ..........            50    ..........
SUTTER COUNTY, CA.......................................           200    ..........           200    ..........
TAHOE BASIN, CA AND NV..................................         1,000    ..........         1,000            50
TIJUANA RIVER VALLEY, CA................................           100    ..........           100    ..........
UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER,CA................................  ..............  ..........  ..............         200
UPPER PENITENCIA CREEK, CA..............................           460    ..........           460    ..........
UPPER SANTA ANA RIVER WATERSHED, CA.....................           150    ..........           150    ..........
VENTURA AND SANTA BARBARA COUNTY SHORELINE, CA..........           100    ..........           100    ..........
VENTURA HARBOR SAND BYPASS, CA..........................           121    ..........           121    ..........
WESTMINSTER, COYOTE AND CARBON CANYON CREEK WATER-                 150    ..........           150    ..........
 SHEDS..................................................
WESTMINSTER, EAST GARDEN GROVE, CA......................           100    ..........           100    ..........
WHITE RIVER AND DEER CREEK, CA..........................           100    ..........           100    ..........
WHITEWATER RIVER BASIN, CA..............................  ..............  ..........  ..............         200
WILDCAT AND SAN PABLO CREEKS, CA........................           100    ..........           100    ..........

                        COLORADO

CHATFIELD, CHERRY CREEK AND BEAR CREEK RESERVOIRS, CO...           260    ..........           260    ..........
FOUNTAIN CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, CO......................           350    ..........           350    ..........
ZUNI AND SUN VALLEY REACHES, SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, CO.....  ..............         186  ..............         186

        COMMONWEALTH OF NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS

ROTA HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, CNMI.........................           102    ..........           102    ..........
TINIAN HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, CNMI.......................           102    ..........           102    ..........

                        DELAWARE

DELAWARE COAST, CAPE HENLOPEN TO FENWICK ISLAND, DE.....  ..............         214  ..............  ..........
CHRISTINA RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, DE.....................  ..............  ..........           100    ..........

                         FLORIDA

HILLSBOROUGH RIVER, FL..................................           340    ..........           340    ..........
LAKE WORTH INLET, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL.................           370    ..........           370    ..........
LIDO BAY, SARASOTA COUNTY, FL...........................  ..............  ..........  ..............         200
LITTLE TALBOT ISLAND, FL................................  ..............  ..........  ..............         100
PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL..............................  ..............  ..........  ..............         100
ST. JOHNS COUNTY. FL....................................  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
ST. PETERSBURG HARBOR, FL...............................  ..............  ..........  ..............         200
WALTON COUNTY BEACH AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORE, FL.......  ..............  ..........           300    ..........
WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER, FL.................................           340    ..........           340    ..........

                         GEORGIA

ALLATOONA LAKE, GA......................................           150    ..........           150    ..........
ARABIA MOUNTAIN, GA.....................................           150    ..........           150    ..........
AUGUSTA, GA.............................................           300    ..........           300    ..........
INDIAN, SUGAR, ENTRENCHMENT AND FEDERAL PRISON CREEKS,..           175    ..........           175    ..........
LONG ISLAND, MARSH AND JOHNS CREEKS, GA.................           150    ..........           150    ..........
SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION,GA............................  ..............  ..........  ..............         615
SAVANNAH HARBOR ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, GA...............           150    ..........           150    ..........
SAVANNAH HARBOR SEDIMENT CONTROL WORKS, GA AND SC.......           100    ..........           100    ..........
SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, GA AND SC...........           200    ..........           200    ..........
UTOY, SANDY AND PROCTOR CREEKS, GA......................           100    ..........           100    ..........

                         HAWAII

ALA WAI CANAL, OAHU, HI.................................           100    ..........           100    ..........
BARBERS POINT HARBOR MODIFICATION, OAHU, HI.............           100    ..........           100    ..........
KAHUKU, HI..............................................           100    ..........           100    ..........
KAWAIHAE DEEP DRAFT HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, HAWAII, HI....           100    ..........           150    ..........
KIHEI AREA EROSION, HI..................................           100    ..........           100    ..........
NAWILIWILI HARBOR MODIFICATION, KAUAI, HI...............           100    ..........           100    ..........
WAIKIKI EROSION CONTROL, HI.............................  ..............  ..........  ..............         250
WAILUPE STREAM FLOOD CONTROL STUDY, HI..................  ..............  ..........  ..............         300

                          GUAM

HAGATNA RIVER, GUAM.....................................  ..............  ..........           100    ..........

                          IDAHO

BOISE RIVER, BOISE, ID..................................           110    ..........           110    ..........
LITTLE WOOD RIVER, GOODING, ID..........................           100    ..........           100           100

                        ILLINOIS

ALEXANDER AND PULASKI COUNTIES, IL......................           103    ..........           103    ..........
DES PLAINES RIVER, IL (PHASE II)........................           278    ..........           500    ..........
ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION, IL....................           504    ..........           700    ..........
ILLINOIS RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, IL................           148    ..........           200    ..........
PEORIA RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, IL.......................  ..............         600  ..............         600
ROCK RIVER, IL AND WI...................................            48    ..........            48    ..........
UPPER MISS AND ILLINOIS NAV STUDY, IL, IA, MN, MO AND WI         3,216    ..........         4,216    ..........
UPPER MISS RVR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IL, IA, MO, MN AND WI           494    ..........         2,600    ..........
WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL.....................................  ..............  ..........  ..............         100
WOOD RIVER LEVEE, IL....................................  ..............  ..........  ..............         150

                         INDIANA

INDIANA HARBOR, IN......................................           150    ..........           150    ..........
JOHN T. MYERS LOCK AND DAM, IN AND KY...................  ..............  ..........  ..............       2,000

                          IOWA

DAVENPORT, IA...........................................  ..............         159  ..............         159
DES MOINES AND RACCOON RIVERS, IA.......................           565    ..........           565    ..........
FORT DODGE, IA..........................................            23    ..........           217    ..........
LOWER DES MOINES RIVER, IA AND MO.......................            50    ..........            50    ..........

                         KANSAS

BRUSH CREEK BASIN STUDY, KS AND MO......................  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
TOPEKA, KS..............................................           125    ..........           125            50
TURKEY CREEK BASIN, KS AND MO...........................  ..............         205  ..............         205
UPPER TURKEY CREEK, KS..................................           229    ..........           229    ..........
WALNUT AND WHITEWATER RIVER WATERSHEDS, KS..............           160    ..........           160    ..........

                        KENTUCKY

GREENUP LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, KY AND OH............  ..............       2,895  ..............       2,895
METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, JEFFERSON COUNTY, KY...........           200    ..........           200    ..........
METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, MILL CREEK BASIN, KY...........           176    ..........           176    ..........
METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, SOUTHWEST, KY..................           225    ..........           225    ..........
OHIO RIVER MAIN STEM SYSTEMS STUDY, KY, IL, IN, PA, WV..         1,350    ..........         1,350    ..........
DEWEY LAKE WATER REALLOCATION, KY.......................  ..............  ..........           125    ..........

                        LOUISIANA

AMITE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA...            50    ..........            50    ..........
AMITE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, BAYOU MANCHAC, LA..........           100    ..........           300    ..........
ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF AND BLACK, L..           150    ..........         1,150    ..........
BAYOU SORREL LOCK, LA...................................  ..............         707  ..............         707
BOSSIER PARISH LEVEE AND FLOOD CONTROL, LA..............  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
CALCASIEU LOCK, LA......................................           100    ..........           100    ..........
CALCASIEU RIVER BASIN, LA...............................            50    ..........            50    ..........
CALCASIEU RIVER PASS SHIP CHANNEL ENLARGEMENT, LA.......  ..............  ..........           200    ..........
GIWW ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA..........................           100    ..........           100    ..........
HURRICANE PROTECTION, LA................................           100    ..........           100    ..........
JEFFORSON PARISH, LA....................................  ..............  ..........  ..............          25
LAFAYETTE PARISH, LA....................................  ..............         645  ..............         645
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA........           848    ..........         1,900    ..........
ORLEANS PARISH, LA......................................  ..............  ..........  ..............          25
PLAQUEMINES PARISH URBAN FLOOD CONTROL, LA..............           100    ..........           100    ..........
PORT OF IBERIA, LA......................................           150    ..........         1,150    ..........
ST. BERNARD PARISH URBAN FLOOD CONTROL, LA..............           100    ..........           100    ..........
ST. CHARLES PARISH URBAN FLOOD CONTROL, LA..............           100    ..........           100    ..........
ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH, LA.........................           100    ..........           300    ..........
WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LA.............................  ..............  ..........  ..............         100
WEST SHORE-LAKE PONTCHARTAIN, LA........................  ..............  ..........  ..............         400

                          MAINE

SEARSPORT HARBOR, ME....................................  ..............  ..........           100    ..........

                        MARYLAND

ANACOSTIA RIVER, PG COUNTY LEVEE, MD AND DC.............           194    ..........           194    ..........
BALTIMORE METRO, GWYNN FALLS, MD........................  ..............  ..........  ..............         500
CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINE EROSION, MD, VA AND DE.........           200    ..........           500    ..........
EASTERN SHORE, MID CHESAPEAKE BAY ISLAND, MD............           351    ..........           500    ..........
LOWER POTOMAC ESTUARY WATERSHED, ST MARY'S, MD..........           200    ..........           200    ..........
MIDDLE POTOMAC RIVER BASIN, MD..........................           100    ..........           100    ..........

                      MASSACHUSETTS

BLACKSTONE RIVER WATERSHED RESTORATION, MA AND RI.......            50    ..........            50    ..........
BOSTON HARBOR (45-FOOT CHANNEL), MA.....................           500    ..........           500    ..........
COASTAL MASSACHUSETTS ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, MA.........           170    ..........           170    ..........
SOMERSET AND SEARSBURG DAMS, MA AND VT..................  ..............  ..........  ..............         100

                        MICHIGAN

GREAT LAKES NAV SYST STUDY, MI, IL, IN, MN, NY, OH, PA..           740    ..........         1,000    ..........
DETRIOT RIVER MASTERPLAN, MI............................  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
DETRIOT RIVER SEAWALLS, MI..............................  ..............  ..........  ..............         200
LANSING, MI.............................................  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
ROUGE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, MI..................  ..............  ..........            25    ..........
ROUGE RIVER SUPP PLAN, MI...............................  ..............  ..........           100    ..........

                        MINNESOTA

MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED, UMR LAKE ITASCA TO L&D 2, M..           250    ..........           250    ..........
RED RIVER OF THE NORTH BASIN, MN, ND, SD AND MANITOBA, C         1,200    ..........         1,200    ..........
SOUTH WASHINGTON CTY WATERSHED, UMR LAKE ITASCA TO L&D..           250    ..........           250    ..........

                       MISSISSIPPI

GULFPORT AND HARRISON COUNTY WATERSHED STUDY, MS........           100    ..........           100    ..........
HANCOCK COUNTY SEAWALL RESTORATION, MS..................           150    ..........           150    ..........
PEARL RIVER WATERSHED, MS...............................           400    ..........           660    ..........

                        MISSOURI

CHESTERFIELD, MO........................................  ..............         439  ..............         439
JORDAN CREEK, MO........................................  ..............  ..........           300    ..........
KANSAS CITYS, MO AND KS.................................           316    ..........           650    ..........
MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, UNITS L455 AND R460-471, MO           150    ..........           150    ..........
RIVER DES PERES,MO......................................  ..............  ..........  ..............         100
SPRINGFIELD, MO.........................................           230    ..........           330    ..........
ST. LOUIS FLOOD PROTECTION, MO..........................  ..............  ..........  ..............         100
ST. LOUIS HARBOR, MO....................................  ..............  ..........  ..............         100
SWOPE PARK INDUSTRIAL AREA, KANSAS CITY, MO.............  ..............  ..........  ..............         500
ST. LOUIS MISSISSIPPI RIVERFRONT, MO AND IL.............           151    ..........           151    ..........
WEARS CREEK, JEFFERSON CITY, MO.........................           100    ..........           100    ..........

                         MONTANA

YELLOWSTONE RIVER CORRIDOR, MT..........................           209    ..........           209    ..........

                        NEBRASKA

LOWER PLATTE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NE..................           191    ..........           191    ..........
SAND CREEK WATERSHED, WAHOO, NE.........................  ..............         546  ..............         546
WESTERN SARPY AND CLEAR CREEK, NE.......................  ..............         318  ..............         318

                         NEVADA

LAS VEGAS WASH, NORTH LAS VEGAS, NV.....................            50    ..........            50    ..........
LOWER LAS VEGAS WASH WETLANDS, NV.......................            50    ..........            50    ..........
TRUCKEE MEADOWS, NV.....................................  ..............  ..........  ..............       2,115
WALKER RIVER BASIN, NV..................................           100    ..........           100    ..........

                      NEW HAMPSHIRE

CONNECTICUT RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, NH AND VT......           115    ..........           115    ..........
MERRIMACK RIVER BASIN, NH...............................           400    ..........           400    ..........
PORTSMOUTH HARBOR AND PISCATAQUA TURNING BASIN, NH......  ..............  ..........           100    ..........

                       NEW JERSEY

BARNEGAT BAY ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, NJ..................  ..............  ..........  ..............         200
DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, NJ, NY, DE AND PA...            50    ..........            50    ..........
GOFFLE BROOK, BOROUGH OF HAWTHORNE, NJ..................            25    ..........           100    ..........
GREAT EGG INLET TO TOWNSEND INLET, NJ...................  ..............         539  ..............         539
HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS, NJ.....           100    ..........           100    ..........
HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, LOWER PASSAIC RIVER, NJ........            25    ..........            25    ..........
MANASQUAN INLET TO BARNEGAT INLE, NJ....................  ..............  ..........  ..............         100
MID-DELAWARE BASIN COMPREHENSIVE STUDY, NJ..............  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
NJIWW ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, NJ.........................  ..............  ..........  ..............         200
NEW JERSEY SHORE PROTECTION, HEREFORD TO CAPE MAY INLE..           100    ..........           100    ..........
NEW JERSEY SHORELINE ALTERNATIVE LONG-TERM NOURISHMENT..           100    ..........           100    ..........
LOWER PASSAIC RIVER NJ ENVIRO REST, NJ..................            25    ..........           100    ..........
PASSAIC RIVER, HARRISON, NJ.............................  ..............  ..........  ..............         200
PECKMAN RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NJ.......................           200    ..........           200    ..........
RAHWAY RIVER BASIN, NJ..................................           150    ..........           150    ..........
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, HIGHLANDS, NJ...........           200    ..........           200    ..........
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, KEYPORT, NJ.............           200    ..........           200    ..........
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, LEONARDO, NJ............           150    ..........           150    ..........
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK, PORT MONMOUTH, NJ...........  ..............  ..........  ..............         200
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK UNION BEACH, NJ..............  ..............  ..........  ..............         100
SHREWSBURY RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NJ....................           150    ..........           150    ..........
SOUTH RIVER, RARITAN RIVER BASIN, NJ....................  ..............  ..........  ..............         100
STONY BROOK, MILLSTONE RIVER BASIN, NJ..................           200    ..........           200    ..........
UPPER PASSAIC RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NJ.................  ..............  ..........  ..............         200
UPPER ROCKAWAY RIVER, NJ................................           441    ..........           441    ..........
WOODBRIDGE RIVER BASIN, NJ..............................           150    ..........           200    ..........

                       NEW MEXICO

EAST MESA, LAS CRUCES, NM...............................  ..............  ..........           130    ..........
ESPANOLA VALLEY, RIO GRANDE AND TRIBUTARIES, NM.........            50    ..........           510            20
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE BOSQUE, NM............................           225    ..........           300    ..........
RIO GRANDE BASIN, NM, CO AND TX.........................           125    ..........           125    ..........
SANTA FE, NM............................................           225    ..........           300    ..........
SW VALLEY FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTIONS STUDY, NM.............  ..............  ..........  ..............         250

                        NEW YORK

BRONX RIVER BASIN, NY...................................            50    ..........            50    ..........
BUFFALO RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, NY................            52    ..........            52    ..........
FLUSHING BAY CREEK, NY..................................  ..............  ..........  ..............          25
FREEPORT CREEK, VILLAGE OF FREEPORT, NY.................            25    ..........            25    ..........
HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, GOWANUS CANAL, NY AND NJ.......           255    ..........           255    ..........
HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, NY AND NJ......................           685    ..........           785    ..........
HUDSON RIVER HABITAT RESTORATION, NY....................            25    ..........            25            25
JAMAICA BAY, MARINE PARK AND PLUMB BEACH, NY............           147    ..........           147    ..........
LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR, NY.................................            85    ..........            85    ..........
NEW YORK HARBOR ANCHORAGE AREAS, NY.....................  ..............  ..........  ..............          50
NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, ASHAROKEN, NY...............           134    ..........           134    ..........
NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, BAYVILLE, NY................           170    ..........           170    ..........
ONONDAGA LAKE, NY.......................................           307    ..........           307    ..........
SAW MILL RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NY......................            50    ..........            50    ..........
SOUTH SHORE OF STATEN ISLAND, NY........................           250    ..........           250    ..........
UPPER DELAWARE RIVER WATERSHED, NY......................            50    ..........            50    ..........
UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN ENVIRON RESTORATION, NY...           200    ..........           200    ..........

                     NORTH CAROLINA

BOGUE BANKS, NC.........................................           400    ..........           400    ..........
CURRITUCK SOUND, NC.....................................           150    ..........           150    ..........
DARE COUNTY BEACHES, HATTERAS AND OCRACOKE ISLANDS, NC..           150    ..........           200    ..........
MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC.............................  ..............  ..........  ..............         100
NEUSE RIVER BASIN, NC...................................           100    ..........           100    ..........
SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH, NC...................           200    ..........           200    ..........
TAR RIVER BASIN, NC.....................................           100    ..........           100    ..........

                          OHIO

ASHTABULA RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, OH..............  ..............         250  ..............         640
COLUMBUS METROPOLITAN AREA, OH..........................           365    ..........           365    ..........
DUCK CREEK WATERSHED, OH................................  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
HOCKING RIVER BASIN ENV RESTORATION, MONDAY CREEK, OH...            40    ..........            40           200
MAHONING RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, OH AND PA........           450    ..........           642           300
MUSKINGUM BASIN SYSTEM STUDY, OH........................           357    ..........           357    ..........
WESTERN LAKE ERIE BASIN, OH, IN AND MI..................           130    ..........           130    ..........
WHEELING CREEK, OH......................................  ..............  ..........           131    ..........

                        OKLAHOMA

MIAMI AND VICINITY, OK..................................           231    ..........           231    ..........
GRAND LAKE COMPREHENSIVE STUDY, OK......................  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
MOUNTAIN FORK RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, OK.................  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
OOLOGAH LAKE WATERSHED, OK AND KS.......................           259    ..........           259    ..........
SOUTHEAST OKLAHOMA WATER RESOURCE STUDY, OK.............            50    ..........            50    ..........
SPAVINAW CREEK, OK......................................  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
WASHITA RIVER BASIN, OK.................................  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
WISTER LAKE WATERSHED, OK...............................  ..............  ..........           200    ..........

                         OREGON

AMAZON CREEK, OR........................................           250    ..........           250    ..........
EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD WATERWAYS AND FERN RIDGE DAM, OR.....  ..............  ..........           200    ..........
LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR AND WA...           250    ..........           250    ..........
TILLAMOOK BAY AND ESTUARY ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR.....            43    ..........            43           475
WALLA WALLA RIVER WATERSHED, OR AND WA..................           439    ..........           500    ..........
WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN REVIEW, OR.......................            94    ..........            94    ..........
WILLAMETTE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, OR.............           313    ..........           313    ..........
WILLAMETTE RIVER FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION, OR.............           210    ..........           210    ..........

                      PENNSYLVANIA

CHRISTINA RIVER WATERSHED, PA, DE AND MD................            50    ..........            50    ..........
EMS, DASH AND MONT & DAMS UPPER OH RIVER NAV, PA........  ..............  ..........           800    ..........
SCHUYKILL ESTUARINE RIVER BASIN, PA.....................  ..............  ..........           250    ..........
SCHUYLKILL RIVER, WISSAHICKON, PA.......................            50    ..........            50    ..........
UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, PA (PHASE II)............           180    ..........           180    ..........

                      RHODE ISLAND

RHODE ISLAND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, RI..................            20    ..........            20    ..........

                     SOUTH CAROLINA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC......................           430    ..........           430    ..........
BROAD RIVER BASIN, SC...................................           100    ..........           100    ..........
EDISTO ISLAND, SC.......................................  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
PAWLEYS ISLAND, SC......................................  ..............  ..........  ..............         125
REEDY RIVER, SC.........................................           170    ..........           170    ..........
SANTEE DELTA ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, SC..............            75    ..........            75    ..........
WACCAMAW RIVER, SC......................................            50    ..........            50    ..........

                      SOUTH DAKOTA

JAMES RIVER, SD AND ND..................................           150    ..........           500    ..........
WATERTOWN AND VICINITY, SD..............................  ..............  ..........  ..............         473

                        TENNESSEE

DAVIDSON COUNTY, TN.....................................           243    ..........           300    ..........

                          TEXAS

BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES (MAINSTEM), TX............  ..............  ..........  ..............         500
BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, WHITE OAK BAYOU, TX......           100    ..........           100    ..........
CEDAR BAYOU, TX.........................................  ..............  ..........  ..............         374
COLONIAS-LWR RIO ALONG TX AND MEXICO BORDER, TX.........  ..............  ..........  ..............         325
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX.........................  ..............  ..........  ..............         800
FREEPORT HARBOR, TX.....................................           250    ..........           250    ..........
FREEPORT HURRICANE PROTECTION LEVEE, TX.................           200    ..........           200    ..........
GIWW MODIFICATIONS, TX..................................           350    ..........           350    ..........
GIWW, BRAZOS RIVER TO PORT O'CONNOR, TX.................           361    ..........           361    ..........
GIWW, HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS RIVER REALIGNMENTS, TX......           200    ..........           200    ..........
GIWW, HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS RIVER, TX...................  ..............         315  ..............         315
GIWW, MATAGORDA BAY, TX.................................  ..............         100  ..............         100
GIWW, PORT O'CONNOR TO CORPUS CHRISTI BAY, TX...........           400    ..........           400    ..........
GREENS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX...............................  ..............         774  ..............         774
GUADALUPE AND SAN ANTONIO RIVER BASINS, TX..............           150    ..........           150    ..........
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN, TX..........................           600    ..........         1,600    ..........
MIDDLE BRAZOS RIVER, TX.................................            50    ..........           250    ..........
MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL (PORT LAVACA), TX................  ..............  ..........           500    ..........
NORTHWEST EL PASO, TX...................................           300    ..........           300    ..........
NUECES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, TX........................           100    ..........           100    ..........
RAYMONDVILLE DRAIN, TX..................................  ..............  ..........  ..............         800
RESACAS AT BROWNSVILLE, TX..............................           300    ..........           300    ..........
RIVERSIDE OXBOW, UPPER TRINITY BASIN, FT WORTH, TX......  ..............         350  ..............         350
SABINE--NECHES WATERWAY, TX.............................           300    ..........           350    ..........
SABINE PASS TO GALVESTON BAY, TX........................           450    ..........           450    ..........
SOUTH MAIN CHANNEL, TX..................................  ..............  ..........  ..............         300
SPARKS ARROYO COLONIA, EL PASO COUNTY, TX...............           235    ..........           235    ..........
SULPHUR RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, TX.............            50    ..........            50    ..........
TEXAS CITY CHANNEL, TX..................................  ..............  ..........  ..............       1,500
TRI-COUNTY FLOOD STUDY, SAN ANTONIO RIVER, TX...........           100    ..........           100    ..........
UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TX...........................           400    ..........           600    ..........

                          UTAH

PARK CITY WATER SUPPLY, UT..............................  ..............  ..........           500    ..........
PROVO AND VICINITY, UT..................................           100    ..........           100    ..........

                        VIRGINIA

AIWW, BRIDGES AT DEEP CREEK, VA.........................  ..............         694  ..............       1,184
ELIZABETH RIVER BASIN, ENV RESTORATION, VA (PHASE II)...           200    ..........           200    ..........
ELIZABETH RIVER, HAMPTON ROADS, VA......................  ..............          75  ..............          75
FOURMILE RUN, VA........................................           150    ..........           150    ..........
JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA.................................  ..............  ..........  ..............         200
JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA AND NC (SECTION 216)..           250    ..........           250    ..........
LYNNHAVEN RIVER BASIN, VA...............................           300    ..........           300    ..........
NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, CRANEY ISLAND, VA..........            56    ..........            56    ..........
POWELL RIVER WATERSHED, VA..............................           197    ..........           197    ..........

                       WASHINGTON

CENTRALIA, WA...........................................  ..............  ..........  ..............         100
CHEHALIS RIVER BASIN, WA................................           310    ..........           310    ..........
DUWAMISH AND GREEN RIVER BASIN, WA......................  ..............  ..........  ..............         500
ELLIOT BAY SEAWALL, WA..................................  ..............  ..........           500    ..........
LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA..........................           446    ..........           446    ..........
PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE MARINE HABITAT RESTORATION, WA....           350    ..........           350    ..........
SKAGIT RIVER, WA........................................           350    ..........           500    ..........
STILLAGUAMISH RIVER BASIN, WA...........................  ..............  ..........  ..............         200
WHITE RIVER FLOOD CONTROL AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, W..           250    ..........           250    ..........

                      WEST VIRGINIA

LITTLE KANAWHA RIVER, WV................................            65    ..........            65    ..........
NEW RIVER BASIN, WV, NC AND VA..........................           130    ..........           130    ..........

                        WISCONSIN

BARABOO RIVER, WI.......................................           500    ..........           500    ..........
FOX RIVER, WI...........................................           100    ..........           100    ..........

                      MISCELLANEOUS

COASTAL FIELD DATA COLLECTION...........................         2,500    ..........         2,500    ..........
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STUDIES..............................           100    ..........           100    ..........
EX POST FACTO NATIONAL STUDY............................         2,000    ..........         2,000    ..........
FLOOD DAMAGE DATA.......................................           300    ..........           300    ..........
FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES.........................         7,500    ..........         7,500    ..........
HYDROLOGIC STUDIES......................................           400    ..........           400    ..........
INDEPENDENT REVIEW NATIONAL STUDY.......................         3,000    ..........         3,000    ..........
INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES.............................           400    ..........           400    ..........
NATIONAL SHORELINE......................................           500    ..........           500    ..........
OTHER COORDINATION PROGRAMS.............................         4,850    ..........         4,850    ..........
PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES...........................         6,000    ..........         6,340    ..........
PRECIPITATION STUDIES (NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE)........           300    ..........           300    ..........
REMOTE SENSING/GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM SUPPORT....           200    ..........           200    ..........
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT................................        22,000    ..........        22,500    ..........
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTERS............           100    ..........           100    ..........
STREAM GAGING (U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY)..................           500    ..........           500    ..........
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS..................................           500    ..........           500    ..........
TRI-SERVICE CADD/GIS TECHNOLOGY CENTER..................           450    ..........           450    ..........
REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE..........       -20,400    ..........       -40,428    ..........
                                                         =======================================================
      TOTAL, GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS.....................        89,989        10,011        99,181        32,519
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Akutan Harbor, AK.--The Committee recommendation includes 
an additional $200,000 for planning, engineering, and design.
    Barrow Coastal Storm Damage Reduction, AK.--The Committee 
recommendation provides optimum funding to continue the 
critical Barrow Storm Damage Reduction project in Alaska.
    Haines Harbor, AK.--The Committee recommendation includes 
an additional $200,000 for planning, engineering, and design.
    Port Lions Harbor, AK.--The Committee recommendation 
includes necessary funding for preconstruction, engineering, 
and design work for the Port Lions Harbor, Alaska project.
    Arkansas River Navigation Study, AR & OK.--The Committee 
has provided funding for the completion of the Phase I Report 
and for the continuation of Phase II of the feasibility study. 
In addition, the funds provided advance the completion of this 
needed study.
    May Branch, Ft. Smith, AR.--The Committee has provided 
funding for the preconstruction, engineering, and design phase 
of the project.
    North Little Rock, Dark Hollow, AR.--The Committee has 
included follow-on funding of this ongoing study for the 
preconstruction, engineering, and design phase.
    Pine Mountain Dam, AR.--The Committee recommendation 
includes funding for the continuation of the General 
Reevaluation Report, the Environmental Impact Statement, and 
plans and specifications for the Pine Mountain Dam, AR project.
    American River Watershed, CA.--The Committee has provided 
$4,000,000 for continuing analyses on the American River 
Watershed Long-Term Study. The Congress has methodically 
authorized and funded improvements in the Sacramento region to 
reduce flooding and these efforts should continue without 
further delay. The Committee believes it is time to provide 
Sacramento with much needed and deserved flood protection. 
Further the Committee believes that it is inexcusable to allow 
tens of thousands of citizens in the Sacramento, California 
region to remain in jeopardy from catastrophic flooding while 
narrow interest groups continue to debate competing flood 
control proposals. The Committee strongly urges these competing 
groups to resolve their differences before another flood event 
strikes the area, potentially resulting in catastrophic losses.
    Bolinas Lagoon, CA.--The Committee has included funding for 
the Corps to complete the reformulated feasibility phase of the 
project.
    Coast of California Storm and Tidal, CA.--The Committee has 
included funding for field data collection, beach transect, 
wage gage deployment and analysis of coastal processes.
    Humboldt Bay Long Term Shoal Management, CA.--The Committee 
has included a $100,000 for the initiation of a reconnaissance 
study to evaluate long-term solutions to shoaling in this 
Federal channel.
    City of Inglewood, CA.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $300,000 for the Corps to continue to provide the City 
of Inglewood technical assistance.
    Solana-Encinitas Shore Projection, CA.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $400,000 for this study which was not 
included in the President's budget request.
    Tahoe Basin, CA & NV.--The Committee has included 
additional funds to initiate the preconstruction, engineering, 
and design phase of the project.
    Zuni and Sun Valley Reaches, South Platte River, CO.--The 
Committee has fully funded the administration's request for 
this project.
    St. Johns County Shore Protection, FL.--The Committee has 
provided $100,000 for the continuing study of this project.
    Walton County Shore Protection, FL.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $300,000 for the continued study of the 
Walton County Shore Protection project.
    Savannah Harbor Deepening, GA.--The Committee has provided 
$615,000 for the preconstruction, engineering, and design phase 
of this project.
    Waikiki Shore Projection, HI.--The Committee has provided 
$250,000 in the preconstruction, engineering, and design phase 
of this project.
    Wailupe Stream Flood Control Study, HI.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $300,000 for the planning, engineering, 
and design phase of the Wailupe study.
    Des Plaines River, IL (Phase II).--The Committee has 
included $500,000 to advance the hydraulic and economic damage 
modeling, development of environmental modeling, and 
formulation of alternative solutions.
    Illinois River Ecosystem Restoration, IL.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $200,000 for the preparation and review 
of the draft Comprehensive Plan.
    Upper Mississippi and Illinois Navigation Study, IL, IA, 
MN, MO, & WI.--The Committee has provided an additional 
$1,000,000 above the administration's request for this critical 
study.
    Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan, IL, IA, MO, MN, 
& WI.--The Committee has included $2,600,000 for this study, 
for development of an integrated strategy and plan for 
systematic flood protection and flood damage reduction in the 
Upper Mississippi River Watershed.
    John T. Myers Locks Improvements, IN.--The Committee has 
included $2,000,000 to continue the preconstruction, 
engineering, and design phase of this necessary lock 
replacement.
    Davenport, IA.--The Committee has included the 
administration's request for the Davenport, Iowa flood control 
study. The Committee is pleased that the City of Davenport has 
decided to embrace a flood damage reduction project, 
particularly after three significant flood events in the last 
10 years.
    Fort Dodge, IA.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$217,000 for the Fort Dodge study.
    Brush Creek Basin Study, KS & MO.--The Committee has 
provided $100,000 to initiate a reconnaissance study to examine 
the full range of structural and nonstructural measures to 
reduce recurring flooding in the basin.
    Turkey Creek Basin, KS & MO.--The Committee has provided 
$205,000, the administration's request, for this project.
    Greenup Locks and Dam, Ohio River, KY & OH.--The Committee 
has provided $2,895,000, the administration's full request for 
this project.
    Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf and Black, LA.--
The Committee recommendation includes an additional $1,000,000 
to advance this study.
    Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration, LA.--The 
Committee has included $1,900,000 for this study which allows 
for the initiation of project implementation reports. The 
Committee remains very concerned about the progress of this 
study and that the Corps may not be maintaining the rigor 
required for such a study, as is its tradition. Therefore, the 
Committee directs the Corps to provide a report no later than 
60 days after the enactment of this Act, on the study's 
progress and how it plans to refocus this critical effort.
    Port of Iberia, LA.--The Committee recommendation includes 
an additional $1,000,000 for this project.
    West Shore, Lake Pontchartrain, LA.--The Committee has 
included $400,000 for the preconstruction, engineering, and 
design phase of this project, an on-going study which the 
administration did not include in its budget request.
    Baltimore Metro, Gwynn Falls, MD.--The Committee has 
included $500,000 for preconstruction, engineering, and design 
work related to this project.
    Chesapeake Bay Shoreline Erosion, MD, VA & DE.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for this study, 
which is $300,000 above the budget request.
    Eastern Shore, Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island, MD.--The 
Committee has included an additional $149,000 for this study.
    Great Lakes Navigation System Study, MI, IL, IN, MN, NY, 
OH, PA & WI.--The Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000 
to continue the work on the supplement to the reconnaissance 
report for determination of the Federal interest.
    Detroit River Masterplan, MI.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $100,000 to initiate feasibility.
    Detroit River Seawalls, MI.--The Committee has included 
$200,000 for the preconstruction, engineering, and design phase 
of this project.
    Pearl River Watershed, MS.--The Committee has included 
$660,000 for the continuation of the feasibility study. The 
Committee expects the Corps of Engineers to investigate all 
potentially feasible alternatives, including plans similar to 
the plan currently referred to as LeFleur Lakes Flood Control 
Project.
    Kansas Citys, MO & KS.--The Committee has included $650,000 
for the continuation of this feasibility study.
    Missouri River Levee System, Units L455 & R460-471, MO & 
KS.--The Committee recommendation includes $150,000 for 
continuation of the feasibility study.
    Springfield, MO.--The Committee has included an additional 
$100,000 for the Springfield feasibility study.
    St. Louis Harbor, MO.--The Committee has included $100,000 
for the preconstruction, engineering, and design phase of this 
ongoing project which was not included in the budget request.
    Swope Industrial Park, MO.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $500,000 to complete the design phase of this project 
which was not included in the budget request.
    Missouri River Sedimentation, ND.--The Committee has 
provided $50,000 for this project. The Committee's understands 
that the Corps will use the funds provided along with 
previously appropriated funds to continue the required 
assessment study.
    Sand Creek Watershed, Wahoo, NE.--The Committee has 
included $546,000 for the Sand Creek Watershed study, as 
requested by the administration.
    Western Sarpy and Clear Creek, NE.--The Committee has 
included $318,000 for the Western Sarpy and Clear Creek 
project, as requested by the administration.
    Truckee Meadows, NV.--The Committee has included $2,115,000 
for the preconstruction, engineering, and design phase of this 
project which was not included in the budget request.
    Portsmouth Harbor & Piscataqua River, Upper Turning Basin, 
NH & ME.--The Committee has included $100,000 for the 
initiation of a reconnaissance study to examine the viability 
of increasing the size of the current turning basin.
    Goffle Brook, Borough of Hawthorne, NJ.--The Committee has 
included $75,000 above the budget request for this study.
    Lower Passaic River, NJ.--The Committee recommendation 
includes an additional $75,000 above the budget request for 
this study.
    Passaic River, New Jersey Environmental Restoration, NJ.--
The Committee understands that there exists some confusion 
regarding this study and the Hudson Raritan Estuary-Lower 
Passaic River, NJ study. The Passaic River, New Jersey 
Environmental Restoration, in the past, has been referred to as 
the Lower Passaic, NJ study and should be referred to by its 
name, Passaic River, New Jersey Environmental Restoration. This 
study should not be confused with the Hudson Raritan Estuary-
Lower Passaic River, NJ study.
    Upper Passaic River and Tributaries, NJ.--The Committee has 
included $200,000 for the preconstruction, engineering, and 
design phase of this project, which was not included in the 
budget request.
    East Mesa, Las Cruces, NM.--The Committee recommendation 
includes funds for the completion of the reconnaissance phase 
of the study and the initiation of the feasibility phase.
    Southwest Valley Flood Damage Reduction Study, NM.--The 
Committee has provided $250,000 for the preconstruction, 
engineering, and design phase of this project which was not 
included in the budget request.
    Dare County Beaches, Hatteras and Ocracoke Islands, NC.--
The Committee has included $200,000 for this study. Additional 
funds are to be used for geotechnical and economic 
investigations related to this project.
    Ashtabula River Environmental Dredging, OH.--The Committee 
has included $640,000 for the preconstruction, engineering, and 
design phase of this project.
    Duck Creek Watershed, OH.--The Committee has included 
$100,000 for the Duck Creek Watershed project which was not 
included in the budget request.
    Hocking River Basin Environmental Restoration, Monday 
Creek, OH.--The Committee has included not only the $40,000 for 
the completion of the feasibility phase of this study but also 
$200,000 for the initiation of the preconstruction, 
engineering, and design phase of this project.
    Mahoning River Environmental Dredging, OH & PA.--The 
Committee has included an additional $492,000 for the 
completion of the feasibility study and the initiation of 
preconstruction, engineering, and design phase.
    Mountain Fork River Watershed, OK.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $100,000 for the continued feasibility 
study for water storage options in the watershed that was not 
included in the budget request.
    Spavinaw Creek, OK.--The Committee has included $100,000 
for the continuation of this feasibility study which was not 
included in the budget request.
    Wister Lake Watershed, OK.--The Committee has included 
$200,000 for the continuation of this feasibility study which 
was not included in the budget request.
    Tillamook Bay and Estuary Ecosystem Restoration, OR.--The 
Committee has included funds for the completion of feasibility 
and the initiation of the preconstruction, engineering, and 
design phase.
    Walla Walla River Watershed, OR & WA.--The Committee has 
included an additional $61,000 for this study.
    Schuylkill River Estuarine Study, PA.--The Committee has 
included $250,000 for the continuation of the feasibility study 
which was not included in the budget request.
    Upper Ohio River Navigation System Study, PA.--The 
Committee has included $800,000 for the continuation of this 
critical study, which was not included in the budget request.
    Edisto Island, SC.--The Committee has included $100,000 for 
the initiation of a reconnaissance study to examine erosion 
problems of portions of Edisto Island.
    Pawley's Island, SC.--The Committee has included $125,000 
for the preconstruction, engineering, and design phase for this 
ongoing project, which was not included in the budget request.
    James River, SD & ND.--The Committee included $500,000 for 
the continuation of the feasibility study for the James River 
project.
    Davidson County, TN.--The Committee has included $300,000 
for the continuation of this feasibility study.
    Lower Colorado River Basin, TX.--The Committee has included 
an additional $1,000,000 for the initiation of two additional 
interim studies.
    Matagorda Ship Channel, TX.--The Committee has funded 
$500,000 of the preconstruction, engineering, and design 
portion of the study, which was not included in the 
administration's request.
    Middle Brazos River, TX.--The Committee recommendation 
includes an additional $250,000 for the acceleration of the 
schedule for the System Assessment Interim Feasibility Study.
    Sabine-Neches Waterway, TX.--The Committee has included 
additional funding to continue work on the Environmental Impact 
Statement for the Sabine-Neches Waterway study.
    Texas City Channel, TX.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $1,500,000 for the preconstruction, engineering, and 
design phase of this study, which was not included in the 
budget request.
    Upper Trinity River Basin, TX.--The Committee has included 
an additional $200,000 for this regional flood control study.
    Park City Water Supply Infrastructure, UT.--The Committee 
has included $500,000 for the continuation of this feasibility 
study which was not included in the budget request.
    Elliot Bay Seawall, WA.--The Committee has included 
$500,000 for the Elliot Bay Seawall project.
    Coastal Field Data.--Within the funds provided, $500,000 is 
provided for the Southern California Beach Process Study, 
$500,000 is provided for the Hurricane Evaluation Studies in 
the State of Hawaii and U.S. Territories.
    Flood Plain Management Services.--Within the funds 
provided, $200,000 is for the continuation of the foundational 
GIS system in East Baton Rouge, LA and $200,000 is provided for 
the Corps to assist the Pacific Islands in their response 
measures regarding hurricanes and typhoons.
    Planning Assistance to States.--Within the funds provided, 
$40,000 is for the Urban Streambank Erosion Control, City of 
Lincoln, NE planning effort, $100,000 is for the Salt Marsh 
Habitat Inventory, RI effort to develop an inventory of 
degraded coastal habitat sites, and $200,000 is provided for 
planning assistance to the Riverfront Development Corporation, 
for the Memphis Riverfront Development, TN project.
    Salcha, AK.--The Committee is concerned about continued 
flooding in the Salcha area that has forced repeated evacuation 
of homes and businesses. The Corps is directed to provide 
assistance to Salcha in developing a plan to address the 
flooding, in consultation with the Natural Resource 
Conservation Service and report back to the Committee on 
Appropriations no later than Februrary 15, 2004.
    Research and Development.--Within the funds provided for 
the Corps of Engineers Research and Development Program, 
$1,000,000 is provided for innovative technology demonstrations 
for urban flooding and channel restoration. These 
demonstrations shall be conducted in close coordination and 
cooperation with the Urban Water Research Program of the Desert 
Research Institute of Nevada. The Committee encourages the 
Corps of Engineers to continue its work in the area of 
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation or ``seagrasses'' and restoration 
efforts in the Chesapeake Bay, MD.

                         CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL

Appropriations, 2003....................................  $1,744,598,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................   1,350,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,538,000,000

    This appropriation includes funds for construction, major 
rehabilitation and related activities for water resources 
development projects having navigation, flood control, water 
supply, hydroelectric, environmental restoration, and other 
attendant benefits to the Nation. The construction and major 
rehabilitation projects for inland and costal waterways will 
derive one-half of the funding from the Inland Waterway Trust 
Fund. Funds to be derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust 
Fund will be applied to cover the Federal share of the Dredged 
Material Disposal Facilities Program.
    The appropriation provides funds for the Continuing 
Authorities Program (projects which do not require specific 
authorizing legislation), which includes projects for flood 
control (Section 205), emergency streambank and shoreline 
protection (Section 14), beach erosion control (Section 103), 
mitigation of shore damages (Section 111), navigation projects 
(Section 107), snagging and clearing (Section 208), aquatic 
ecosystem restoration (Section 206), beneficial uses of dredged 
material (Section 204), and project modifications for 
improvement of the environment (Section 1135).
    The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 
shown on the following table:

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

                                     ALABAMA

MOBILE HARBOR, AL...............................................................           2,003           2,003
WALTER F GEORGE POWERHOUSE AND DAM, AL AND GA (MAJOR REH........................          12,035          13,479
WALTER F GEORGE POWERPLANT, AL AND GA (MAJOR REHAB).............................           3,000           3,000

                                     ALASKA

DILLINGHAM EMERGENCY BANK, AK...................................................  ..............           4,000
DILLINGHAM SMALL BOAK, AK.......................................................  ..............           3,000
KAKE DAM, AK....................................................................  ..............           4,000
NOME HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS, AK....................................................           6,000           6,000
SAND POINT,AK...................................................................  ..............           1,000
SEWARD, AK......................................................................  ..............           1,000
SITKA, AK.......................................................................  ..............           1,000
ST PAUL HARBOR, AK..............................................................           3,826           3,826
WRANGELL, AK....................................................................  ..............          10,000

                                     ARIZONA

RIO DE FLAG, FLAGSTAFF, AZ......................................................  ..............           3,500
RIO SALADO, PHOENIX AND TEMPE REACHES, AZ.......................................          11,600          11,600
TRES RIOS, AZ...................................................................  ..............           7,000
TUSCON DRAINAGE AREA, AZ........................................................  ..............           5,000

                                    ARKANSAS

MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR.............................           3,300           3,300
MONTGOMERY POINT LOCK AND DAM, AR...............................................          20,000          27,000
OZARK-JETA TAYLOR (POWERHOUSE, MAJOR REHAB), AR.................................  ..............           3,000
RED RIVER BELOW DENISON DAM, AR, LA AND TX......................................  ..............             750
RED RIVER EMERGENCY BANK, AR AND LA.............................................  ..............           1,250

                                   CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM MODIFICATIONS), C..........................           4,000           4,000
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CA....................................................           4,000           4,000
GUADALUPE RIVER, CA.............................................................          13,000          13,000
HAMILTON AIRFIELD WETLANDS RESTORATION, CA......................................           2,000           3,000
HARBOR/SOUTH BAY WATER RECYCLING, CA............................................  ..............           4,000
IMPERIAL BEACH,(IMPERIAL BEACH-SILVER STRAND BEACH).............................  ..............             200
KAWEAH RIVER, CA................................................................           8,400           8,400
MARYSVILLE/YUBA CITY LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA...................................             500             500
MID-VALLEY AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA........................................             500             500
NAPA RIVER, CA..................................................................           7,500          10,000
OAKLAND HARBOR (50 FOOT PROJECT), CA............................................           7,000          20,000
PETALUMA RIVER, CA..............................................................           2,000  ..............
PORT OF LOS ANGELES, MAIN DEEPENING, CA.........................................  ..............          15,000
SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION PROJECT, CA....................................           2,000           2,000
SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA....................................................          15,700          15,700
SOUTH SACRAMENTO COUNTY STREAMS, CA.............................................           2,100           2,100
STOCKTON METROPOLITIAN FLOOD CONTROL REIMBURSEMENT, CA..........................             500  ..............
SUCCESS DAM, TULE RIVER, CA (DAM SAFETY)........................................           1,000           1,000
TULE RIVER, CA..................................................................           1,600           1,600
UPPER SACRAMENTO AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA..................................           1,000           1,000

                                    DELAWARE

DELAWARE COAST FROM CAPE HENLOPEN TO FENWICK ISL, DE............................  ..............             214
DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, PORT MAHON, DE..........................................  ..............             500
DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, ROOSEVELT INLET TO LEWES BEACH..........................           2,008           2,008
DELAWARE COAST PROTECTION, DE...................................................             285             285
DELAWARE COAST, REHOBOTH BEACH TO DEWEY BEACH, DE...............................           5,768           5,768

                                     FLORIDA

CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL............................................................           2,000           2,000
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL................................................         112,498          90,000
EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL..........................          14,835          14,835
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS, FL.....................................  ..............           1,000
HERBERT HOOVER DIKE, FL (MAJOR REHAB)...........................................           1,000           1,000
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL.........................................................           2,000           2,000
JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM POWERHOUSE, FL AND GA (MAJOR R........................             873             873
KISSIMMEE RIVER, FL.............................................................          17,706          17,706
MIAMI HARBOR CHANNEL, FL........................................................           2,700           2,700
TAMPA HARBOR, FL................................................................  ..............             500

                                     GEORGIA

BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA............................................................           4,500           6,000
BUFORD POWERHOUSE, GA (MAJOR REHAB).............................................           3,000           3,000
OATES CREEK, RICHMOND COUNTY, GA (DEF CORR).....................................             500             500
RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND SC.......................................           4,328           8,178
THURMOND LAKE POWERHOUSE, GA AND SC (MAJOR REHAB)...............................           5,500           5,500

                                     HAWAII

HAWAII WATER MANAGEMENT, HI.....................................................  ..............           1,000
LAO STREAM FLOOD CONTROL, HI....................................................  ..............             175
KIKIAOLA SMALL BOAT HARBOR, KAUAI, HI...........................................           3,633           3,633
KAUMALAPAU HARBOR, LANAI, HI....................................................  ..............           2,500
MAALAEA HARBOR, MAUI, HI........................................................             191             191

                                    ILLINOIS

CHAIN OF ROCKS CANAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL (DEF CORR)..........................           2,300           2,300
CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIER, IL...........................             500             500
CHICAGO SHORELINE, IL...........................................................          24,000          25,000
EAST ST LOUIS, IL...............................................................             815             815
LOCK AND DAM 24, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL AND MO (MAJOR REH........................          13,000          17,000
LOVES PARK, IL..................................................................           5,785           5,785
MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS, IL..............................................          18,000          18,000
MELVIN PRICE LOCK AND DAM, IL AND MO............................................             600             600
NUTWOOD LEVEE, IL...............................................................  ..............             100
OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL AND KY....................................          73,000          53,000
UPPER MISS RVR SYSTEM ENV MGMT PROGRAM, IL, IA, MN, MO..........................          33,320          20,000

                                     INDIANA

CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, (ENVIRO INFRA.), IN.......................................  ..............             500
INDIANA HARBOR (CONFINED DISPOSAL FACILITY), IN.................................           5,700           5,700
INDIANAPOLIS, WHITE RIVER (NORTH), IN...........................................           2,600           2,600
LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, IN........................................................           3,800           3,800
MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN (MAJOR REHAB).............................................          21,000          21,000
OHIO RIVER GREENWAY PUBLIC ACCESS, IN...........................................           1,000           1,000

                                      IOWA

DES MOINES RECREATIONAL RIVER AND GREENBELT, IA.................................  ..............             500
LOCK AND DAM 11, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IA (MAJOR REHAB)............................           1,313           1,313
LOCK AND DAM 19, IA.............................................................  ..............             750
MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION, IA, NE, K..........................          22,000          22,000
MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, IA, NE, KS AND MO..................................           7,000          13,600
PERRY CREEK, IA.................................................................           2,200           2,200

                                     KANSAS

ARKANSAS CITY, KS...............................................................           2,600           2,600

                                    KENTUCKY

DEWEY LAKE, KY (DAM SAFETY).....................................................           1,946           1,946
KENTUCKY LOCK AND DAM, TENNESSEE RIVER, KY......................................          24,866          34,866
MCALPINE LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, KY AND IN...................................          26,100          40,000
METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, BEARGRASS CREEK, KY....................................           1,400           1,400
METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, POND CREEK, KY.........................................           2,500           2,500

                                    LOUISIANA

ASCENSION PARISH, LA............................................................  ..............             500
COMITE RIVER, LA................................................................           2,000           4,000
EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, EI, LA.................................................  ..............             500
GRAND ISLE AND VICINITY, LA.....................................................  ..............             200
INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL LOCK, LA..........................................           7,000          12,000
J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA.................................................          13,700          15,000
LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN AND VICINITY, LA (HURRICANE PROTECT..........................           3,000           6,000
LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION)..............................             461             461
LIVINGSTON PARISH, LA...........................................................  ..............             500
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, GULF OUTLET, LA..............................................  ..............             200
MISSISSIPPI RIVER SHIP CHANNEL, GULF TO BATON ROUGE, L..........................             196             196
NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION)................................           2,000           2,000
OUACHITA RIVER LEVEES, LA.......................................................  ..............           1,000
SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA, LA.........................................................          16,500          35,000
WEST BANK AND VICINITY, NEW ORLEANS, LA.........................................          35,000          28,500

                                    MARYLAND

ASSATEAGUE ISLAND, MD...........................................................           1,003           1,003
ATLANTIC COAST OF MARYLAND, MD..................................................             500             500
CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRO. RES. AND PROTECTION, MD AND VA...........................  ..............           1,600
CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD AND VA.......................................           3,000           4,500
CUMBERLAND, MD..................................................................  ..............           4,000
POPLAR ISLAND, MD...............................................................          14,101          14,101

                                  MASSACHUSETTS

CAPE COD CANAL RAILROAD BRIDGE, MA (MAJOR REHAB)................................           9,895           9,895
MUDDY RIVER, BROOKLINE AND BOSTON, MA...........................................  ..............           1,000

                                    MICHIGAN

GENESSE COUNTY (ENVIRONMENTAL INFRA), MI........................................  ..............             200
NEGAUNEE, MI....................................................................  ..............             250
SAULT STE MARIE LOCK REPLACEMENT, MI............................................  ..............           2,000
TWELVE TOWNS DRAIN RETENTION FACILITY, MI.......................................  ..............             388

                                    MINNESOTA

BRECKENRIDGE, MN................................................................  ..............           1,000
CROOKSTON, MN...................................................................           1,043           1,043
LOCK AND DAM 3, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN (MAJOR REHAB).............................             600             600
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MISSISSIPPI PLACE, ST PAUL, MN.........................  ..............             250

                                   MISSISSIPPI

DESOTO COUNTY, MS...............................................................  ..............          10,955
GULFPORT HARBOR, MS.............................................................  ..............           2,500
MISSISSIPPI ENVIRON INFRA, SEC. 592, MS.........................................  ..............           8,000
PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS...........................................................           2,989           2,989

                                    MISSOURI

BLUE RIVER BASIN, KANSAS CITY, MO...............................................           2,000           2,500
BLUE RIVER CHANNEL, KANSAS CITY, MO.............................................           6,000          10,000
BOIS BRULE LEVES, AND DRAINAGE, MO..............................................  ..............             500
MERAMEC RIVER BASIN, VALLEY PARK LEVEE, MO......................................           2,000           3,000
MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS (REG WORKS), MO..........................           1,700           1,700
MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVERS ENHANCEMENT, MO..........................  ..............           3,000
STE GENEVIEVE, MO...............................................................             150             150
TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO AND AR (DAM SAFETY).........................................           5,000           5,500

                                     MONTANA

FORT PECK FISK HATCHERY, MT.....................................................  ..............           8,000
RURAL MONTANA, MT...............................................................  ..............           3,000

                                    NEBRASKA

ANTELOPE CREEK, NE..............................................................  ..............           1,500
SAND CREEK WATERSHED, NE........................................................  ..............             500
WESTERN SARPY AND CLEAR CREEK, NE...............................................  ..............             500
MISSOURI NATIONAL RECREATIONAL RIVER, NE AND SD.................................           1,000           1,000
WOOD RIVER, GRAND ISLAND, NE....................................................           1,082           1,082

                                     NEVADA

RURAL NEVADA, NV................................................................  ..............          10,000
TROPICANA AND FLAMINGO WASHES, NV...............................................          23,300          26,300

                                   NEW JERSEY

BRIGANTINE INLET TO GREAT EGG INLET (ABSECON ISLAND),...........................           1,000           1,000
BRIGANTINE INLET TO GREAT EGG (BRIGANTINE ISLAND), NJ...........................  ..............             500
CAPE MAY INLET TO LOWER TOWNSHIP, NJ............................................           1,728           1,728
DELAWARE RIVER MAIN CHANNEL, NJ, PA AND DE......................................             300          10,000
GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET AND PECK BEACH, NJ.......................................           7,355           7,355
LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAY POINT, NJ......................................           1,841           2,500
PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD MANAGEMENT, NJ..............................................  ..............             500
PASSAIC RIVER PRESERVATION OF NATURAL STORAGE AREAS, N..........................           1,000             500
PASSAIC RIVER STEAMBANK RESTORATION, (MINISH PARK), NJ..........................  ..............             500
RAMAPO AND MAHWAH RIVERS, NJ....................................................  ..............             250
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, NJ..............................................             100             100
RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK SUB-BASIN, NJ..................................           6,488           7,000
SANDY HOOK TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ................................................           3,000           3,000
TOWNSENDS INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET, NJ...........................................           9,200          10,000

                                   NEW MEXICO

ACEQUIAS IRRIGATION SYSTEM, NM..................................................           1,800           2,500
ALAMOGORDO, NM..................................................................           3,500           4,100
CENTRAL NEW MEXICO, NM..........................................................  ..............           6,000
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION, NM....................................  ..............             600
RIO GRANDE FLOODWAY, SAN ACACIA TO BOSQUE DEL APACHE,...........................  ..............             600

                                    NEW YORK

ATLANTIC COAST OF NYC, ROCKAWAY INLET TO NORTON POINT,..........................           1,750           1,750
EAST ROCKAWAY INLET TO ROCKAWAY INLET AND JAMAICA BAY,..........................           1,250           1,250
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY............................................           2,700           2,700
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, NY..........................................           3,800           3,800
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY AND NJ.......................................         115,000         100,000

                                 NORTH CAROLINA

BRUNSWICK COUNTY BEACHES, NC....................................................           2,040           2,040
CAROLINA BEACH AND VICINITY, NC.................................................           3,510           3,510
DARE COUNTY BEACHES, BODIE ISLAND, NC...........................................  ..............           1,000
WEST ONSLOW BEACH AND NEW RIVER (TOPSAIL BEACH), NC.............................  ..............             200
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC...........................................................           9,650          20,000

                                  NORTH DAKOTA

BUFORD-TRENTON IRRIGATION DISTRICT LAND ACQUISITION,............................           1,518           2,000
GARRISON DAM AND POWER PLANT, ND (MAJOR REHAB)..................................           6,500           6,500
GRAFTON, PARK RIVER, ND.........................................................  ..............           1,000
GRAND FORKS, ND-EAST GRAND FORKS, MN............................................          23,496          37,000
MO RIVER RESTORATION, ND........................................................  ..............              50
SHEYENNE RIVER, ND..............................................................           3,367           3,367

                                      OHIO

HOLES CREEK, WEST CARROLLTON, OH................................................  ..............           2,000
METROPOLITAN REGION OF CINCINNATI, DUCK CREEK, OH...............................           8,500           3,000
MILL CREEK, OH..................................................................           3,900           1,000
WEST COLUMBUS, OH...............................................................           1,800             500

                                    OKLAHOMA

CANTON LAKE (DAM SAFETY), OK....................................................  ..............           2,000
LAWTON, OK......................................................................  ..............           2,500
TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY)...........................................           4,400           4,400

                                     OREGON

BONNEVILLE POWERHOUSE PHASE II, OR AND WA (MAJOR REHAB).........................           3,363           6,363
COLUMBIA RIVER CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS, OR AND WA..................................  ..............           5,000
COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY FISHING ACCESS SITES, OR AND WA...........................           2,900           2,900
ELK CREEK LAKE, OR..............................................................             500             500
LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR AND WA...........................           2,000           2,000
WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE CONTROL, OR........................................          10,000          10,000

                                  PENNSYLVANIA

LOCKS AND DAMS 2, 3 AND 4, MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA................................          35,000          35,000
PRESQUE ISLE PENINSULA, PA (PERMANENT)..........................................             600             600
SCHUYKILL RIVER PARK, PA........................................................  ..............           1,000
WYOMING VALLEY, PA (LEVEE RAISING)..............................................          10,021          10,021

                                   PUERTO RICO

ARECIBO RIVER, PR...............................................................           1,000           1,000
PORTUGUES AND BUCANA RIVERS, PR.................................................           5,200           3,000
RIO DE LA PLATA, PR.............................................................           1,100           1,100
RIO PUERTO NUEVO, PR............................................................          16,500           5,000

                                 SOUTH CAROLINA

CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC (DEEPENING AND WIDENING)..................................           5,000           5,000
FOLLY BEACH, SC.................................................................  ..............             200
LAKES MARION AND MOULTRIE, SC...................................................  ..............             350

                                  SOUTH DAKOTA

BIG SIOUX RIVER, SIOUX FALLS, SD................................................           6,000           6,000
CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUX, SD...............................           2,800           9,000
MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, SD..................................................  ..............             500
PIERRE, SD......................................................................           4,300           6,000

                                    TENNESSEE

BLACK FOX, OAKLANDS AND MURFREE SPRINGS WETLANDS, TN............................  ..............           1,070
CUMBERLAND COUNTY WATER SUPPLY, TN..............................................  ..............           1,700

                                      TEXAS

BRAYS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX........................................................           4,700           6,000
CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX.........................................................           2,966           2,966
DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, TX...................................................  ..............           9,280
EL PASO, TX.....................................................................           2,800           2,800
HOUSTON-GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS, TX.......................................          18,726          40,000
JOHNSON CREEK, UPPER TRINITY BASIN, ARLINGTON, TX...............................           2,200           2,200
NECHES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES SALTWATER BARRIER, TX..............................           4,108           4,108
NORTH PADRE ISLAND, PACKERY CHANNEL, TX.........................................  ..............           5,000
RED RIVER CHLORIDE CONTROL, TX AND OK...........................................  ..............           2,000
SIMS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX.........................................................          12,000          12,000

                                     VERMONT

LAKE CHAMPLAIN WATERSHED INITIATIVE, VT.........................................  ..............             500

                                    VIRGINIA

AIWW, BRIDGE AT GREAT BRIDGE, VA................................................           9,706           9,706
EMBREY DAM, VA..................................................................  ..............           3,000
JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA AND NC (MAJOR REHAB)..........................           6,000           6,000
LAKE MERRIWEATHER, LITTLE CALFPASTURE, VA.......................................  ..............           3,000
NORFOLK CHANNEL HARBOR AND DEPENING,VA..........................................  ..............           4,000
ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, HEADWATERS AREA, VA..................................           2,000           2,000
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (HURRICANE PROTECTION).......................................           2,294           2,294

                                   WASHINGTON

CHIEF JOSEPH DAM GAS ABATEMENT, WA..............................................             900           3,000
COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR AND ID...................................          95,000          85,000
HOWARD HANSON DAM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, WA.....................................           9,500           9,500
LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE COMPENSATION, WA, OR........................           2,000           2,000
MT ST HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA...............................................             200             900
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA (DAM SAFETY)...............................................           1,400           1,400
PUGET SOUND AND ADJACENT WATERS, WA.............................................  ..............           1,500
SHOALWATER BAY SHORELINE EROSION, WA............................................  ..............           1,000
THE DALLES POWERHOUSE (UNITS 1-14), WA AND OR (MAJOR REH........................             250             500

                                  WEST VIRGINIA

BLUESTONE LAKE, WV (DAM SAFETY).................................................           2,600           4,300
GREENBRRIAR RIVER, WV...........................................................  ..............           3,000
LEVISA AND TUG FORKS AND UPPER CUMBERLAND RIVER, WV, V..........................          15,000          23,400
MARMET LOCK, KANAWHA RIVER, WV..................................................          52,154          65,200
ROBERT C BYRD LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, WV AND OH..............................           2,500           2,500
WINFIELD LOCKS AND DAM, KANAWHA RIVER, WV.......................................           2,000           2,000

                                     WYOMING

JACKSON HOLE, WY................................................................  ..............             500

                                  MISCELLANEOUS

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (SECTION 206).....................................          10,000          15,000
AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROGRAM...................................................           3,000           3,500
BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL.............................................           3,000           3,000
DAM SAFETY AND SEEPAGE/STABILITY CORRECTION PROGRAM.............................           8,000          14,000
DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROGRAM....................................           7,000           7,000
EMERGENCY STREAMBANK AND SHORELINE PROTECTION (SEC. 14).........................           7,000           9,000
EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION.........................................................          19,130          19,130
FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 205)............................................          20,000          30,000
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--BOARD EXPENSE.....................................              45              45
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--CORPS EXPENSE.....................................             185             185
NAVIGATION MITIGATION PROJECT (SECTION 111).....................................             500           1,500
NAVIGATION PROJECTS (SECTION 107)...............................................           6,000           9,000
PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONME..........................          14,000          17,000
SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATIO..........................           6,000           6,000
SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECTS (SECTION 103).....................................           3,500           3,500
SNAGGING AND CLEARING PROJECT (SECTION 208).....................................             500             500
REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE..................................        -116,095        -241,730
                                                                                 ===============================
      TOTAL, CONSTRUCTION GENERAL...............................................       1,350,000       1,538,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sand Point, AK.--The Committee has included a provision 
directing the Corps to proceed with construction of the Sand 
Point Harbor in accordance with the Chief of Engineers Report.
    Sitka Harbor, AK.--The Committee notes that in designing 
the Sitka Harbor breakwater, the Corps failed to take into 
account the severity of the wave activity. As a result, the 
breakwater has failed to prevent wave action, particularly 
during stormy weather. Therefore, the project must be 
redesigned and modifications installed. The Committee has 
included a provision to hold the City of Sitka harmless for any 
additional cost sharing requirements that would otherwise be 
mandated because of the Corps' design deficiency.
    Rio de Flag, Flagstaff, AZ.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $3,500,000 for the Rio de Flag project to continue 
construction.
    Rio Salado, Phoenix and Tempe Reaches, AZ.--The Committee 
recommendation includes the full budget request by the 
administration. The Committee is pleased that this unique 
project is gaining the attention and interest of the business 
community and the environmental community alike.
    Tres Rios, AZ.--The Committee has included $7,000,000 for 
this project in fiscal year 2004, which was not included in the 
administration's budget request. The funds are for the 
continuation of this project, including the flood control levee 
and design of the pump stations for the wetlands.
    Tuscon Drainage Area, AZ.--The Committee has included 
$5,000,000 for this project, which was not included in the 
budget request.
    Montgomery Point Lock and Dam, AR & OK.--The Committee has 
provided additional funds for the continued construction of 
this project.
    Ozark-Jeta Taylor (Powerhouse, Major Rehab), AR.--During 
calendar year 2001, the Ozark-Jeta Taylor turbines were down 63 
percent of the time resulting in a revenues lost to the General 
Fund of the Treasury. To address this, the Committee 
recommendation includes $3,000,000 to continue this much-needed 
rehabilitation project.
    Harbor/South Bay Water Recycling, CA.--The Committee has 
included $4,000,000 for this project with the expectation that 
it will allow for the continued construction of the Madrona 
Marsh Lateral and other related elements. As this project was 
not included in the budget request, the Committee has included 
scarce resources for its continued construction.
    Imperial Beach (Imperial Beach-Silver Strand), CA.--The 
Committee has included $200,000 for the continued design of the 
Imperial Beach project.
    Oakland Harbor (50 Foot Project), CA.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $20,000,000 for this critical harbor 
project. The Committee regrets that it cannot provide optimum 
funding, efforts which are hampered because the administration 
only requested $7,000,000 for this project. Given that this 
project is already under construction, the Committee encourages 
the administration to include realistic project funding in 
future budget submissions.
    Port of Los Angeles (Main Channel Deepening), CA.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $15,000,000 for this project. 
Despite the fact this project is already under construction, 
the administration did not propose any funding for this 
project. The Committee expects the administration to budget for 
a project of this scope more responsibly in the future.
    South Sacramento County Streams, CA.--The Committee is 
aware that there are hydrologic project design issues which 
could impact the cost and schedule of the project. Therefore, 
the Committee has only provided the budget request.
    Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island, 
Fenwick Island, DE.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$214,000 for the continued construction of this project begun 
in fiscal year 2003.
    Delaware Bay Coastline, Port Mahon, DE.--The Committee has 
included $500,000 for the continuation of construction begun 
last fiscal year.
    Central and Southern Florida, FL.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $90,000,000 to continue the Everglades 
Restoration projects, the same level of funding as fiscal year 
2003. This should be in no way considered any diminution of 
interest or support by the Committee for these vitally 
important ecosystem restoration projects. The Committee also 
encourages the Corps to respond to current concerns regarding 
implementation of the restoration project.
    Everglades and South Florida Restoration, FL.--The 
Committee has included a provision that conditions expenditure 
of funds appropriated in this Act for the purpose of 
construction of the projects for the Everglades and South 
Florida Ecosystem Restoration. The Committee directs that the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency certify by 
September 30, 2003 and every 12 months thereafter until 
September 30, 2006 to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations, the House Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, and the Senate Environment and Public Works 
Committee indicating that the water entering A.R.M. Loxahatchee 
National Wildlife Refuge and Everglades National Park meets all 
applicable State water quality standards and numeric criteria 
adopted for phosphorus throughout A.R.M. Loxahatchee National 
Wildlife Refuge and Everglades National Park, as well water 
quality requirements set forth in the Consent Decree entered in 
United States v. South Florida Water Management District and 
that the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations respond 
in writing to the report indicating that the funds are 
available for expenditure.
    Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements, FL.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $1,000,000 for the implementation of 
the wastewater and stormwater improvements. The Committee 
believes these efforts need to be carried out in concert with 
the ongoing Everglades restoration work.
    Tampa Harbor, FL.--The Committee has included $500,000 for 
the continuation of the General Reevaluation Report examining 
navigation improvements for the Federal portion of this 
project.
    Brunswick Harbor, GA.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $6,000,000 for this project. The Committee is aware 
that the bids for this project greatly exceeded the Government 
estimate, and though there was a low bidder, there is a pending 
protest. Therefore, the Committee encourages the Corps to 
resolve this issue and reevaluate the cost of the project, 
seeking additional authority if necessary.
    Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake Wildlife Mitigation, GA & 
SC.--The Committee has included $3,850,000 to complete the 
execution of the Memorandum of Agreement and the documentation 
and payment of the mitigation lands to the State of South 
Carolina.
    Hawaii Water Management, HI.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $1,000,000 for continuation of the construction phases 
of this project for the water systems on the drought-plagued 
portions of the State of Hawaii.
    Iao Stream Flood Control, HI.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $175,000 to complete the DDR and NEPA documentation, 
and initiate the design phase.
    Kaumalapau Harbor, Lanai, HI.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $2,500,000 to continue the construction of this 
project.
    Olmsted Locks and Dam, Ohio River, IL & KY.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $53,000,000 for the Olmsted Locks and 
Dam project. This reduced funding level should in no way be 
considered any diminution of interest or support for the 
project, but instead reflects the very limited resources of the 
Committee. None of the funds provided for the Olmsted Locks and 
Dam Project are to be used to reimburse the Claims and Judgment 
Fund.
    Nutwood Drainage and Levee District, IL.--The Committee is 
aware of induced flooding issues which must be resolved prior 
to the award of the construction contract, the completion of 
plans and specifications, and the granting of a 404 permit. The 
Committee is also aware of issues regarding credit for work 
completed by the non-Federal sponsor. The Committee encourages 
the Corps to resolve these issues expeditiously but expects 
that any credit provided to the non-Federal sponsor shall not 
be precedent setting.
    Mississinewa Lake, IN.--The Committee has included 
$21,000,000 for the completion of this project.
    McAlpine Lock and Dam, IN & KY.--The Committee has included 
$40,000,000 for the McAlpine Lock and Dam project. The 
Committee has included additional funding because of the 
project's critical nature.
    Lock and Dam 19, Mississippi River, IA (Major 
Rehabilitation).--The Committee recommendation includes 
$750,000 to continue construction work begun in fiscal year 
2003.
    Missouri River Levee System, L-385 IA, NE, KS, & MO.--The 
Committee has included sufficient funding to avoid work 
stoppages and interest penalties; as well as completing the 
project this fiscal year. The Committee has also included funds 
to complete the final levee contract for L-15.
    Comite River, LA.--The Committee recommendation includes 
additional funds to award the Phase II construction contract 
for the Lilly Bayou Control Structure.
    Grand Isle and Vicinity, LA.--The Committee has included 
$200,000 for the completion of the General Reevaluation Report 
and expects the Corps to resolve any remaining issues so the 
project may proceed.
    Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock, LA.--The Committee has 
included additional funds to complete the demolition of 
eastside businesses on schedule and to initiate two levee 
construction contracts, as well as continuing the engineering 
and design work for the project.
    J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, LA.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $15,000,000 to continue construction of 
necessary navigation channel refinements, land purchases, and 
development for mitigation of project impacts, and construction 
of project recreation and appurtenant features.
    Ouachita River Levees, LA.--The Committee has included 
funds for the completion of Levee Item 2 and to begin work on 
Levee Item 3, which is to include gravel surfacing.
    Southeast Louisiana, LA.--The Committee has included 
$35,000,000 for the Southeast Louisiana project. Though the 
Committee has included the additional funds, it remains very 
concerned with the increasing scope and cost of this project. 
Though the Federal Government has a responsibility to mitigate 
the impacts of Federal channels and waterways on our 
communities, the Committee is concerned that this project has 
no foreseeable completion. Therefore, the Committee encourages 
the Corps to better define the project's scope of work and plan 
the construction's progression in order for the project to 
fully realize its designed benefits as soon as is practicable.
    Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection 
Program, MD, VA, & PA.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$1,600,000, which was not included in the budget request. These 
funds are for the completion of the Preconstruction, 
Engineering and Design phase and the initiation of the Marsh 
Creation Project.
    Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery, MD & VA.--The Committee has 
included $4,500,000 for this continuing construction project. 
The Committee remains concerned that the benefits of the 
project will not be fully realized until the issue of 
agricultural effluents is resolved.
    Muddy River, Brookline and Boston, MA.--The Committee has 
included $1,000,000 for the continued construction of the 
project.
    Twelve Towns Drain Retention Facility, MI.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $388,000 for the completion of plans 
and specifications.
    DeSoto County, MS.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$10,955,000 for the completion of this project.
    Pascagoula Harbor, MS.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $2,989,000, which is equal to the administration's 
request.
    Blue River Channel, Kansas City, MO.--The Committee has 
included $10,000,000 to continue construction on the railroad 
bridge alterations, complete plans and specifications, and the 
General Reevaluation Report.
    Bois Brule Levee and Drainage, MO.--The Committee has 
included $500,000 for this project. The Committee is aware that 
the project sponsor decided to proceed only with the deficiency 
correction portion of the project and place the levee raise on 
hold.
    Rural Montana, MT.--The Committee has provided $3,000,000 
for the development of the Project Cooperation Agreements, 
Project Management Plans, and necessary NEPA documentation for 
the Conrad, Belgrade, Drummond, Wisdom, Melston, and Manhattan 
projects, as well as and other qualified participants.
    Antelope Creek, NE.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$1,500,000 for the continued construction of this flood damage 
reduction project.
    Rural Nevada, NV.--The Committee has provided $10,000,000 
for the Rural Nevada Project. Within the funds provided the 
Corps is directed to give consideration to projects at Boulder 
City, Lyon County, (Carson River Regional Water System) 
Gerlach, Incline Village, Round Hill, Mesquite, Moapa, Spanish 
Springs, Battle Mountain, Virgin Valley, Lawton-Verdi, 
Esmeralda County, and Searchlight. Other communities that meet 
the program criteria should be considered as funding allows.
    Tropicana and Flamingo Washes, NV.--The Committee has 
provided $26,300,000 to continue construction of this flood 
control project. The Committee recommendation includes 
$3,000,000 for work performed in accordance with section 211 of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.
    Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor, Absecon Island, NJ.--
The Committee recommendation includes additional funding for 
the beachfill construction effort.
    Delaware Mainstem Channel Deepening, NJ, DE & PA.--The 
Committee has included $10,000,000 for this project which has 
undergone a rigorous cost-benefit reanalysis. The Corps is to 
be commended for initiating this effort, and, as expected, the 
project has been validated by both the General Accounting 
Office and outside auditors as having a cost-benefit ratio 
which exceeds the mandated Federal standards.
    Raritan River Basin, Green Brook Sub-Basin, NJ.--The 
Committee recommendation includes additional funds to initiate 
Segment U levee and floodwall.
    Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet, NJ.--The Committee has 
included an additional $800,000 to initiate the construction of 
the Hereford Inlet portion of the project.
    Acequias Irrigation System, NM.--The Committee has included 
an additional $700,000 for additional construction contract 
awards. The Committee supports the program for rehabilitating 
acequias in New Mexico, and feels that it is of historical and 
cultural significance to the State. There is concern however, 
that the process for determining environmental impacts of each 
acequia project is disproportionately time consuming and 
expensive. The Committee therefore directs the Corps to seek 
ways to streamline the NEPA process, including the use of 
``programmatic'' assessments addressing multiple projects where 
practicable.
    Central New Mexico, NM.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $5,000,000 for the completion of the construction work 
on the Double Eagle II Infrastructure Upgrade, the Bosque Farms 
Plant, the Tijeras Water System upgrade and the Bernalillo 
plant. In addition, the Committee has included $1,000,000 for 
the Black Mesa Area Flood Management project.
    Middle Rio Grande Flood Damage Reduction, NM.--The 
Committee has provided $600,000 for the completion of the 
General Reevaluation Report.
    New York and New Jersey Harbor, NY & NJ.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $100,000,000 for the Harbor project. 
This reduced funding level should in no way be considered any 
diminution of interest or support for the project, but instead 
it reflects the very limited resources of the Committee.
    Dare County Beaches, Bodie Island, NC.--The Committee has 
included $1,000,000 to continue preconstruction monitoring and 
real estate acquisition.
    Wilmington Harbor, NC.--The Committee has included 
$20,000,000 for this critical harbor project. The Committee 
regrets that it cannot provide optimum funding at this time. 
The Committee notes that the administration only requested 
$9,650,000 for a project of this size, and encourages the 
administration to request more realistic funding in future 
fiscal years.
    Buford-Trenton Irrigation District Land Acquisition, ND.--
The Committee recommendation includes funds for the purchase of 
additional easements.
    Devils Lake, ND.--The Committee continues to support the 
construction of the Devils Lake outlet and notes that 
$5,000,000 of previously appropriated funds for construction 
remain available until expended. The Committee also urges the 
Corps to request sufficient funding in future budget requests 
to construct this project.
    Grand Forks, ND-East Grand Forks, MN.--The Committee has 
provided $37,000,000 for this project to continue construction.
    Missouri River Sedimentation, ND.--The Committee has 
provided $50,000 for this project. The Committee understands 
that the Corps will use the funds provided, along with 
previously appropriated funds, to continue the required 
assessment study.
    Holes Creek, West Carrollton, OH.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $2,000,000 for the Holes Creek project, 
which was not included in the budget request. The Committee 
expects that these funds will be sufficient to complete the 
construction of additional floodwalls and relocations.
    Canton Lake (Dam Safety), OK.--The Committee has included 
$2,000,000 for the Canton Lake project. The Committee is aware 
that there are improvements needed on the dam, including 
stabilizing the existing spillway.
    Lawton, OK.--The Committee has included $2,500,000 for this 
project and expects the Corps to continue construction.
    Columbia River Channel Improvements, OR & WA.--The 
Committee has included $5,000,000 for this project, which 
includes ecosystem restoration efforts. The Committee expects 
that this effort will further improve the Corps' ``no 
jeopardy'' biological opinion standings. Therefore, the 
Committee expects that the administration should budget for 
this project in a responsible manner.
    Schuylkill River Park, PA.--The Committee has included 
$1,000,000 for this project and expects the Corps to negotiate 
and execute the Project Cooperation Agreement.
    Charleston Harbor, SC.--The Committee has provided 
$5,000,000 for this widening and deepening project, which is 
the full capability of the Corps.
    Lakes Marion and Moultrie, SC.--The Committee has provided 
$350,000 for this project, which is all that can be provided 
under the current project authorization.
    Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux, SD.--The 
Committee notes that Title VI of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999, as amended, authorizes funding to pay 
administrative expenses, implementation of terrestrial wildlife 
plans, activities associated with land transferred or to be 
transferred, and annual expenses for operating recreational 
areas. Within the funds provided, the Committee directs that 
not more than $1,000,000 shall be provided for administrative 
expenses, and that the Corps is to distribute remaining funds 
as directed by Title VI to the State of South Dakota, the 
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and Lower Brule Sioux Tribe.
    Missouri River Restoration, SD.--The Committee has included 
$500,000, the full Corps capability, to complete the assessment 
and initiation of the implementation plan for the basin.
    Pierre, SD.--The Committee has included $6,000,000 for the 
Pierre, South Dakota flood damage reduction project.
    Black Fox, Oaklands and Murfree Springs Wetlands, TN.--The 
Committee has provided $1,070,000 for the continued 
construction of this project, which was not included in the 
budget request.
    Cumberland County Water Supply, TN.--The Committee has 
included funds for the continued construction of this project.
    Brays Bayou, TX.--The Committee has included $6,000,000 for 
this project related to flood damage reduction.
    Dallas Floodway Extension, TX.--The Committee has provided 
funds and legislative language to continue plans and 
specification development, real estate activities and resume 
project construction, including the Cadillac Heights segment of 
the project.
    Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, TX.--The Committee 
has included $40,000,000 for this high priority project which 
is needed for the safe and cost-effective movement of cargo.
    Red River Chloride Control Project, TX & OK.--The Committee 
has included $2,000,000 for the continued construction of this 
project.
    Embrey Dam, VA.--The Committee has included $3,000,000 for 
this continuing construction project.
    Lake Merriweather, Little Calfpasture (Goshen Dam), VA.--
The Committee has included $3,000,000 for the continuation of 
this project.
    Norfolk Harbor and Channels (Deepening), VA.--The Committee 
has included $4,000,000 for the continuation of this necessary 
navigation project.
    Chief Joseph Dam Gas Abatement, WA.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $3,000,000 for the continued 
construction of this project. The additional funds are provided 
for the award of construction contracts related to the right 
abutment, staging area and cofferdam fabrication.
    Columbia River Fish Mitigation, WA, OR & ID.--The Committee 
has provided $85,000,000 for the Fish Mitigation project. This 
reduced funding level should in no way be considered any 
diminution of interest or support for the project, but instead 
it reflects the very limited resources of the Committee.
    Mt. St. Helens Sediment Control, WA.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $700,000 above the administration's 
request. These funds are for the initiation of a sensitivity 
analysis to Cowlitz River tributaries as a result of elevating 
river stages and proceeding with the analysis of alternatives 
to find a permanent solution to the sediment control. In 
addition, the Committee expects the Corps to initiate a General 
Reevaluation Report.
    Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper 
Cumberland River, WV, KY, & VA.--The Committee has provided 
$23,400,000 for continuation of the project. Within the funds 
provided, the Committee recommendation includes $17,000,000 for 
the Buchanan County, Dickenson County, and Grundy, VA elements. 
Further, the Committee recommendation includes $6,400,000 for 
Kermit, Lower Mingo County, McDowell County, Upper Mingo and 
Wayne County, WV.
    Aquatic Plant Control Program.--The Committee has included 
$3,500,000 for the Aquatic Plant Control program's base 
research and development activities. The Committee is aware of 
the growing aquatic invasive plant infestation problem around 
the county and supports the efforts of the Corps, and private 
sector, to develop new management and control technologies. 
Currently, the Committee is aware that approximately 25 Federal 
agencies are involved in invasive species activities and that 
the estimated economic impacts from all invasive species totals 
as much as $137,000,000,000. The Committee further believes 
that success in the management of these invasive species is 
dependent upon a strong, stable research program. In an effort 
to maximize limited funding for eradication and harvesting, the 
Committee strongly recommends that these efforts be undertaken 
only where a local sponsor agrees to provide 50 percent of the 
cost of the work. Within the funds provided, $300,000 is for a 
cost shared effort with the State of South Carolina and 
$400,000 is for a cost shared effort with the State of Vermont. 
The Committee urges the Corps to establish a cost shared 
program with the State of Hawaii.
    Dam Safety and Seepage/Stability Correction Program.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $14,000,000 for the program. 
Within the funds provided, $6,000,000 is provided for the Corps 
to continue work on Waterbury Dam in Vermont.
    Ability to Pay.--Section 103(m) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986, as amended, requires that all project 
cooperation agreements for flood damage reduction projects, to 
which non-Federal cost sharing applies, will be subject to the 
ability of non-Federal sponsors to pay their shares. Congress 
included this section in the landmark 1986 Act to ensure that 
as many communities as possible would qualify for Federal flood 
damage reduction projects, based more on needs and less on 
financial capabilities. The Secretary published eligibility 
criteria in 33 CFR 241, which requires a non-Federal sponsor to 
meet an ability-to-pay test. However, the Committee believes 
that the Secretary's test is too restrictive and operates to 
exclude most communities from qualifying for relief under the 
ability-to-pay provision. For example, 33 CFR 241.4(f) 
specifies that the test should be structured so that reductions 
in the level of cost-sharing will be granted in ``only a 
limited number of cases of severe economic hardship,'' and 
should depend not only on the economic circumstances within a 
project area, but also on the conditions of the state in which 
the project area is located. While within the letter of the 
law, the Secretary's policies do not appear to be keeping the 
spirit of the law. The Secretary is directed to report to the 
Appropriations Committees within 90 days of enactment of this 
Act on a proposal intended to be published in the Federal 
Register to revise 33 CFR 241 eligibility criteria to allow a 
more reasonable and balanced application of the ability-to pay 
provision.

                     CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM

    The continuing project authorities listed below, allow the 
Corps great flexibility to respond to various, limited-scope, 
water resource problems facing communities throughout the 
Nation. This program has proven to be remarkably successful in 
providing a quick response to serious local problems. These 
problems range from flood control and navigation to bank 
stabilization and environmental restoration. The Committee has 
provided funds in excess of the budget request for virtually 
all of these accounts. As a general rule, once a project has 
received funds for the initial phases of any of these 
authorities, the project will continue to be funded as long as 
it proves to be environmentally sound, technically feasible, 
and economically justified, as applicable. With this in mind, 
the Committee has chosen to limit explicit direction of these 
project authorities.
    The Committee is aware that there are funding requirements 
for ongoing, continuing authorities projects that may not be 
accommodated within the funds provided for each program. It is 
not the Committee's intent that ongoing projects be terminated. 
If additional funds are needed to keep ongoing work in any 
program on schedule, the Committee urges the Corps to reprogram 
the necessary funds.
    Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration (Section 206).--The Committee 
has provided $15,000,000 for the Section 206 Program. Within 
the amount provided, the recommendation includes: $200,000 for 
Tamarisk Eradication, CO for plans and specifications; $200,000 
for Yampa River/Hayden restoration project (Upper Yampa Water 
Conservancy District), CO; $200,000 for Sqauw Creek, IL 
ecosystem restoration for plans and specifications; $250,000 
for Chariton River/Rathburn Lake Watershed, IA to complete 
plans and specifications; $192,000 for Duck Creek-Fairmont Park 
Wetlands restoration, Scott County, IA for planning and design 
analysis; $304,000 for Lemay Wetlands, MO to initiate and 
complete restorations; $200,000 for Bottomless Lake State Park, 
NM; $100,000 for James Wallace Memorial Dam, Santa Rosa, NM; 
$100,000 for Jemez River Aquatic and Riparian Habitat, NM; 
$200,000 for Concord Streams Restorations, Concord, NC; $75,000 
for the design phase of Little Sugar Creek, NC aquatic 
ecosystem restoration; $100,000 for project modifications to 
East Harbor State Park, OH; $100,000 for Cherokee Creek Aquatic 
ecosystem restoration, OK for a feasibility study; $100,000 for 
Crow Creek Aquatic ecosystem restoration, OK; $100,000 for 
Alsop Brownwood, Johnson Creek, OR for a feasibility study; 
$100,000 for Oaks Bottom, OR for a feasibility study; $100,000 
for Brush Neck Cove, Warwick, RI for a feasibility study; 
$150,000 for Ninigret and Cross Mills Ponds, Charlestown, RI 
for construction; $300,000 for Mad Island Aquatic ecosystem 
restoration, TX; and $50,000 for Underwood Creek restoration, 
Milwaukee, WI.
    Navigation Mitigation Projects (Section 111).--The 
Committee has provided $1,500 for the Section 111 Program. 
Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes 
$1,280,000 to continue construction of the Saco River and Camp 
Ellis Beach, ME project to mitigate shoreline damages caused by 
the Federal navigation project.
    Project Modifications for Improvement of the Environment 
(Section 1135).--The Committee has provided $17,000,000 for the 
Section 1135 Program. Within the amount provided, the 
recommendation includes: $170,000 for Big Creek Spillway, IA 
for a modifications project; $550,000 for construction of the 
Honey Creek Wetlands, Greenville Marsh, Lucas County, IA; 
$310,000 for Lower Rouge River restoration, Wayne County, MI 
for a feasibility study; $320,000 for Rouge River Oxbow 
restoration, MI for a feasibility study; $100,000 for Upper 
Rouge River restoration, Wayne County, MI for a feasibility 
study; $700,000 for riparian and wetland restoration, Pueblo of 
Santa Ana, NM; $200,000 for Joe Creek habitat restoration, OK; 
$250,000 for Lower Columbia Slough, OR for construction; and 
$100,000 for Lake Champlain Sea Lamprey barriers, VT.
    Emergency Streambank & Shoreline Protection Projects 
(Section 14).--The Committee has provided $9,000,000 for the 
Section 14 Program. Within the amount provided, the 
recommendation includes: $60,000 for the planning and design 
analysis at Beaver Creek, Ackley, IA; $341,000 for Iowa River, 
Sac and Fox Settlement, Tama County, IA; $40,000 for planning 
and design analysis for Red Duck Creek, KY; $300,000 for 
Ramsay, Bessemer, Township, Gogebic County, MI for planning and 
design analysis and construction; $100,000 for planning and 
design analysis at Sturgeon River, Baraga County, MI; $800,000 
for Rio Puerco, NM; and $250,000 for Burlington, VT.
    Flood Control Projects (Section 205).--The Committee has 
provided $30,000,000 for the Section 205 Program. Within the 
amount provided, the recommendation includes: $75,000 for a 
feasibility study at Bono, AR; $155,000 for Oak Creek, 
Florence, CO for a feasibility study; $225,000 for plans and 
specifications at East Boyer River, Denison, IA; $150,000 for a 
feasibility study at Kitty Creek and Maquoketa River, City of 
Monticello, IA; $200,000 for Olive Hill, KY for a feasibility 
study; $60,000 for a feasibility study at Red Duck Creek, KY; 
$100,000 to investigate flooding problems along Bayou Choupique 
in the vicinity of the Chitimacha Reservation in St. Mary 
Parish, LA; $40,000 for Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana Flood 
Control Project, LA for a feasibility study; $350,000 for plans 
and specifications and to initiate construction at Granite 
Falls, MN; $800,000 for Little Puerco River, Gallup, NM; 
$200,000 for Hobbs, NM; $200,000 for Hatch, NM; $500,000 to 
continue the Spanish Springs Valley, NV flood prevention 
project; $1,000,000 for construction of the Wahpeton, ND, flood 
control project; $100,000 for Cane Creek, TN for a feasibility 
study; $100,000 for Jones Creek, TN for a feasibility study; 
and $100,000 for Jamestown Island Seawall, VA for plans and 
specifications.
    Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material (Section 204).--The 
Committee has provided $3,000,000 for the Section 204 Program. 
Within the amount provided the recommendation includes $212,000 
for Blackbottoms, Des Moines County, IA,
    Shoreline Protection Projects (Section 103).--The Committee 
has provided $3,500,000 for the Section 103 Program. Within the 
amount provided, the recommendation includes $75,000 for Luna 
Pier, MI for a feasibility study.
    Small Navigation Projects (Section 107).--The Committee has 
provided $9,000,000 for the Section 107 Program. Within the 
amount provided, the recommendation includes: $750,000 for 
Aun'u Harbor, American Samoa for a preliminary study; $200,000 
for Ta'u Harbor, American Samoa; $350,000 for Horseshoe Bend 
erosion project, KY; $100,000 for Detroit River navigation 
improvements, MI; $75,000 for Ontonagon Harbor, MI for a 
feasibility study; and $60,000 for Charlestown Breachway 
navigation study, RI.
    Snaging and Clearing for Flood Control (Section 208).--The 
Committee has provided $9,000,000 for the Section 208 Program. 
Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes $25,000 
for Deer Creek, Webster County, KY for a planning, design and 
analysis.
    Tribal Partnership Program.--The Committee acknowledges the 
serious impacts of coastal erosion and flooding due to 
continued climate change in Alaska. The Committee expects the 
Corps to continue its work in this area.

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

Appropriations, 2003....................................    $342,334,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................     280,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     329,000,000

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

                      CORPS OF ENGINEERS--FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Committee
                                 Project title                                  Budget estimate   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

ALEXANDRIA TO THE GULF, LA....................................................             435              435
DONALDSONVILLE TO THE GULF, LA................................................             800              900
SOUTHEAST ARKANSAS, AR........................................................  ...............             100
SPRING BAYOU, LA..............................................................             500              500
TENSAS RIVER BASIN, LA........................................................  ...............             200
COLDWATER RIVER BASIN BELOW ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS................................             185              350
FLETCHER CREEK, TN............................................................             120              120
GERMANTOWN, TN................................................................              51               51
MILLINGTON AND VICINITY, TN...................................................              84               84
MORGANZA TO THE GULF, LA......................................................           3,487            5,000
COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA............................................             695              695
                                                                               ---------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS........................................           6,357            8,435

                                 CONSTRUCTION

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN..............................          39,562           41,000
FRANCIS BLAND FLOODWAY DITCH (EIGHT MILE CREEK), AR...........................           2,050            2,050
HELENA AND VICINITY, AR.......................................................           2,180            2,180
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN.........................          42,919           47,000
ST. FRANCIS BASIN, AR & MO....................................................           2,365            3,000
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA........................................           7,768            8,000
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA.........................................................          14,075           15,000
MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA..................................................           3,200            3,200
HORN LAKE CREEK, MS...........................................................  ...............             395
BACKWATER PUMP, MS............................................................  ...............          12,000
MISSISSIPPI AND LOUISIANA ESTUARINE AREAS, LA & MS............................  ...............              30
YAZOO BASIN, BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS..........................................             890            1,000
DALTA HEADWATERS PROJECT, MS..................................................  ...............          17,000
MAIN STEM, MS.................................................................  ...............              25
REFORMULATION UNIT, MS........................................................  ...............             500
YAZOO BASIN, TRIBUTARIES, MS..................................................             205              205
YAZOO BASIN, UPPER YAZOO PROJECTS, MS.........................................           6,645           12,000
ST. JOHNS BAYOU AND NEW MADRID FLOODWAY, MO...................................  ...............           1,000
NONCONNAH CREEK, TN & MS......................................................           2,618            3,200
WOLF RIVER, MEMPHIS, TN.......................................................  ...............           1,600
                                                                               ---------------------------------
      Subtotal, CONSTRUCTION..................................................         124,477          170,385

                                  MAINTENANCE

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN..............................          69,688           69,688
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR............................................             370              370
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR.............................................             466              466
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, AR..........................................             105              105
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, AR..........................................             135              135
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN.........................           6,340            7,000
ST. FRANCIS BASIN, AR & MO....................................................           7,505            9,000
TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS, AR & LA................................           2,400            2,400
WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR.....................................................           1,290            1,290
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL.............................................              50               50
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY.............................................              35               35
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA........................................           2,450            2,450
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA.........................................................          13,335           13,335
BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA...........................................              15              281
BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA............................................              85               85
BONNET CARRE, LA..............................................................           1,975            1,975
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA.............................................             550              550
LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, LA........................................           2,207            2,207
MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA..................................................             910              910
OLD RIVER, LA.................................................................           9,915            9,915
TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA.........................................           3,425            3,425
GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS.........................................................              30              250
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS.............................................             296              296
VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS..........................................................              35              345
YAZOO BASIN:..................................................................         (32,050)         (40,645)
    ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS........................................................           6,300            7,500
    BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS...................................................             170            2,800
    ENID LAKE, MS.............................................................           5,505            6,200
    GREENWOOD, MS.............................................................             650              850
    GRENADA LAKE, MS..........................................................           6,170            7,000
    MAIN STEM, MS.............................................................           1,480            3,480
    SARDIS LAKE, MS...........................................................           8,630            9,500
    TRIBUTARIES, MS...........................................................           1,135            1,135
    WILL M WHITTINGTON AUX CHAN, MS...........................................             470              470
    YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS..................................................             730              900
    YAZOO CITY, MS............................................................             810              810
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO.............................................             167              167
WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO...........................................................           4,265            4,265
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN.............................................             101              101
MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, TN.............................................           1,010            1,010
MAPPING.......................................................................           1,235            1,235
                                                                               ---------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, MAINTENANCE...................................................         162,440          173,986

REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE................................         -13,274          -23,806
                                                                               =================================
      TOTAL, FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES.................         280,000          329,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 the Corps to make the necessary 
adjustments in lower priority activities and non-critical work 
in order to maximize the public benefit within the Mississippi 
River and Tributaries program.

General Investigations

    Southeast Arkansas, AR.--The Committee has included 
$100,000 for the continued study of the Southeast Arkansas 
project.
    Tensas River Basin, LA.--The Committee has included 
$200,000 to continue the feasibility phase of the Tensas River 
Basin study.

Construction

    Mississippi River Levees, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, & TN.--
The Committee has included $47,000,000 for the continuation of 
the construction on the Mississippi River Levees project, 
including the plans and specifications and initiation of 
construction on the Lower Mississippi River Museum and 
Riverfront Interpretive Site.
    Yazoo Basin, Mississippi, Yazoo Backwater Project (Pumping 
Plant and Nonstructural Features), MS.--The Committee has 
included $12,000,000 and statutory language directing the Corps 
to complete the design of the pumping plant, real estate 
acquisition and the initiation of the pump supply contract.
    Yazoo Basin, Mississippi, Mississippi Delta Headwaters 
Project, MS.--The Committee has included $17,000,000 for this 
essential project which consists of sixteen watersheds with 
efforts including bank stabilization to grade control 
structures and channel modifications.

Maintenance

    Mississippi River Levees, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, & TN.--
The Committee recommendation includes $7,000,000 which includes 
funds for gravel surfacing at selected locations.
    St. Francis River and Tributaries, AR & MO.--An additional 
$1,495,000 has been provided above the budget request for 
maintenance items in Missouri.
    Grand Prairie Region, AR.--The Committee has included bill 
language directing the Corps, using previously appropriated 
funds, to continue construction of the water withdrawal 
features associated with the project as directed in the 
conference report accompanying the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act, 2002.

                   OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL

Appropriations, 2003....................................  $1,927,556,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................   1,939,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,949,000,000

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

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

                                     ALABAMA

ALABAMA-COOSA COMPREHENSIVE WATER STUDY, AL.....................................             285             285
ALABAMA-COOSA RIVER, AL.........................................................           2,961           2,961
BAYOU LA BATRE, AL..............................................................           2,000           2,000
BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL..........................................          22,100          23,100
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL..................................................           5,000           5,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AL...............................................              50              50
MILLERS FERRY LOCK AND DAM, WILLIAM.............................................  ..............           5,429
MOBILE HARBOR, AL...............................................................          19,040          22,040
ROBERT F HENRY LOCK AND DAM, AL.................................................           5,726           5,726
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AL.............................................             100             100
TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY WILDLIFE MITIGATION, AL............................           1,500           1,500
TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL AND MS.........................................          21,500          22,500
WALTER F GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL AND GA.........................................           6,892           6,892

                                     ALASKA

ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK............................................................           2,969           2,969
CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK...........................................................           3,259           3,259
COOK INLET SHOALS, AK...........................................................  ..............           1,000
CORDOVA HARBOR, AK..............................................................             400             400
DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK...........................................................             906             906
HOMER HARBOR, AK................................................................             370             370
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK...............................................              41              41
NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK............................................................             239             239
NOME HARBOR, AK.................................................................             285           1,285
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK...................................................             533             533

                                     ARIZONA

ALAMO LAKE, AZ..................................................................           1,563           1,563
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ...............................................              87              87
PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ............................................................           1,498           1,498
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AZ.............................................              35              35
WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ...........................................................             184             184

                                    ARKANSAS

BEAVER LAKE, AR.................................................................           4,297           4,297
BLAKELY MT DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR...............................................           6,126           6,126
BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR..........................................................           1,751           1,751
BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR............................................................           5,180           5,180
DARDANELLE LOCK AND DAM, AR.....................................................           5,319           5,319
DEGRAY LAKE, AR.................................................................           7,103           7,103
DEQUEEN LAKE, AR................................................................           1,567           1,567
DIERKS LAKE, AR.................................................................           1,131           1,131
GILLHAM LAKE, AR................................................................           1,531           1,531
GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR...........................................................           6,391           6,391
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR..............................................              25             400
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR...............................................             192             192
MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR.............................          29,493          35,493
MILLWOOD LAKE, AR...............................................................           1,503           1,503
NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR...................................................           5,559           5,559
NIMROD LAKE, AR.................................................................           2,036           2,036
NORFORK LAKE, AR................................................................           3,471           3,471
OSCEOLA HARBOR, AR..............................................................              25             750
OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR AND LA............................................          10,221          10,221
OZARK-JETA TAYLOR LOCK AND DAM, AR..............................................           3,917           3,917
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AR...................................................               6               6
WHITE RIVER, AR.................................................................             200             200
YELLOW BEND PORT, AR............................................................              15             126

                                   CALIFORNIA

BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA............................................................           2,269           2,269
BODEGA BAY, CA..................................................................  ..............           2,800
BUCHANAN DAM, H V EASTMAN LAKE, CA..............................................           2,526           2,526
COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, CA...........................................           3,401           3,401
DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND CHANNEL, CA...................................           4,421           4,421
FARMINGTON DAM, CA..............................................................             341             341
HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA....................................................           2,621           2,621
HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA.....................................................           6,945           6,945
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA...............................................           1,167           1,167
ISABELLA LAKE, CA...............................................................           1,365           1,365
LOS ANGELES-LONG BEACH HARBOR MODEL, CA.........................................             175             175
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA............................................           4,931           4,931
MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA.......................................................             280             280
MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA............................................................             282             282
MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA............................................................           1,460           1,460
NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA..............................................................           2,789           2,789
NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL, CA........................................           1,697           1,697
OAKLAND HARBOR, CA..............................................................           6,785           9,285
OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA............................................................           1,160           1,160
PETALUMA RIVER, CA..............................................................  ..............           1,250
PINE FLAT LAKE, CA..............................................................           2,732           2,732
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA...................................................           1,960           1,960
RICHMOND HARBOR, CA.............................................................           6,250           6,250
SACRAMENTO RIVER (30 FOOT PROJECT), CA..........................................           2,106           2,106
SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (DEBRIS CONTROL), CA...........................           1,255           1,255
SAN DIEGO RIVER AND MISSION BAY, CA.............................................              60              60
SAN FRANCISCO BAY, DELTA MODEL STRUCTURE, CA....................................           1,273           1,273
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY, CA (DRIFT REMOVAL)................................           2,189           2,189
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA........................................................           2,092           2,092
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, CA...........................................................           2,065           3,000
SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA.......................................................           3,815           3,815
SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA........................................................           1,905           1,905
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CA.............................................           1,447           1,447
SUCCESS LAKE, CA................................................................           2,132           2,132
SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA..........................................................           5,172           5,172
TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA...................................................           1,818           1,818
VENTURA HARBOR, CA..............................................................           2,910           2,910
YUBA RIVER, CA..................................................................              66              66

                                    COLORADO

BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO.............................................................             282             282
CHATFIELD LAKE, CO..............................................................           1,690           2,023
CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO...........................................................             839           1,172
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO...............................................              92              92
JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO.......................................................           2,338           2,338
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CO.............................................             292             292
TRINIDAD LAKE, CO...............................................................           1,441           1,775

                                   CONNECTICUT

BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT.............................................................             343             343
COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT........................................................             459             459
HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT..........................................................             252             252
HOP BROOK LAKE, CT..............................................................             857             857
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CT...............................................              81              81
LONG ISLAND SOPUND, TREATMENT OF DREDGE MATERIAL, CT............................  ..............             500
MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT.......................................................             406             406
NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT.......................................................             330             330
NORWALK HARBOR, CT..............................................................  ..............           1,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CT...................................................           1,303           1,303
SOUTHPORT HARBOR, CT............................................................  ..............             500
STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT..................................................             353             353
THOMASTON DAM, CT...............................................................             442             442
WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT..........................................................             452             452

                                    DELAWARE

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE R TO CHESAPEAKE BAY, D..........................          14,994          14,994
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, REHOBOTH BAY TO DELAWARE BAY, D..........................              48              48
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DE...................................................              55              55
WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE...........................................................           4,366           4,366

                              DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DC...............................................               7               7
POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVERS, DC (DRIFT REMOVAL)................................           1,100           1,100
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DC...................................................              35              35
WASHINGTON HARBOR, DC...........................................................              50              50

                                     FLORIDA

CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL............................................................           3,800           3,800
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL................................................          13,005          13,005
ESCAMBIA AND CONECUH RIVERS, FL.................................................           1,000           1,000
FERNANDINA HARBOR, FL...........................................................           2,556           2,556
FORT PIERCE HARBOR, FL..........................................................              65              65
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL...............................................             200             200
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI, FL................................             680           1,880
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL.........................................................           6,551           6,551
JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE SEMINOLE, FL, AL AND GA.........................           6,686           6,686
MIAMI HARBOR, FL................................................................           1,515           1,515
MIAMI RIVER, FL.................................................................           5,850           5,850
OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL.........................................................           4,316           4,316
PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL...........................................................           1,916           1,916
PANAMA CITY HARBOR, FL..........................................................             500             500
PENSACOLA HARBOR, FL............................................................           1,500           1,500
PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL......................................................           1,255           1,255
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL...................................................           1,000           1,000
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL...................................................           3,400           3,400
TAMPA HARBOR, FL................................................................           3,985           3,985

                                     GEORGIA

ALLATOONA LAKE, GA..............................................................           6,000           6,000
APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT RIVERS, GA, AL &..........................           1,500           4,709
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GA..............................................             178             178
BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA............................................................           3,993           3,993
BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GA...........................................           9,100           9,100
CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA........................................................          10,012          10,012
HARTWELL LAKE, GA AND SC........................................................          13,964          13,964
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA...............................................              41              41
J STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA AND SC................................................          11,747          11,747
RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND SC.......................................           7,746           8,746
SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA.............................................................          12,540          12,540
SAVANNAH RIVER BELOW AUGUSTA, GA................................................             154             154
WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA AND AL..............................................           6,600           6,600

                                     HAWAII

BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI........................................................             176             176
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI...............................................             191             191
MANELE SMALL BOAT HARBOR, HI....................................................             656             656
PORT ALLEN HARBOR, KAUAI, HI....................................................              90              90
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI...................................................             485             485

                                      IDAHO

ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID............................................................           2,202           2,202
DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID..................................................           2,271           3,271
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID...............................................              72              72
LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID.............................................................           2,167           2,167
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ID.............................................             394             394

                                    ILLINOIS

CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL AND IN.............................................           3,985           3,985
CARLYLE LAKE, IL................................................................           4,410           4,410
CHICAGO HARBOR, IL..............................................................           2,319           2,319
CHICAGO RIVER, IL...............................................................             362             362
FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL.......................................................             213             213
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVR PORTION), IL AND IN......................................          25,726          25,726
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVS PORTION), IL AND IN......................................           1,889           1,889
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL...............................................             546             546
KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL..................................................           1,688           1,688
LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL.....................................................             537             537
LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL............................................................           5,495           5,495
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVR PORTION)..........................          44,429          45,429
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVS PORTION)..........................          17,374          18,374
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL...................................................              30              30
REND LAKE, IL...................................................................           4,818           4,818
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IL....................................             111             111
WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL.............................................................           2,027           2,027

                                     INDIANA

BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN.............................................................             684             684
BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN.......................................................           2,774           2,774
CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN............................................................             635             635
CECIL M HARDEN LAKE, IN.........................................................             745             745
INDIANA HARBOR, IN..............................................................             316             316
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN...............................................             346             346
J EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN.........................................................             951             951
MICHIGAN CITY HARBOR, IN........................................................           1,970           1,970
MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN...........................................................           1,234           1,234
MONROE LAKE, IN.................................................................             762             762
PATOKA LAKE, IN.................................................................             687             687
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN...................................................              55              55
SALAMONIE LAKE, IN..............................................................             681             681
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IN....................................             115             115

                                      IOWA

CORALVILLE LAKE, IA.............................................................           3,037           3,700
FORT MADISON, IA................................................................  ..............              50
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA...............................................             190             190
MISSOURI RIVER--KENSLERS BEND, NE TO SIOUX CITY, IA.............................             157             157
MISSOURI RIVER--RULO TO MOUTH, IA, NE, KS AND MO................................           5,355           6,000
MISSOURI RIVER--SIOUX CITY TO RULO, IA AND NE...................................           2,260           2,260
MUSCATINE, IA...................................................................  ..............             205
RATHBUN LAKE, IA................................................................           3,438           3,438
RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA..............................................           3,663           5,000
SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA............................................................           4,223           4,223
SCHELDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, IA............................................  ..............             334

                                     KANSAS

CLINTON LAKE, KS................................................................           1,857           1,857
COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS..........................................................           1,760           1,760
EL DORADO LAKE, KS..............................................................             939             939
ELK CITY LAKE, KS...............................................................             650             650
FALL RIVER LAKE, KS.............................................................           1,385           1,500
HILLSDALE LAKE, KS..............................................................             759             759
JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS..............................................           2,025           2,025
KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS..............................................................           1,269           1,269
MARION LAKE, KS.................................................................           2,443           3,000
MELVERN LAKE, KS................................................................           1,731           1,731
MILFORD LAKE, KS................................................................           2,783           2,783
PEARSON-SKUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS...............................................             984             984
PERRY LAKE, KS..................................................................           2,090           2,890
POMONA LAKE, KS.................................................................           1,931           1,931
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, KS.............................................             129             129
TORONTO LAKE, KS................................................................             464             464
TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS...........................................................           1,839           1,839
WILSON LAKE, KS.................................................................           1,377           1,377

                                    KENTUCKY

BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY AND TN.........................................           8,902           8,902
BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY...........................................................           2,484           2,484
BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY............................................................              35              35
BUCKHORN LAKE, KY...............................................................           1,394           1,394
CARR CREEK LAKE, KY.............................................................           1,448           1,448
CAVE RUN LAKE, KY...............................................................             819             819
DEWEY LAKE, KY..................................................................           1,636           1,636
ELVIS STAHR (HICKMAN) HARBOR, KY................................................              25  ..............
FISHTRAP LAKE, KY...............................................................           1,681           1,681
GRAYSON LAKE, KY................................................................           1,241           1,241
GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY.....................................................           1,205           1,205
GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY............................................................           2,359           2,359
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY...............................................              97              97
KENTUCKY RIVER, KY..............................................................              17              17
LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY...........................................................           1,572           1,572
MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY...........................................................             583             583
MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KY..........................................              92              92
NOLIN LAKE, KY..................................................................           2,056           2,056
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, IN AND OH....................................          31,372          31,852
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, IL, IN AND OH.................................           4,560           4,560
PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY............................................................           1,030           1,030
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, KY...................................................               6               6
ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY............................................................           2,848           2,848
TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY...........................................................             981             981
WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY.............................................          10,670          10,670
YATESVILLE LAKE, KY.............................................................           1,082           1,082

                                    LOUISIANA

ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF AND BLACK, L..........................          19,367          20,367
BARATARIA BAY WATERWAY, LA......................................................             286           3,000
BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA......................................................             864             864
BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP WATERWAY, LA.................................             133           1,200
BAYOU LACOMBE, LA...............................................................  ..............             315
BAYOU PIERRE, LA................................................................              31              31
BAYOU SEGNETTE WATERWAY, LA.....................................................             165           1,300
BAYOU TECHE AND VERMILION RIVER, LA.............................................              35              35
BAYOU TECHE, LA.................................................................              48             354
CADDO LAKE, LA..................................................................             183             183
CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA....................................................          12,064          12,064
FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA............................................................           1,558           1,558
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA..................................................          19,418          19,418
HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA......................................................           1,242           1,242
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA...............................................             797             797
J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA.................................................          12,013          15,013
LAKE PROVIDENCE HARBOR, LA......................................................              32             421
MADISON PARISH PORT, LA.........................................................              13              80
MERMENTAU RIVER, LA.............................................................           2,651           2,651
MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT VENICE, LA.........................................           1,841           5,116
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE GULF OF MEXICO,...........................          56,206          56,206
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, GULF OUTLET, LA..............................................          13,485          13,485
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, LA...................................................              80              80
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA...................................................           2,000           2,000
WALLACE LAKE, LA................................................................             312             312
WATERWAY FROM EMPIRE TO THE GULF, LA............................................               7             247
WATERWAY FROM INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY TO B DULAC, LA..............................              37             237

                                      MAINE

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ME...............................................              17              17
KENNEBEC RIVER, ME..............................................................              45              45
NARRAGUAGUS, ME.................................................................  ..............           1,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME...................................................           1,886           1,886
SCARGOROUGH RIVER, ME...........................................................  ..............             500
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ME....................................              17              17
WELLS HARBOR, ME................................................................              50              50

                                    MARYLAND

BALTIMORE HARBOR ANCHORAGES AND CHANNELS, MD AND VA.............................              68              68
BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 FOOT), MD.....................................          18,416          18,416
BALTIMORE HARBOR, MD (DRIFT REMOVAL)............................................             500             500
BALTIMORE HARBOR, MD (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSI..........................             676             676
CHESTER RIVER, MD...............................................................             930             930
CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV.................................................             165             165
FISHING CREEK, MD...............................................................  ..............             300
HONGA RIVER AND TAR BAY, MD.....................................................              80           1,500
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD...............................................              34              34
JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD AND WV...............................................           1,774           1,774
KNAPPS NARROWS, MD..............................................................             651             651
OCEAN CITY HARBOR AND INLET AND SINEPUXENT BAY, MD..............................             960             960
POCOMOKE RIVER, MD..............................................................             989             989
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD...................................................             365             365
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MD.............................................              96              96
TILGHMAN ISLAND HARBO, MD.......................................................  ..............             555
TOLCHESTER CHANNEL, MD..........................................................           1,364           1,364
UPPER THOROFARE, SOMERSET, MD...................................................  ..............             792
WICOMICO RIVER, MD..............................................................           1,514           1,514

                                  MASSACHUSETTS

AUNT LYDIA'S COVE, CHATHAM, MA..................................................             300             300
BARRE FALLS DAM, MA.............................................................             486             486
BIRCH HILL DAM, MA..............................................................             450             450
BOSTON HARBOR, MA...............................................................           3,000           3,000
BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA............................................................             447             447
CAPE COD CANAL, MA..............................................................           7,772           7,772
CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY STORAGE AREA, MA...................................             227             227
CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA...........................................................             171             171
EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA.........................................................             301             301
GREEN HARBOR, MA................................................................             310             310
HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA..........................................................             428             428
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA...............................................             114             114
KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA.............................................................             453             453
LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA............................................................             364             364
NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET HURRICANE BARRIER,...........................             300             300
NEW BEDFORD AND FAIRHAVEN HARBOR, MA............................................  ..............             500
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA...................................................           1,316           1,316
TULLY LAKE, MA..................................................................             412             412
WEST HILL DAM, MA...............................................................             573             573
WESTVILLE LAKE, MA..............................................................             407             407

                                    MICHIGAN

ARCADIA HARBOR, MI..............................................................              20              20
BLACK RIVER, PORT HURON, MI.....................................................              16              16
CHANNELS IN LAKE ST. CLAIR, MI..................................................             466             466
CHARLEVOIX HARBOR, MI...........................................................             119             119
DETROIT RIVER, MI...............................................................           3,458           3,458
FRANKFORT HARBOR, MI............................................................           3,112           3,112
GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI..........................................................             810             810
HOLLAND HARBOR, MI..............................................................             618             618
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI...............................................             153             153
KEWEENAW WATERWAY, MI...........................................................             428             428
LELAND HARBOR, MI...............................................................              20             170
LEXINGTON HARBOR, MI............................................................              10              10
LITTLE LAKE HARBOR, MI..........................................................              12             208
LUDINGTON HARBOR, MI............................................................             946             946
MANISTEE HARBOR, MI.............................................................             227             227
MARQUETTE HARBOR, MI............................................................              10              10
MENOMINEE HARBOR, MI AND WI.....................................................             154             154
MONROE HARBOR, MI...............................................................             138             138
MUSKEGON HARBOR, MI.............................................................              21              21
ONTONAGON HARBOR, MI............................................................             473             473
PENTWATER HARBOR, MI............................................................              45              45
PORT AUSTIN HARBOR, MI..........................................................              20             214
PORT SANILAC HARBOR, MI.........................................................              27              27
PORTAGE LAKE HARBOR, MI.........................................................           1,167           1,167
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI...................................................             182             182
ROUGE RIVER, MI.................................................................             177             177
SAGINAW RIVER, MI...............................................................           2,001           2,501
SAUGATUCK HARBOR, MI............................................................           1,203           1,203
SEBEWAING RIVER (ICE JAM REMOVAL), MI...........................................               7               7
ST. CLAIR RIVER, MI.............................................................           1,565           1,565
ST. JOSEPH HARBOR, MI...........................................................             561             561
ST. MARYS RIVER, MI.............................................................          19,092          19,092
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MI....................................           2,410           2,410

                                    MINNESOTA

BIGSTONE LAKE WHETSTONE RIVER, MN AND SD........................................             255             255
DULUTH-SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN AND WI...............................................           4,991           4,991
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN...............................................             107             107
LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA RIVER, MN........................................             568             568
MINNESOTA RIVER, MN.............................................................             175             175
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVP PORTION)..........................          36,056          36,056
ORWELL LAKE, MN.................................................................           1,045           1,045
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN...................................................              67              67
RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN..........................................................              99              99
RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN...............................           4,196           4,196
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MN....................................             273             273

                                   MISSISSIPPI

ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS..............................................................             685             685
BILOXI HARBOR, MS...............................................................  ..............           1,250
CLAIBORNE COUNTY PORT, MS.......................................................               8              87
EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS..................................................             170             170
ENID LAKE, MS...................................................................             682             682
GRENADA LAKE, MS................................................................             700             700
GULFPORT HARBOR, MS.............................................................           2,500           2,500
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS...............................................              57              57
MOUTH OF YAZOO RIVER, MS........................................................              26              51
OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS..............................................................           1,600           1,600
PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS...........................................................           4,460           4,460
PEARL RIVER, MS AND LA..........................................................             343             343
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MS...................................................             180             180
ROSEDALE HARBOR, MS.............................................................              21             604
SARDIS LAKE, MS.................................................................             545             545
WOLF AND JORDAN RIVERS, MS......................................................  ..............           1,000
YAZOO RIVER, MS.................................................................             115             115

                                    MISSOURI

CARUTHERSVILLE HARBOR, MO.......................................................              30             330
CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE, MO.....................................           6,440           6,440
CLEARWATER LAKE, MO.............................................................           1,959           1,959
HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO............................................          10,977          10,977
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO...............................................             817             817
LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO.....................................................             850             850
LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO............................................................             875             875
MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS (REG WORKS), MO..........................          18,099          18,099
NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO...........................................................              22             340
POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO.........................................................           1,828           1,828
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MO...................................................               6               6
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MO.............................................             316             316
SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO.............................................................           1,118           1,118
STOCKTON LAKE, MO...............................................................           5,362           5,362
SOUTHEAST MISSOURI PORT, MO.....................................................  ..............             374
TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO.............................................................           5,772           5,772
UNION LAKE, MO..................................................................              10              10
WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO.............................................................             234             234

                                     MONTANA

FT PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT........................................................           5,413           5,413
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MT...............................................              12              12
LIBBY DAM, LAKE KOOCANUSA, MT...................................................           1,453           1,453
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MT.............................................              87              87

                                    NEBRASKA

GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK LAKE, NE AND SD...............................           8,422           8,422
HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE..........................................................           1,486           1,486
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NE...............................................             122             122
MISSOURI R MASTER WTR CONTROL MANUAL, NE, IA, KS, MO,...........................             350             350
PAPILLION CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES LAKES, NE.......................................             564             564
SALT CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, NE..................................................             708             708

                                     NEVADA

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV...............................................              43              43
MARTIS CREEK LAKE, NV AND CA....................................................             552             552
PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV..............................................             288             368

                                  NEW HAMPSHIRE

BLACKWATER DAM, NH..............................................................             461             461
COCHECO RIVER, NH...............................................................  ..............           1,000
EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH.......................................................             481             481
FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH..........................................................             500             500
HOPKINTON-EVERETT LAKES, NH.....................................................             887             887
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NH...............................................              12              12
NEW HAMPSHIRE UPLAND DISPOSAL SITE..............................................  ..............             300
OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH............................................................             537             537
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NH...................................................             300             300
SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH.........................................................             498             498

                                   NEW JERSEY

BARNEGAT INLET, NJ..............................................................           1,520           1,520
COLD SPRING INLET, NJ...........................................................             500             500
DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ....................................................              20              20
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE SEA, NJ, PA AND DE..........................          19,290          20,800
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO TRENTON, NJ.................................           3,615           3,715
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NJ...............................................              89              89
NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NJ............................................           1,815           1,815
NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC RIVERS, NJ...................................             100             100
MANAQUAN RIVER, NJ..............................................................  ..............             175
PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD WARNING SYSTEMS, NJ.........................................             425             425
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NJ...................................................             785             785
RARITAN RIVER, NJ...............................................................             450             450
SANDY HOOK BAY AT LEONARD, NJ...................................................              70              70
SALEM RIVER, NJ.................................................................  ..............             825
SHARK RIVER, NJ.................................................................              70              70

                                   NEW MEXICO

ABIQUIU DAM, NM.................................................................           1,712           3,882
COCHITI LAKE, NM................................................................           2,569           7,079
CONCHAS LAKE, NM................................................................           1,560           2,460
GALISTEO DAM, NM................................................................             434             634
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM...............................................             137             137
JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM............................................................             637           3,287
SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM.....................................................           1,176           1,646
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NM.............................................             227             227
TWO RIVERS DAM, NM..............................................................             463             463
UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS MODEL, NM.....................................  ..............           1,500

                                    NEW YORK

ALMOND LAKE, NY.................................................................             471             471
ARKPORT DAM, NY.................................................................             275             275
BARCELONA HARBOR, NY............................................................               3               3
BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR, NY.....................................           2,950           2,950
BROWNS CREEK, NY................................................................              80              80
BUFFALO HARBOR, NY..............................................................           1,263           1,263
BUTTERMILK CHANNEL, NY..........................................................             300             300
CATTARAUGUS CREEK HARBOR, NY....................................................               5               5
DUNKIRK HARBOR, NY..............................................................             305             305
EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY.........................................................             140             140
EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY............................................................             500             500
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY............................................           2,350           2,350
GLEN COVE CREEK, NY.............................................................             100             100
HUDSON RIVER CHANNEL, NY........................................................             350             350
HUDSON RIVER, NY (MAINT)........................................................           2,510           2,510
HUDSON RIVER, NY (O&C)..........................................................           2,935           2,935
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY...............................................             454             454
JAMAICA BAY, NY.................................................................             140             140
LONG ISLAND INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NY...........................................           2,000           2,000
MORICHES INLET, NY..............................................................              30             630
MT. MORRIS LAKE, NY.............................................................           2,753           2,753
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS, NY............................................           3,660           3,660
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY.............................................................           4,460           4,460
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY AND NJ (DRIFT REMOVAL)......................................           5,344           5,344
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSIT..........................             750             750
OLCOTT HARBOR, NY...............................................................               5               5
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY...................................................           1,220           1,220
ROCHESTER HARBOR, NY............................................................              55              55
RONDOUT HARBOR, NY..............................................................             150             150
SAG HARBOR, NY..................................................................             100             100
SHINNECOCK INLET, NY............................................................             416           1,500
SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS, NY....................................             774             774
STURGEON POINT HARBOR, NY.......................................................              20              20
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, NY....................................             586             586
WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY..........................................................           1,044           1,044
WILSON HARBOR, NY...............................................................               3               3

                                 NORTH CAROLINA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NC..............................................             831             831
B EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC...............................................           1,993           1,993
BEAUFORT HARBOR, NC.............................................................             400             400
BOGUE INLET AND CHANNEL, NC.....................................................             866             866
CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC............................................             803             803
CAROLINA BEACH INLET, NC........................................................           1,088           1,088
FALLS LAKE, NC..................................................................           2,113           2,113
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC...............................................              33              33
LOCKWOODS FOLLY RIVER, NC.......................................................           1,017           1,017
MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC.....................................................           6,390           6,390
MASONBORO INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS, NC.....................................              50              50
MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC........................................................          12,917          12,917
NEW RIVER INLET, NC.............................................................             839             839
NEW TOPSAIL INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS, NC...................................             665             665
PAMLICO AND TAR RIVERS, NC......................................................             219             219
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC...................................................              75              75
ROANOKE RIVER, NC...............................................................             178             178
W KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC..............................................           2,853           2,853
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC...........................................................           6,906           6,906

                                  NORTH DAKOTA

BOWMAN-HALEY LAKE, ND...........................................................             163             163
GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND................................................          12,664          12,964
HOMME LAKE, ND..................................................................             921             921
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND...............................................              68              68
LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND.............................................           1,944           1,944
PIPESTEM LAKE, ND...............................................................             461             461
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ND.............................................             113             113
SOURIS RIVER, ND................................................................             340             340
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ND....................................              29              29

                                      OHIO

ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH.............................................................             699           1,500
ASHTABULA HARBOR, OH............................................................           1,245           1,245
BERLIN LAKE, OH.................................................................           1,690           1,690
CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH...........................................................           1,490           1,490
CLARENCE J BROWN DAM, OH........................................................             888             888
CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH............................................................           3,235           3,235
CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH.............................................................             579             879
COOLEY CANAL, OH................................................................              20              20
DEER CREEK LAKE, OH.............................................................             637             637
DELAWARE LAKE, OH...............................................................           1,181           1,181
DILLON LAKE, OH.................................................................             532             532
FAIRPORT HARBOR, OH.............................................................             735             735
HURON HARBOR, OH................................................................             108             108
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH...............................................             210             210
LORAIN HARBOR, OH...............................................................           4,483           4,483
MASSILLON LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH..........................................              25              25
MICHAEL J KIRWAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, OH..........................................             793             793
MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH.........................................................           1,176           1,176
MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH.......................................................           7,799           7,799
NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, OH............................................             185             185
PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH............................................................             788             788
PORT CLINTON HARBOR, OH.........................................................              10              10
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH...................................................             129             129
ROCKY RIVER, OH.................................................................               3             503
ROSEVILLE LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH..........................................              30              30
SANDUSKY HARBOR, OH.............................................................             825             825
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OH....................................             165             165
TOLEDO HARBOR, OH...............................................................           4,004           4,004
TOM JENKINS DAM, OH.............................................................             238             238
TOUSSAINT RIVER, OH.............................................................              20              20
VERMILION HARBOR, OH............................................................              28             528
WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH................................................             455             455
WEST HARBOR, OH.................................................................               3             503
WILLIAM H HARSHA LAKE, OH.......................................................             941             941

                                    OKLAHOMA

ARCADIA LAKE, OK................................................................             715             715
BIRCH LAKE, OK..................................................................             482             482
BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK.............................................................           1,684           1,684
CANDY LAKE, OK..................................................................              20              20
CANTON LAKE, OK.................................................................           2,302           2,302
COPAN LAKE, OK..................................................................             707             707
EUFAULA LAKE, OK................................................................           5,889           5,889
FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK............................................................           6,463           6,463
FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK............................................................             846             846
GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK......................................................             514             514
HEYBURN LAKE, OK................................................................             612             612
HUGO LAKE, OK...................................................................           1,638           1,638
HULAH LAKE, OK..................................................................           1,230           1,230
KAW LAKE, OK....................................................................           2,016           2,016
KEYSTONE LAKE, OK...............................................................           6,834           6,834
OOLOGAH LAKE, OK................................................................           2,099           2,099
OPTIMA LAKE, OK.................................................................             406             406
PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE CHEROKEES, OK..................................              35              35
PINE CREEK LAKE, OK.............................................................             921             921
ROBERT S KERR LOCK AND DAM AND RESERVOIRS, OK...................................           4,275           4,495
SARDIS LAKE, OK.................................................................           1,096           1,096
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OK.............................................             387             387
SKIATOOK LAKE, OK...............................................................           1,353           1,353
TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK........................................................           3,217           3,217
WAURIKA LAKE, OK................................................................           1,241           1,241
WEBBERS FALLS LOCK AND DAM, OK..................................................           6,551           6,551
WISTER LAKE, OK.................................................................             948             948

                                     OREGON

APPLEGATE LAKE, OR..............................................................             666             666
BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR.............................................................             261             261
BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA..............................................           4,849           4,849
CHETCO RIVER, OR................................................................  ..............             300
COLUMBIA AND LWR WILLAMETTE R BLW VANCOUVER, WA AND PORTLA......................          16,674          16,674
COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR AND WA..........................................          10,028          10,028
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA AND THE DALLES, O..........................             382             382
COOS BAY, OR....................................................................           3,598           3,598
COQUILLE RIVER, OR..............................................................  ..............             300
COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR..........................................................             724             724
COUGAR LAKE, OR.................................................................           3,577           3,577
DEPOE SLOUGH, OR................................................................  ..............             400
DETROIT LAKE, OR................................................................           2,002           2,002
DORENA LAKE, OR.................................................................             535             535
FALL CREEK LAKE, OR.............................................................             464             464
FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR.............................................................             956             956
GREEN PETER-FOSTER LAKES, OR....................................................           2,545           2,545
HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR............................................................           4,895           4,895
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR...............................................             161             161
JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA................................................           4,038           4,538
LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR..........................................................           2,027           2,027
LOST CREEK LAKE, OR.............................................................           5,154           5,154
MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA..................................................           5,484           5,484
PORT ORFORD, OR.................................................................  ..............             300
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR...................................................             200             200
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OR.............................................              60              60
SIUSLAW RIVER, OR...............................................................  ..............             200
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OR....................................             134             134
TILLAMOOK BAY AND BAR, WA.......................................................  ..............             300
WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS, OR........................................             259             259
WILLAMETTE RIVER BANK PROTECTION, OR............................................              58              58
WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR...........................................................             599             599
YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR......................................................           1,228           1,228

                                  PENNSYLVANIA

ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA.............................................................           4,596           4,596
ALVIN R BUSH DAM, PA............................................................             712             712
AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA.......................................................             254             254
BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA.............................................................           1,095           1,095
BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA.............................................................           2,810           2,810
CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA........................................................             962             962
COWANESQUE LAKE, PA.............................................................           3,118           3,118
CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA..........................................................           1,369           1,369
CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA...........................................................             743             743
EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA..............................................           1,057           1,057
ERIE HARBOR, PA.................................................................             135             135
FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA....................................................             789             789
FRANCIS E WALTER DAM, PA........................................................             681           1,000
GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND RESERVOIR, PA......................................             348             348
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA...............................................             271             271
JOHNSTOWN, PA...................................................................             997             997
KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PA..........................................           1,437           1,437
LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA.............................................................             885             885
MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA.........................................................             820             820
MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA...........................................................          15,158          15,158
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, PA, OH AND WV........................................          22,504          22,504
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, PA, OH AND WV.....................................             488             488
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA...................................................              21              21
PROMPTON LAKE, PA...............................................................             455             455
PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA................................................................              17              17
RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA...............................................................           5,674           5,674
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, PA.............................................              57              57
SCHUYLKILL RIVER, PA............................................................           1,360           1,360
SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA.........................................................           1,829           1,829
STILLWATER LAKE, PA.............................................................             385             385
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, PA....................................              79              79
TIOGA-HAMMOND LAKES, PA.........................................................           3,852           3,852
TIONESTA LAKE, PA...............................................................           1,790           1,790
UNION CITY LAKE, PA.............................................................             224             224
WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA.........................................................             810             810
YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA........................................................             691             691
YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA AND MD..............................................           1,804           1,804

                                  RHODE ISLAND

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, RI...............................................               6               6
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, RI...................................................           2,163           2,163
PROVIDENCE RIVER AND HARBOR, RI.................................................          21,000          21,000

                                 SOUTH CAROLINA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC..............................................             269           1,432
CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC...........................................................           9,740          10,500
COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC.............................................           3,380           3,380
FOLLY RIVER, SC.................................................................             277             452
GEORGETOWN HARBOR, SC...........................................................           2,719           2,719
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC...............................................              26              26
MURRELLS INLET, SC..............................................................              45              45
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC...................................................             229             229
TOWN CREEK, SC..................................................................             419             419

                                  SOUTH DAKOTA

BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD...................................................           6,715           6,715
CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE, SD.....................................  ..............           5,000
COLD BROOK LAKE, SD.............................................................             238             238
COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD.....................................................             192             192
FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS CASE, SD.........................................           6,873           6,873
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SD...............................................              21              21
LAKE TRAVERSE, SD AND MN........................................................             907             907
MISSOURI R BETWEEN FORT PECK DAM AND GAVINS PT, SD, MT..........................             410             410
OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD AND ND..................................................          13,768          13,768
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, SD.............................................              48              48

                                    TENNESSEE

CENTER HILL LAKE, TN............................................................           8,604           8,604
CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN.......................................................           5,612           5,612
CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TN............................................................           2,480           2,480
CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN..............................................           3,870           3,870
DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN............................................................           6,120           6,120
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN...............................................             127             127
J PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN............................................           3,150           3,150
OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN....................................................           7,685           7,685
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TN...................................................               6               6
TENNESSEE RIVER, TN.............................................................          16,521          18,826
WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN...........................................................              20             510

                                      TEXAS

AQUILLA LAKE, TX................................................................             589             589
ARKANSAS-RED RIVER BASINS CHLORIDE CONTROL--AREA VI.............................           1,262           1,262
BARBOUR TERMINAL CHANNEL, TX....................................................             659             659
BARDWELL LAKE, TX...............................................................           1,598           1,598
BELTON LAKE, TX.................................................................           3,299           3,299
BENBROOK LAKE, TX...............................................................           2,038           2,038
BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX...............................................           2,413           2,413
CANYON LAKE, TX.................................................................           2,770           2,770
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX.................................................           6,650           6,650
DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX....................................................           8,500           8,800
ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT, TX......................................               3               3
FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O' THE PINES, TX......................................           2,660           2,660
FREEPORT HARBOR, TX.............................................................           4,500           4,500
GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX................................................           4,676           4,676
GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX........................................................           1,568           1,568
GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX..............................................................           2,596           2,596
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX..................................................          21,329          21,329
HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX............................................................           1,223           1,223
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX........................................................          13,539          13,539
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX...............................................             256             256
JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX............................................................           1,141           1,141
JOE POOL LAKE, TX...............................................................             626             626
LAKE KEMP, TX...................................................................             487             487
LAVON LAKE, TX..................................................................           3,312           3,312
LEWISVILLE DAM, TX..............................................................           3,124           3,124
MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX......................................................           4,690           4,690
NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX..........................................................           1,597           1,597
NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE GEORGETOWN, TX...................................           1,711           1,711
O C FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX.....................................................           1,419           1,419
PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX..............................................................             794             794
PROCTOR LAKE, TX................................................................           1,683           1,683
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TX...................................................              50              50
RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX............................................................             689             689
SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX......................................................           8,849           8,849
SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX...............................................           5,618           5,618
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, TX.............................................             190             190
SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX.............................................................           3,323           3,323
STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX.......................................................           2,487           2,487
TEXAS CITY SHIP CHANNEL, TX.....................................................  ..............           1,000
TEXAS WATER ALLOCATION ASSESSMENT, TX...........................................             100             100
TOWN BLUFF DAM, B A STEINHAGEN LAKE, TX.........................................           1,946           1,946
WACO LAKE, TX...................................................................           2,316           2,316
WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX............................................................             958             958
WHITNEY LAKE, TX................................................................           4,695           4,695
WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX..................................................           3,404           3,404

                                      UTAH

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT...............................................              65              65
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, UT.............................................             464             464

                                     VERMONT

BALL MOUNTAIN LAKE, VT..........................................................             651             651
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VT...............................................              42              42
NARROWS OF LAKE CHAMPLAIN, VT AND NY............................................              50              50
NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT.........................................................             582             582
NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT......................................................             621             621
TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT..............................................................             595             595
UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT...........................................................             545             545
WINHALL BROOK, VT...............................................................  ..............             830

                                    VIRGINIA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--ACC, VA.........................................           1,991           1,991
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--DSC, VA.........................................           1,033           1,033
BONUM CREEK, VA.................................................................             705             705
CAPE CHARLES CITY HARBOR, VA....................................................              25              25
CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA..........................................................             915             915
GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA...............................................           1,756           1,756
HAMPTON CREEK, VA...............................................................             733             733
HAMPTON RDS, NORFOLK AND NEWPORT NEWS HBR, VA (DRIFT REM........................           1,200           1,200
HOSKINS CREEK, VA...............................................................           1,479           1,479
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA...............................................             111             111
JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA.........................................................           3,107           3,107
JOHN H KERR LAKE, VA AND NC.....................................................          10,839          10,839
JOHN W FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA..........................................           1,341           1,341
LYNNHAVEN INLET, VA.............................................................             200             200
MONROE BAY AND CREEK, VA........................................................             422             422
NORFOLK HARBOR, VA..............................................................           7,115           7,115
NORFOLK HARBOR, VA (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS..........................             200             200
NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA..............................................             343             343
OYSTER CHANNEL, VA..............................................................             310             310
PHILPOTT LAKE, VA...............................................................           3,854           3,854
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA...................................................             750             750
QUINBY CREEK, VA................................................................              40              40
RUDEE INLET, VA.................................................................           1,180           1,180
WATERWAY ON THE COAST OF VIRGINIA, VA...........................................           1,285           1,285
YORK RIVER, VA..................................................................           1,585           1,585

                                   WASHINGTON

BELLINGHAM HARBOR, WA...........................................................              50              50
CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA............................................................             711             711
COLUMBIA RIVER BTN CHINOOK AND HEAD, WA.........................................  ..............             500
EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WA..........................................           1,579           1,579
GRAYS HARBOR AND CHEHALIS RIVER, WA.............................................           8,377           8,377
HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA...........................................................           2,050           2,050
ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA.....................................................           7,770           7,770
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA...............................................             295             295
LAKE CROCKETT (KEYSTONE HARBOR), WA.............................................               7               7
LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA..................................................           6,262           6,262
LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, WA...................................................           1,342           1,342
LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, WA..................................................           2,074           2,074
LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA...............................................           2,004           2,004
MILL CREEK LAKE, WA.............................................................           1,196           1,196
MT ST HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA...............................................             263             263
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA............................................................           2,931           2,931
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA...................................................             347             347
PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, WA............................................             961             961
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WA.............................................             472             472
SEATTLE HARBOR, WA..............................................................             985             985
STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA.........................................................             254             254
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WA....................................              62              62
SWINOMISH CHANNEL, WA...........................................................             520             520
TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA......................................................             115             115
THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM, WA AND OR..............................................           3,278           3,278
WILLAPA RIVER AND HARBOR, WA....................................................             510             510

                                  WEST VIRGINIA

BEECH FORK LAKE, WV.............................................................           1,061           1,061
BLUESTONE LAKE, WV..............................................................           1,074           1,074
BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV.............................................................           1,446           1,446
EAST LYNN LAKE, WV..............................................................           1,609           1,609
ELKINS, WV......................................................................              18              18
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV...............................................             106             106
KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV................................................           7,655           7,655
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY AND OH........................................          24,270          24,270
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, WV, KY AND OH.....................................           2,366           2,366
R D BAILEY LAKE, WV.............................................................           1,457           1,457
STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV......................................................             836             836
SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV...........................................................           1,469           1,469
SUTTON LAKE, WV.................................................................           1,785           1,785
TYGART LAKE, WV.................................................................           4,195           4,195

                                    WISCONSIN

EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI........................................................           1,599           1,599
FOX RIVER, WI...................................................................           3,929           3,929
GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI............................................................           3,492           3,492
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WI...............................................              47              47
KENOSHA HARBOR, WI..............................................................             178             178
KEWAUNEE HARBOR, WI.............................................................             120             120
MANITOWOC HARBOR, WI............................................................              63              63
MILWAUKEE HARBOR, WI............................................................             781             781
PORT WASHINGTON HARBOR, WI......................................................             170             170
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WI...................................................              96              96
SHEBOYGAN HARBOR, WI............................................................             991             991
STURGEON BAY HARBOR AND LAKE MICHIGAN SHIP CANAL, WI............................             317             317
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WI....................................             472             472
TWO RIVERS HARBOR, WI...........................................................           1,200           1,200

                                     WYOMING

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WY...............................................              11              11
JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY.........................................................           1,217           1,217
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WY.............................................              86              86

                                  MISCELLANEOUS

AQUATIC NUISANCE CONTROL RESEARCH...............................................             725           1,025
AUTOMATED BUDGET SYSTEM (ABS)...................................................             285             285
COASTAL INLET RESEARCH PROGRAM..................................................           2,750           2,750
CULTURAL RESOURCES (NAGPRA/CURATION)............................................           1,545           1,545
DREDGE WHEELER READY RESERVE....................................................           8,000           8,000
DREDGING DATA AND LOCK PERFORMANCE MONITORING SYSTEM............................           1,180           1,180
DREDGING OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH (DOER)...........................           6,755           6,755
DREDGING OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT PROGRAM...................................           1,545           1,545
EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM............................................             300             300
FACILITY PROTECTION.............................................................          13,000          13,000
GREAT LAKES SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MODELS...........................................           1,000           1,000
HARBOR MAINTENANCE FEE DATA COLLECTION..........................................             675             675
INLAND WATERWAY NAVIGATION CHARTS...............................................           4,120           4,120
LONG TERM OPTION ASSESSMENT FOR LOW USE NAVIGATION..............................           1,000           1,000
MONITORING OF COMPLETED NAVIGATION PROJECTS.....................................           1,750           1,750
NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM.....................................................              45              45
NATIONAL DAM SECURITY PROGRAM...................................................              30              30
NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM (NEPP)..................................           6,000           6,000
NATIONAL LEWIS AND CLARK COMMEMORATION COORDINATOR..............................             310             310
PERFORMANCE BASED BUDGETING SUPPORT PROGRAM.....................................             815             815
PROTECT, CLEAR AND STRAIGHTEN CHANNELS(SEC 3)...................................              50              50
RECREATION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT PROGRAM (RMSP)....................................           1,545           1,545
REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM..............................           1,545           1,795
RELIABILITY MODELS PROGRAM FOR MAJOR REHABILITATION.............................             675             675
REMOVAL OF SUNKEN VESSELS.......................................................             500             650
WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT (WOTS).......................................             725             725
WATERBORNE COMMERCE STATISTICS..................................................           4,745           4,745
REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE..................................         -13,491        -102,538
                                                                                 ===============================
      TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE..........................................       1,933,571       1,949,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. With an increasing number 
of projects entering the inventory, and budgetary constraints 
increasing, it is clear that the Corps will have to find 
innovative ways of accomplishing required maintenance work, 
while reducing operational and other costs. Adjustments in 
lower-priority programs and noncritical work should optimize 
limited resources while maximizing the public benefit.
    The budget request has proposed that no navigation project 
with less than one billion ton-miles of cargo be eligible for 
maintenance dredging. The Committee believes that this is in 
direct conflict with the way projects are analyzed. Project 
analysis is based upon Economic and Environmental Principles 
and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources 
Implementation Studies (1983), the Corps of Engineers Planning 
Guidance Notebook (2000), and other polices and procedures. For 
navigation studies, the analysis centers on transportation 
savings to the Nation considering the ultimate origins and 
destinations of commodities to be moved. Operation and 
maintenance costs are considered as a part of this analysis and 
are figured into the benefit to cost ratio utilized to make the 
investment decision. By applying an arbitrary ton-mile figure 
to determine O&M funding decisions, the budget request has 
essentially obviated the need for any of the previous studies 
undertaken to determine the investment decision.
    The Committee is concerned about the annual proposals for 
reductions of maintenance funding for ``low use waterways and 
ports''. These tributary waterways naturally do not enjoy the 
same level of relative efficiencies as mainstem waterways. The 
Mississippi and Ohio Rivers handle tremendous volumes of 
traffic over long distances and so generate impressive ton-mile 
statistics. Tributaries, by nature, provide generally short, 
smaller channels with lower traffic densities. Consequently, 
``ton-mile'' statistics for tributary waterways are dwarfed by 
statistics for the mainstem waterways. It is important to 
recognize that the commerce on the tributaries is usually only 
a small part of the total journey between producer and 
consumer. When these statistics are compared on a system basis, 
nearly all of these waterways appear to ``pay their way'' and 
are performing as the economic analysis indicated when they 
were originally authorized.
    Uncertainties in maintenance funding for lower use 
projects, seriously impact their abilities to compete and 
become higher use facilities. Without funding to provide a 
stable channel and authorized depths and widths, industries and 
shippers are reluctant to make the necessary investments in 
using these projects. The Committee believes that proposed 
elimination of maintenance funding for authorized projects is 
not only a serious disservice to the public, but is 
demonstrates a profound lack of respect for the congressional 
oversight committees that have jurisdiction for authorization 
and deauthorization of such projects.
    The Committee is not in favor of funding projects which are 
no longer economically viable nor environmentally sustainable. 
Unfortunately, the administration has chosen a path of under-
funding, or an entire lack of funding, for projects in an 
effort to achieve de facto deauthorization through the 
appropriations process by utilizing the billion-ton-mile model. 
Therefore, the Committee has determined, in the best interest 
of the Corps, to deauthorize projects which are listed as 
``inactive'' by the Corps, those projects which are authorized 
to which no funds have been obligated.
    Further, the Committee believes much could be learned by 
the open exchange of how ``low use'' waterways and ports are 
calculated, for the billion-ton-mile does not adequately 
reflect the flow of commerce today. The Committee remains 
concerned about the economic impacts of not maintaining all of 
our waterways and ports at their authorized depths. As a result 
of waterways not being maintained at the authorized depths, 
shippers are forced to divide their cargo and place it on a 
number of smaller ships in order to make passage to the final 
destination, with an approximate cost to industry of 
$1,000,000,000 a year. This adds significantly to the cost and 
time of the movement of products in and around our waterways, 
something which the administration does not appropriately take 
into account when formulating the budget for the Corps. 
Therefore, the Committee strongly encourages the administration 
to put forth a proposal for a model which better reflects the 
flow of goods along all of our ports and waterways, including 
lightering. Until then, however, the Committee believes the 
administration has the responsibility to budget for each and 
every project such that the authorized widths and depths are 
maintained.

             MANAGEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FUNDS

    The Committee is concerned that current and projected 
budgetary constraints will only exacerbate the increasing 
impact of inadequate funding necessary for the effective 
protection of the Federal investment in Corps of Engineers 
facilities. With that in mind, the Committee feels it 
imperative that careful consideration be given to the 
disposition of appropriated funds such that they are applied 
effectively. It is the feeling of the Committee that too often, 
surplus O&M funding is held and reprogrammed in one part of the 
organization, while shortages in other parts of the 
organization slow the execution of vital operation and 
maintenance of facilities. Though the Committee has considered 
retracting the 100 percent reprogramming authority, a privilege 
granted to the Corps, it instead requests that the Corps, 
within 3 months of enactment of this Act, report back to the 
Senate Appropriations Committee with a plan for ensuring 
effective management and expenditure of O&M funds.

                       CORPS HOPPER DREDGE FLEET

    During fiscal year 2002, the Committee requested the 
General Accounting Office [GAO] to review the benefits and 
effects of current and proposed restrictions on the Corps' 
hopper dredge fleet. The Committee faces significant future 
investments in the Corps hopper dredge fleet, as it is rapidly 
aging. The Committee believes that the investment decisions 
must take into consideration the subsequent use of the fleet. 
The final GAO report, released March, 2003, reviewed the 
impacts of operational changes to the fleet since fiscal year 
1993. GAO's findings made it clear to the Committee that 
additional costs have been imposed upon the Corps with the 
decreased use of the fleet, but that the benefits have not been 
realized. Additionally, the GAO found that the Corps' 
contracting process for hopper dredges was not effective. Most 
importantly, the GAO reported that the Corps of Engineers' did 
not have even a limited system to evaluate the costs and 
benefits of the varying operational levels of its hopper dredge 
fleet, nor did it have a means to make maintenance and repair 
decisions of the fleet taking operational use into 
consideration. The Committee remains concerned that since 2000, 
the Corps has provided a report to Congress which has been 
found to have no analytical basis, thus calling into question 
the ready reserve policy.
    Therefore, the Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to 
report to the Committee within 6 months of enactment of this 
Act, with a detailed plan of how it intends to rectify the 
current situation. The plan is to include how the Corps intends 
to establish a baseline for determining the appropriate use of 
the Corps' hopper dredge fleet in the future. Finally, the 
Corps shall include a comprehensive analysis of the costs and 
benefits of the existing and proposed restrictions on the use 
of the fleet. Overall, the Committee expects the Corps to put 
in place measures by which better investment decisions 
regarding the fleet can be made.
    Alabama-Coosa River, AL.--The Committee has included an 
additional $2,961,000 for annual maintenance dredging of the 
Alabama-Coosa River and for work at Swift Creek Park.
    Black Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers, AL.--The Committee has 
included an additional $1,000,000 for the removal of materials 
from the upland disposal site and repairs to lock gates at Holt 
Lock. Within the funds available, the Committee directs the 
Corps to begin the relocation, process of office warehouse, 
shop, and dock facilities in Tuscaloosa, AL.
    Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, AL & MS.--The Committee 
recommendation includes a total of $22,500,000. Within the 
funds provided, $1,500,000 is provided to maintain mitigation 
on State managed lands.
    McClellan-Kerr Navigation System, AR & OK.--The Committee 
has included additional funding for Tainter gate replacement, 
bridge pads and gate seals, and additional funding is provided 
for Tar Creek, OK.
    Bodega Bay, CA.--The Committee has provided funds for the 
preparation of the upland disposal site for the dredging of 
Bodega Bay.
    Oakland Harbor, CA.--The Committee has included an 
additional $2,500,000 for maintenance dredging of Oakland 
Harbor to its authorized depth.
    San Joaquin River, CA.--The Committee has included funds 
for additional maintenance dredging.
    Cherry Creek, Chatfield and Trinidad Lakes, CO.--The 
Committee has included $1,000,000 over the budget request for 
these three lakes. Frequent inundation of recreation areas are 
causing health and safety concerns requiring repair or 
replacement of the facilities. This action in no way is 
intended to alter the Corps of Engineers' lease and property 
accountability policies. It is the Committee's understanding 
that the State of Colorado has agreed to cost share this 
project on a 50-50 basis. It is also the understanding of the 
Committee that the Secretary is not to assume, nor share in the 
future cost of the operation and maintenance of these 
recreation facilities.
    Treatment of Dredge Material from Long Island Sound, CT.--
$500,000 is provided to continue the demonstration program for 
the use of innovative technologies for the treatment of dredge 
material from Long Island Sound. The Committee also expects the 
Corps to initiate work on the Environmental Impact Statement 
for open water disposal of dredge material from Long Island 
Sound.
    Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, DE 
& MD.--The Committee recommendation is $14,994,000. Funds are 
provided for routine operation and maintenance activities and 
for immediate reimbursement to the State of Delaware for normal 
operation and maintenance costs incurred by the State for the 
SR-1 Bridge, from station 58 +00 to station 293 +00, between 
October 1, 2003 and September 30, 2004. The reimbursable costs 
include electric lighting and associated late fees, power 
sweeping, drainage cleaning, snow removal, surface deicing, and 
periodic bridge inspections. The Corps shall initiate necessary 
repairs to the SR-1 Bridge once repair recommendations 
resulting from the bridge inspections are received.
    Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers, GA, AL, & 
FL.--The Committee recommendation includes $4,709,000 which 
includes annual dredging of the river channel, annual 
operations and maintenance of the George W. Andrews Lock, spot 
dredging of shoals, continuation of slough mouth restorations, 
continuation of restoration efforts at Corley Slough, and 
routine operations and maintenance of the project.
    Richard B. Russell Dam, GA & SC.--The Committee has 
included an additional $1,000,000 for the mandated mitigation 
payment related to turbine operations at Richard B. Russell 
Dam.
    Dworshak Reservoir, ID.--The Committee has included an 
additional $1,000,000 for critical work at the Dworshak 
Reservoir.
    Mississippi River Between Missouri River and Minneapolis, 
(MVR & MVS Portions), IL, IA, MN, MO, & WI.--The Committee has 
provided an additional $1,000,000 above the budget request for 
each portion for ongoing major maintenance items. The Corps 
should give consideration to Tow Haulage Unit Replacement and 
the conservation of the endangered Higgins Eye Mussel.
    Coralville Lake, IA.--The Committee has included an 
additional $663,000 above the budget request for needed repairs 
at Coralville Lake.
    Missouri River-Rulo to the Mouth, IA, NE, KS, & MO.--The 
Committee has included an additional $645,000 above the budget 
request for maintenance dredging.
    Red Rock Dam and Lake Red Rock, IA.--The Committee has 
included additional funds for stabilizing rim erosion, 
rebuilding of pumps, and levee repairs at Red Rock Dam and Lake 
Red Rock.
    Fall River Lake, KS.--Additional funds are provided for 
needed repairs at Fall River Lake.
    Marion Lake, KS.--The Committee has included an additional 
$557,000 for needed repairs at Marion Lake.
    Perry Lake, KS.--The Committee has included additional 
funds to complete the repair of the flood gates at Perry Lake.
    Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf and Black, LA.--
The Committee has provided additional funds for maintenance 
dredging.
    Barataria Bay Waterway, LA.--The Committee has included 
additional funds for maintaining the authorized depth of the 
project, construction of a necessary breakwater, and dredging 
in the bar channel.
    J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, LA.--Funds provided above the 
budget request are for bank stabilization repairs, dredging 
entrances to oxbow lakes, routine operation and maintenance 
activities, annual dredging requirements, and backlog 
maintenance.
    Narraguagus River, ME.--$1,000,000 has been provided for 
the dredging of the Narraguagus River to the authorized depth 
and width.
    Scarborough River, ME.--$500,000 has been provided for the 
dredging of the Scarborough River.
    Saginaw River, MI.--The Committee has included funding to 
initiate preparations for the maintenance dredging of the 
Saginaw River.
    Cocheco River, NH.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$1,000,000 for the construction of the dredge disposal site.
    Delaware River, Philadelphia to Trenton, NJ.--Of the funds 
provided, the Committee has included additional funds for 
needed maintenance dredging.
    Cochiti Lake, NM.--The recommendation includes full funding 
to complete the necessary Environmental Impact Statement work 
regarding the lowering of water levels at Cochiti in response 
to the requirements of the pending biological opinion on the 
Rio Grande. Also funds are included for the alternative Al 
Black area.
    Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea, ND.--The Committee has 
included funding for limited facility improvements and mosquito 
control.
    Alum Creek Lake, OH.--The Committee has included an 
additional $801,000 above the budget request to repair spillway 
gates at Alum Creek Lake.
    Conneaut Harbor, OH.--The Committee has included additional 
funding for the dredging of Conneaut Harbor.
    Robert S. Kerr Lock and Dam, OK.--The Committee has 
included an additional $220,000 above the budget request for 
the repair of the lock's mitre gates.
    Tar Creek, OK.--The Committee is aware of the significant 
environmental, economic, and human health impacts caused by the 
abandoned mining operations in the Tar Creek and Spring River 
watersheds, located in Ottawa County, Oklahoma. The Committee 
is aware of the extent and complexity of the problems which 
require a coordinated effort from multiple Federal, State, 
tribal, and local agencies pursuant to the Memorandum of 
Understanding among the Army Corps of Engineers, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Interior 
signed May 2003. Further, the Committee expects the Corps to 
pursue efforts at Tar Creek as its authorities allow.
    Bonneville Lock and Dam, OR and WA.--Within available 
funds, the Corps should begin repairs to the Washington Shore 
Visitor Center's Fish Viewing Building.
    John Day Lock and Dam, OR and WA.--The Committee has 
provided $500,000 for serious safety repairs for this vital 
link in the Columbia-Snake Waterway system. The Committee 
believes that the budget request does not adequately address 
the serious nature of the problems at this structure and has 
accordingly provided funds above the budget request. The 
problems being experienced at this structure are indicative of 
the way maintenance of structures in the Federal inventory has 
been shortchanged. Timely, adequate maintenance funding would 
have likely prevented the costly measures that must now be 
undertaken to correct the problems. The Committee strongly 
encourages that adequate funding for maintenance be included in 
future budget submissions.
    Tillamook Bay and Bar, OR.--The Committee has included 
$300,000 to begin the repairs in Tillamook Bay.
    Francis E. Walter Dam, PA.--The Committee has included an 
additional $319,000 above the budget request for the needed 
road repair/relocation work.
    Providence River and Harbor, RI.--The Committee has 
included $21,000,000 to continue the Providence River and 
Harbor project, which is the same as the administration's 
request.
    Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, SC.--The Committee has 
included additional funds to complete maintenance dredging from 
Charleston to Winyah Bay began in fiscal year 2003.
    Charleston Harbor, SC.--The Committee has included an 
additional $760,000 above the budget request for the dredging 
of the entrance channel of Charleston Harbor.
    Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux, SD.--The 
Committee notes that Title VI of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999, as amended, requires that funding to 
inventory and stabilize cultural and historic sites along the 
Missouri River in South Dakota, and to carry out the 
terrestrial wildlife habitat programs, shall be provided from 
the Operation and Maintenance account. The Committee has 
provided $5,000,000 to protect cultural resource sites and 
provide funding to the State and Tribes for approved 
restoration and stewardship plans and in compliance with the 
requirements of Title VI, directs the Corps to contract with or 
reimburse the State of South Dakota and affected Tribes to 
carry out these duties.
    Tennessee River, TN.--The Committee expects that of the 
funds provided, $275,000 shall be made available to dredge 
Florence Port, Alabama.
    Denison Dam (Lake Texoma), TX.--The Committee has included 
additional funding for the replacement of gate seals at Denison 
Dam.
    Texas City Ship Channel, TX.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $1,000,000 for maintenance dredging of the Texas City 
Ship Channel.
    Lower Granite Lock and Dam, WA.--The Committee has provided 
$2,074,000 for this project. Within available funds assessments 
and improvements should be undertaken to prepare for the 
Confluence Project in Asotin County, WA.
    Aquatic Nuisance.--The Committee has included an additional 
$300,000 above the budget request for the Corps to address the 
hydrilla at Lake Ouachita, AR and aquatic nuisance on the 
Tangipahoa River, LA.
    Facility Protection.--The Committee has provided 
$13,000,000. The Committee has been informed that this is the 
average annual cost for guards at critical facilities.
    Lewis and Clark Commemoration.--The Committee has provided 
the budget request for the Lewis and Clark Commemoration 
Coordinator. The Committee expects the Corps, within available 
funds, to continue to perform maintenance and repair of the 
recreation facilities related to the Lewis and Clark 
Bicentennial Commemoration. The Committee is aware of the lead-
time required to repair and rehabilitate recreational 
facilities for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Commemoration. 
Therefore, the Corps of Engineers may, within available funds, 
perform maintenance and repair these facilities as is 
considered necessary to accommodate the anticipated visitor 
population.
    Regional Sediment Management Demonstration Program.--
Additional funds have been provided to initiate a demonstration 
project at Benson Beach, WA.
    Removal of Sunken Vessels.--The Committee has included an 
additional $150,000 for the Corps to perform a detailed 
examination of the remains of the vessel ``State of 
Pennsylvania'' located in the Christina River in an effort to 
assess the cost and method of removal to this impediment to 
navigation.

                           REGULATORY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2003....................................    $138,096,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................     144,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     139,000,000

    An appropriation of $139,000,000 is recommended for the 
regulatory program of the Corps of Engineers.
    This appropriation provides for salaries and costs incurred 
administering regulation of activities affecting U.S. waters, 
including wetlands, in accordance with the Rivers and Harbors 
Act of 1899, the Clean Water Act of 1977, and the Marine 
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972.
    The appropriation helps maintain program performance, 
protects important aquatic resources, and supports partnerships 
with States and local communities through watershed planning 
efforts.
    The Committee is aware that in approving the certificate of 
public convenience and necessity for the Islander East Pipeline 
project, the FERC adopted a specific project purpose for the 
pipeline. In the course of its 404 evaluations, the Committee 
understands the Corps may have undertaken to alter that project 
purpose. The Committee directs the Corps to rely exclusively on 
the project purpose as established by the FERC and conduct 
their analysis of alternatives accordingly.
    The Committee urges the Corps to take into account the 
geographical and/or hydrological conditions and criteria 
necessary for determining jurisdiction, including such 
regulatory terms as adjacent, isolated, and tributary while 
formulating its proposed rule which responds to the Supreme 
Court's decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County 
v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers No. 99-1178.

            FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2003....................................    $144,057,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................     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 2004.
    The responsibility for the cleanup of contaminated sites 
under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program was 
transferred to the Army Corps of Engineers in the Fiscal Year 
1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, Public 
Law 105-62.
    FUSRAP is not specifically defined by statute. The program 
was established in 1974 under the broad authority of the Atomic 
Energy Act and, until fiscal year 1998, funds for the cleanup 
of contaminated defense sites had been appropriated to the 
Department of Energy through existing appropriation accounts. 
In appropriating FUSRAP funds to the Corps of Engineers, the 
Committee intended to transfer only the responsibility for 
administration and execution of cleanup activities at eligible 
sites where remediation had not been completed. It did not 
intend to transfer ownership of and accountability for real 
property interests that remain with the Department of Energy.
    The Corps of Engineers has extensive experience in the 
cleanup of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive wastes through its 
work for the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies. 
The Committee always intended for the Corps' expertise be used 
in the same manner for the cleanup of contaminated sites under 
FUSRAP. The Committee expects the Corps to continue programming 
and budgeting for FUSRAP as part of the Corps of Engineers--
Civil program.

                             REVOLVING FUND

Business Process and Computer Modernization

    The Committee is aware that the Corps has undertaken an 
effort to modernize its business processes and systems and 
understands the efficiencies that may be gained through such an 
effort. However, the Committee remains very concerned that, to 
date, the Project Management Business Plan [PMBP] and its 
associated computer modernization (P2) have not been deployed. 
In addition, the Committee is concerned that this effort may be 
outside the realm of expertise and experience possessed within 
the Corps. Further, the Committee is concerned that too much 
emphasis is being placed on the process of their work, and that 
accomplishment of the Corps mission is suffering at the hands 
of developing complicated business processes and upward 
reporting systems that are as yet unproven. By its own 
acknowledgement, it is of utmost importance to the Corps to 
attract and maintain high quality project management expertise. 
Therefore the Committee is greatly concerned that imposing a 
prescriptive project management system will undermine the 
Corps' ability to attract and maintain such expertise. In order 
to ensure that desirable results are achieved, the Committee 
directs the Corps' to provide, within 45 days of enactment of 
this Act, and quarterly thereafter, a progress report on the 
implementation of the Project Management Business Plan [PMBP], 
and computer modernization (P2) to the Committee. The report 
shall include milestones for achieving desired goals, cost 
accounting describing sunk costs and cost to complete, as well 
as results and cost savings realized or expected. 
Notwithstanding the Committees desire to see this effort 
expedited, the Corps is cautioned that the systems should not 
be deployed until they are fully functional, and capable of 
completely serving their intended purposes. Lastly, the 
Committee understands that the Corps has undertaken a survey of 
how the Project Management Business Process is being received 
in the field, and would be very interested in seeing the 
results of that survey.

Replacement of Corps of Engineers Aircraft

    The Committee realizes that reliable and readily available 
transportation is necessary for the Corps of Engineers to 
effectively perform many of its missions, especially those 
related to emergencies, and that the Corps division offices 
support these missions in the geographic regions for which they 
are responsible. The Committee found the report required as 
part of the fiscal year 2003 appropriations activities lacking 
and therefore directs the Corps to re-evaluate the costs and 
benefits of the Corps maintaining its own aircraft. This 
reanalysis must include all other options for air 
transportation, including the use of military aircraft. With 
constricted budgets, the Committee is skeptical that the 
possession and maintenance of an aircraft by any division or 
district is both cost-effective and mission-essential when 
compared to alternatives, such as use of military aircraft and 
leasing. Therefore, the Corps must present to the House and 
Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Energy and Water 
Development a justification that includes a complete and 
thorough economic analysis for approval before any additional 
aircraft are acquired. The Corps is directed to submit, within 
6 months, a justification and economic analysis to support the 
continued maintenance of aircraft by the Corps as an asset.

                            general expenses

Appropriations, 2003....................................    $154,143,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................     171,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     160,000,000

    This appropriation finances the expenses of the Office, 
Chief of Engineers, the Division Offices, and certain research 
and statistical functions of the Corps of Engineers. The 
Committee recommendation is $160,000,000.
    Executive Direction and Management.--The Office of the 
Chief of Engineers and eight division offices supervise work in 
38 district offices.
    Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity.--This support 
center provides administrative services (such as personnel, 
logistics, information management, and finance and accounting) 
for the Office of the Chief of Engineers and other separate 
field operating activities.
    Institute for Water Resources.--This institute performs 
studies and analyses amd develops planning techniques for the 
management and development of the Nation's water resources.
    United States Army Corps of Engineers Finance Center.--This 
center provides centralizes support for all Corps finance and 
accounting sites.
    Office of Congressional Affairs.--The Committee has 
included statutory language for the past several years 
prohibiting any funds from being used to fund an Office of 
Congressional Affairs within the executive office of the Chief 
of Engineers. The Committee believes that an Office of 
Congressional Affairs for the Civil Works Program would hamper 
the efficient and effective coordination of issues with the 
Committee staff and Members of Congress. The Committee believes 
that the technical knowledge and managerial expertise needed 
for the Corps headquarters to effectively address Civil Works 
authorization, appropriation, and Headquarters policy matters 
resides in the Civil Works organization. Therefore the 
Committee strongly recommends that the office of Congressional 
Affairs not be a part of the process by which information on 
Civil Works projects, programs, and activities is provided to 
Congress.
    The Committee reminds the Corps that the General Expenses 
Account is to be used exclusively for executive oversight and 
management of the Civil Works Program.
    In 1998, The Chief of Engineers issued a Command Directive 
transferring the oversight and management of the General 
Expenses account, as well as the manpower associated with this 
function, from the Civil Works Directorate to the Resource 
Management Office. General Expense funds are appropriated 
solely for the executive management and oversight of the Civil 
Works Program under the direction of the Director of Civil 
Works.
    The Committee is pleased with the efforts of the Corps to 
restructure the management of general expense funds. It 
continues to believe that the general expense dollars are 
ultimately at the discretion of the Chief of Engineers and are 
intended to be utilized in his effort to carry out the Corps' 
mission. The new controls put in place to manage the general 
expense dollars and evaluate the needs of the Corps address the 
Committee's previous concerns. The Committee requests the Corps 
provide biannual written notification of the dispersal of 
general expense funds.

General Accounting Office Audit

    The Committee is aware that there has been a change in 
which entity conducts the financial audits of the Army Corps of 
Engineers. Traditionally, audits on the Corps have been 
performed by the Army Audit Agency [AAA] pursuant to the Chief 
Financial Officers Act of 1990. Since fiscal year 1993, AAA has 
audited the Corps' at the direct delegation and oversight of 
the Department of Defense Inspector General, which has 
concurred on each AAA audit of the Corps. The Committee is 
further aware that AAA issued an unqualified opinion of the 
Corps' statements for the Southwest Division in fiscal year 
1997. Disclaimers were received elsewhere within the Corps' 
financial statements that year primarily due to automation of 
the Corps' financial accounting systems. By fiscal year 2000, 
most issues were resolved with regard to the outstanding areas 
of AAA's concerns and in fiscal year 2001, the Corps received a 
qualified opinion on its balance sheets. This was done with the 
full knowledge and concurrence of the Department of Defense 
Inspector General.
    The Committee understands that the fiscal year 2002 audit 
is uncompleted because AAA was abruptly relieved of its audit 
responsibilities of the Corps, now being handled by the 
Department of Defense Inspector General. As a result of this 
change in auditors, the Committee believes it is an opportune 
time to establish a baseline for future audit work of the 
Corps, including audit standards and procedures as required by 
the CFO Act of 1990. Therefore, the Committee requests that a 
full financial audit be conducted by the General Accounting 
Office in an effort to establish a baseline for future audit 
work. This audit is to include the financial evaluation 
information from both the Defense Inspector General that has 
assumed the work of AAA, as well as the work previously 
conducted by AAA. The Committee strongly believes that this 
review will establish transparent goals and measures by which 
future audits of the Corps will be conducted.

Corps Reevaluation and Transformation

    The Committee applauds the Corps' effort of reevaluating 
its functions and responsibilities over the last year. This 
effort has been done both internally and externally within the 
Corps and has included a wide variety of stakeholders. The 
Committee is pleased that the Corps has taken the initiative to 
address the many issues facing them and their stakeholders, 
particularly given the many recent controversies regarding 
cost/benefits analysis of Corps' projects. The Committee 
supports the Corps' efforts to transform itself into a more 
effective, more responsive agency through the ``2012'' 
initiative, and hopes that the Corps will be able to implement 
needed changes. However, until that roadmap is complete, the 
Committee is reluctant to fund the full increase sought for the 
``General Expense'' account. Therefore, the Committee has 
included $160,000,000 for the Corps, an increase over this 
year's budget by $6,000,000, approximately a 4 percent increase 
to cover inflation. The Committee also directs the Corps of 
Engineers to continue with this important effort and report 
regularly to the Committee on the progress made and the 
impediments to change.

                 FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

Appropriations, 2003....................................     $14,902,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................      70,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      40,000,000

    The Committee has included $40,000,000 for the FCCE 
account, $30,000,000 over the previous fiscal year. The funds 
provided are less than the request and have been provided 
without prejudice. The Committee believes that the amount 
provided better reflects the constrained budget environment.
    This account provides funds for preparedness activities for 
natural and other disasters, response, and emergency flood 
fighting and rescue operations, hurricane response, and 
emergency shore protection work. It also provides for emergency 
supplies of clean water where the source has been contaminated 
or where adequate supplies of water are needed for consumption.

                      RAPID DEPLOYMENT FLOOD WALL

    The Committee is aware of the successful testing of the 
Rapid Deployment Flood Wall at the Engineering Research and 
Development Center in Vicksburg, Mississippi. This technology 
has proven to be promising in the effort to fight floods, cost-
effective, quick to deploy and successful in protecting 
property from flood damage, damages which total millions each 
year. The Committee therefore encourages the Corps to pursue 
the use of this technology in its efforts to fighting floods.

             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 which places a limit on credits 
and reimbursements allowable per project and annually.
    Sec. 102. The Committee has included a provision which 
prohibits the reorganization or change of the Corps and its 
statutory mission without a subsequent Act of Congress.
    Sec. 103. The Committee has included a new provision 
regarding the Alamogordo, NM flood control project.
    Sec. 104. The Committee has included a new provision 
regarding the continuing contracts of the General 
Investigations Appropriation.
    Sec. 105. The Committee has provided a new provision making 
technical corrections to the Kake Dam Replacement, Kake, Alaska 
project.
    Sec. 106. The Committee has included a new provision for 
the deauthorization of inactive Corps projects.
    Sec. 107. The Committee has included a general provision 
regarding the deauthorization of some components of the Federal 
Channel in RI.
    Sec. 108. The Committee has included a new provision 
regarding Tar Creek, OK.
    Sec. 109. The $2,000,000 of the Construction, General funds 
appropriated in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Act, 2003, shall be used to provide, technical assistance at 
full Federal expense, to the Alaskan communities of Bethel, 
Dillingham, Shishmaref, Kakatovik, Kivalina, Unalakleet, and 
Newtok to address coastal erosion. Due to rapid erosion in 
Shishmaref, $1,000,000 of the technical assistance should be 
provided to that community.
    Sec. 110. The Committee has included a new provision 
regarding the American and Sacramento Rivers, CA project.
    The bill includes language in Section 111 which directs 
that none of the funds made available in fiscal year 2002 may 
be used to carry out any activity relating to closure or 
removal of the St. Georges Bridge across the Intracoastal 
Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, Delaware and 
Maryland.
    Sec. 112. The Committee has included language extending the 
date for which the Corps can except funds from non-Federal 
entities to process permits.
    Sec. 113. The Committee has included a provision regarding 
Sec. 353 of Public Law 105-227.
    Sec. 114. The Committee has included a new provision 
regarding special authority for emergency project restoration.
    Sec. 115. Amends Sec. 595 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999.
    Sec. 116. The Committee has included a provision regarding 
PMA receipts.

                  TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                Central Utah Project Completion Account

Appropriations, 2003....................................     $35,992,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................      44,191,000
Committee recommendation................................      44,191,000

    The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2004 to carry 
out the provisions of the Central Utah Project Completion Act 
totals $44,191,000. An appropriation of $36,063,000 has been 
provided for Central Utah project construction; $9,423,000 for 
fish, wildlife, and recreation, mitigation and conservation. 
The Committee recommendation provides $1,728,000 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, 2003....................................    $808,203,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................     771,217,000
Committee recommendation................................     853,517,000

    An appropriation of $853,517,000 is recommended by the 
Committee for general investigations of the Bureau of 
Reclamation. The water and related resources account supports 
the development, management, and restoration of water and 
related natural resources in the 17 Western States. The account 
includes funds for operating and maintaining existing 
facilities to obtain the greatest overall level of benefits, to 
protect public safety, and to conduct studies on ways to 
improve the use of water and related natural resources. Work 
will be done in partnership and cooperation with non-Federal 
entities and other Federal agencies.

                   BUDGET LIMITATIONS AND REDUCTIONS

    Constrained spending limits have made it difficult for the 
Committee to formulate a balanced Energy and Water Development 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004. In order to adhere to 
the subcommittee's allocations, address the critical ongoing 
activities, correct program imbalances contained in the 
President's fiscal year 2004 budget, and respond to the 
numerous requests of the Members, the Committee finds it 
necessary to recommend numerous 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 is concerned with the way in which 
underfinancing is applied to the Water and Related Resources 
Account. Accordingly, the Committee has made changes to the 
Water and Related Resources line item for underfinancing. The 
Committee has divided underfinancing between the Resources 
Management Subaccount and the Facilities Operation and 
Maintenance Subaccount. The Committee directs that the 
underfinancing amount in each subaccount initially be applied 
uniformly across all projects within the subaccounts. Upon 
applying the underfinanced amounts, normal reprogramming 
procedures should be undertaken to account for schedule 
slippages, accelerations or other unforeseen conditions.
    The amounts recommended by the Committee are shown on the 
following table along with the budget request.

                       BUILDING AND SITE SECURITY

    The Committee is aware of the heightened threat of 
terrorist activity since the events of September 11, 2001, and 
the subsequent financial burden this places on the Bureau of 
Reclamation in managing the security of the many public assets 
and critical infrastructure within its control. In order to 
offset some of the financial burden of the Bureau, the 
Committee provided $25,000,000 in the fiscal year 2003 
supplemental appropriations' bill to defray some of these 
costs, which were not included in the Bureau's fiscal year 2003 
budget request. The Committee encourages the Administration to 
include funding for specific security related costs in future 
budget submissions for the Bureaus, as many of these costs are 
recurring.

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

AK CHIN INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT..............  ..........       5,743  ..........       5,743
CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT, COLORADO RIVER BASIN...................      34,009          78      34,009          78
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT, TITLE I..........         751      10,499         751      10,499
COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE SYSTEM......................       3,500  ..........       4,250  ..........
FORT MCDOWELL SETTLEMENT ACT....................................       1,000  ..........       1,000  ..........
NORTHERN ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.........................         325  ..........         325  ..........
PHOENIX METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROJ...........         250  ..........         250  ..........
SALT RIVER PROJECT..............................................          87  ..........          87  ..........
SOUTHERN ARIZONA WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJ...............       4,017  ..........       4,017  ..........
SOUTH/CENTRAL ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM....................         775  ..........         775  ..........
TRES RIOS WETLANDS DEMONSTRATION................................         630  ..........         630  ..........
TUCSON AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE STUDY...................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
YUMA AREA PROJECTS..............................................       1,552      21,120       1,552      21,120

                           CALIFORNIA

CACHUMA PROJECT.................................................         751         665         751         665
CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAMS..............................         215  ..........         215  ..........
CALLEGUAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT RECYCLING PROJECT............         700  ..........         700  ..........
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT:
    AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION.....................................       1,966       7,033       1,966       7,033
    AUBURN-FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT....................................       9,899         100       9,899         100
    DELTA DIVISION..............................................      10,039       6,041      11,539       6,041
    EAST SIDE DIVISION..........................................       1,465       2,450       1,465       2,450
    FRIANT DIVISION.............................................       2,393       3,782       3,143       3,782
    MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS..............................      13,284       1,087      18,784       1,087
    REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND EXTRAORDINARY MAINT............  ..........      24,000  ..........      18,000
    SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION...................................       4,215       1,808       6,715       1,808
    SAN FELIPE DIVISION.........................................         745  ..........         745  ..........
    SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION........................................         383  ..........         383  ..........
    SHASTA DIVISION.............................................         831       7,134       1,581       7,134
    TRINITY RIVER DIVISION......................................       7,616       2,970       7,616       2,970
    WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS..................................       1,800      11,076       1,800      11,076
    WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS UNIT....................      40,437       6,538      11,437       6,538
    YIELD FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION.............................       1,000  ..........       1,000  ..........
LAKE TAHOE REGIONAL WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT........................         200  ..........       1,500  ..........
LONG BEACH AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROJECT.............       1,100  ..........       1,100  ..........
LONG BEACH DESALINATION RESEARCH/DEVELOPMENT PROJ...............  ..........  ..........         700  ..........
MISSION BASIN BRACKISH GROUNDWATER DESALTING DEMO...............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
NAPA-SOMOMA-MARIN AGRICULTURAL REUSE PROJECT....................  ..........  ..........         500  ..........
NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY AREA WATER RECYCLING PROJECT.............       1,300  ..........       1,300  ..........
ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL WTR RECLAMATION PROJ, PHS 1..............       1,300  ..........       2,500  ..........
ORLAND PROJECT..................................................          41         445          41         445
PASADENA RECLAIMED WATER PROJECT................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT.....................................       1,000  ..........       2,000  ..........
SAN DIEGO AREA WATER RECLAMATION PROGRAM........................       4,300  ..........       4,300  ..........
SAN DIEGO RIVER RESTORATION.....................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
SAN GABRIEL BASIN PROJECT.......................................       1,300  ..........       1,300  ..........
SAN GABRIEL BASIN RESTORATION PROJECT...........................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
SAN JOSE WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM....................       1,000  ..........       1,000  ..........
SOLANO PROJECT..................................................       1,522       2,693       1,522       2,693
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM......................       1,135  ..........       1,135  ..........
WATSONVILLE AREA WATER RECYCLING PROJECT........................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
VENTURA RIVER PROJECT...........................................         529  ..........         529  ..........

                            COLORADO

ANIMAS-LA PLATA PROJECT, CRSP SECTIONS 5 AND 8..................      58,000  ..........      57,000  ..........
COLLBRAN PROJECT................................................         184       1,513         184       1,513
COLORADO--BIG THOMPSON PROJECT..................................          12      10,198          12      10,198
COLORADO--BIG THOMPSON PROJECT--HORSETOOTH DAM..................  ..........       3,153  ..........       3,153
COLORADO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.................................          77  ..........          77  ..........
GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II.............................         206         546         206         546
PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II...........................          52       2,050          52       2,050
FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT........................................          69         145          69         145
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT......................................  ..........       5,443         200       5,443
LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY...............................         593       1,838         593       1,838
MANCOS PROJECT..................................................          88          57          88          57
PINE RIVER PROJECT..............................................         141         113         141         113
SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT.........................................         356       4,237         356       4,237
UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT.............................................         181         124         181         124

                             HAWAII

HAWAIIAN RECLAIM AND REUSE STUDY................................  ..........  ..........         100  ..........

                              IDAHO

BOISE AREA PROJECTS.............................................       2,637       4,047       2,637       4,047
COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY PROJECT................      19,000  ..........      19,000  ..........
DRAIN WATER MANAGEMENT STUDY, BOISE.............................         200  ..........         200  ..........
IDAHO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM....................................         580  ..........         580  ..........
MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS..........................................       3,459       2,041       3,459       2,041
MINIDOKA NORTHSIDE DRAIN WATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT...............         200  ..........         200  ..........

                             KANSAS

KANSAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...................................         143  ..........         143  ..........
WICHITA PROJECT.................................................           7         208           7         208

                             MONTANA

FORT PECK PRAIRIE RURAL WATER SYSTEM............................  ..........  ..........       8,000  ..........
HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT............................................  ..........       1,056  ..........       1,056
MILK RIVER PROJECT..............................................       1,045         558       1,045         558
MONTANA INVESTIGATIONS..........................................         533  ..........         533  ..........
ROCKY BOY'S/NORTH CENTRAL REGIONAL WATER, MT....................  ..........  ..........         915  ..........

                          NORTH DAKOTA

DAKOTAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM..................................         223  ..........         223  ..........
DAKOTAS TRIBES INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...........................         326  ..........         326  ..........
PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN PROGRAM, GARRISON DIVERSION...........      13,928       3,386      25,000       3,386

                            NEBRASKA

MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT............................................  ..........          58  ..........          58
NEBRASKA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.................................         191  ..........         191  ..........

                           NEW MEXICO

ALBUQUERQUE METRO AREA WATER AND RECLAMATION REUSE..............  ..........  ..........       1,362  ..........
CARLSBAD PROJECT................................................       2,036       1,056       2,036       1,056
CONCHAS PROJECT STUDY...........................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
EASTERN NEW MEXICO WATER SUPPLY.................................  ..........  ..........         250  ..........
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT.......................................       6,467      10,921      13,567      20,921
NAVAJO NATION INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM............................         300  ..........         300  ..........
NAVAJO-GALLUP WATER SUPPLY PROJECT..............................         391  ..........         391  ..........
PECOS RIVER BASIN WATER SALVAGE PROJECT.........................  ..........         127  ..........         327
RIO GRANDE PROJECT..............................................         796       3,186         796       3,186
SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.....................         179  ..........         179  ..........
SANTA FE--WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROJECT...................  ..........  ..........         250  ..........
SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO/WEST TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS PROG..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
TUCUMCARI PROJECT...............................................         104           4         104           4
UPPER RIO GRANDE BASIN INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........

                             NEVADA

CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS WATER REUSE, NV.........................  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........
HALFWAY WASH PROJECT STUDY......................................         100  ..........         600  ..........
LAHONTAN BASIN PROJECT (HUMBOLT, NEWLANDS, WASHOE)..............       6,467       2,446       6,467       2,446
LAKE MEAD/LAS VEGAS WASH PROGRAM................................       1,408  ..........       1,408  ..........
SOUTHERN NEVADA WATER RECYCLING PROJECT.........................  ..........  ..........       3,000  ..........

                            OKLAHOMA

ARBUCKLE PROJECT................................................  ..........         205         700         205
MCGEE CREEK PROJECT.............................................  ..........         460  ..........         460
MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT...........................................  ..........         267  ..........         267
NORMAN PROJECT..................................................         250         176         250         176
NORTH FORK OF THE RED RIVER PROJECT.............................  ..........  ..........         150  ..........
OKLAHOMA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.................................         188  ..........         188  ..........
W.C. AUSTIN PROJECT.............................................  ..........         314  ..........         314
WASHITA BASIN PROJECT...........................................  ..........         887  ..........         887

                             OREGON

CROOKED RIVER PROJECT...........................................         212         465         212         465
DESCHUTES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT.........................         500  ..........         750  ..........
DESCHUTES PROJECT...............................................         418         155         418         155
DESCHUTES PROJECT, TUMALO, BEND FEED CANAL......................  ..........  ..........         500  ..........
DESCHUTES PROJECT, WICKIUP DAM..................................  ..........       3,000  ..........       3,000
EASTERN OREGON PROJECTS.........................................         781         280         781         280
GRANDE RONDE WATER OPTIMIZATION STUDY...........................         100  ..........         100  ..........
KLAMATH PROJECT.................................................      20,041         776      20,041         776
OREGON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...................................         620  ..........         620  ..........
ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, SAVAGE RAPIDS PUMPING PLNTS..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT DIVISION......................         554         172         554         172
TUALATIN PROJECT................................................         287         127         287         127
TUALATIN VALLEY WATER SUPPLY FEASIBILITY STUDY..................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
UMATILLA BASIN PROJECT, PHASE III STUDY.........................         200  ..........         400  ..........
UMATILLA PROJECT................................................         601       2,101         601       2,101
WILLOW LAKE NATURAL TREATMENT SYSTEM, OR........................  ..........  ..........         300  ..........

                          SOUTH DAKOTA

LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER PROJECT.............................  ..........  ..........      20,000  ..........
MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT..................................       2,000          15      15,000          15
MNI WICONI PROJECT..............................................       6,717       6,254      20,217       6,254
PERKINS COUNTY RURAL WATER DISTRICT.............................  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........
RAPID VALLEY PROJECT, DEERFIELD DAM.............................  ..........          28  ..........          28

                              TEXAS

AUSTIN WATER RECLAMATION PROJECT................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
BALMORHEA PROJECT...............................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT..........................................  ..........         117  ..........         117
EL PASO WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE.............................  ..........  ..........         371  ..........
LEON CREEK QUARRY/MITCHELL LAKE WATER REUSE PROJECT.............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY WATER RESOURCES.........................  ..........  ..........       6,000  ..........
NUECES RIVER....................................................  ..........         536  ..........         536
SAN ANGELO PROJECT..............................................  ..........         276  ..........         276
TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM....................................         202  ..........         202  ..........

                              UTAH

HYRUM PROJECT...................................................         128          62         128          62
MOON LAKE PROJECT...............................................          45          15          45          15
NAVAJO SANDSTONE AQUIFER RECHARGE STUDY.........................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
NEWTON PROJECT..................................................          61          24          61          24
NORTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM............................         280  ..........         280  ..........
OGDEN RIVER PROJECT.............................................         373          40         373          40
PROVO RIVER PROJECT.............................................         843         355         843         355
SCOFIELD PROJECT................................................         121          66         121          66
SOUTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM............................         300  ..........         300  ..........
STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT.......................................         198           7         198           7
WEBER BASIN PROJECT.............................................       1,650         431       1,650         431
WEBER RIVER PROJECT.............................................          87          63          87          63

                           WASHINGTON

COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT..........................................       4,547       4,435       4,547       4,435
LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM WATER SUPPLY FEASIBILITY STUDY..............          25  ..........         100  ..........
MAKAH INDIAN COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY FEASIBILITY.................          25  ..........         200  ..........
SALMON CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION, WA..........................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
STORAGE DAM FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY......................         550  ..........         550  ..........
TULALIP TRIBES WATER QUALITY FEASIBILITY STUDY..................          50  ..........         150  ..........
WASHINGTON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...............................         525  ..........         525  ..........
YAKIMA PROJECT..................................................       1,179       6,066       1,179       6,066
YAKIMA PROJECT, KEECHELUS DAM, SOD..............................  ..........       3,700  ..........       3,700
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT....................      12,730  ..........      12,730  ..........
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE................................  ..........  ..........         500  ..........

                             WYOMING

KENDRICK PROJECT................................................           6       4,048           6       4,048
NORTH PLATTE PROJECT............................................          10       1,038          10       1,038
SHOSHONE PROJECT................................................          10       1,193          10       1,193
WYOMING INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM..................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........

                             VARIOUS

COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT, TITLE I..........       9,198  ..........       9,198  ..........
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, (CRSP), SECTION 5...............       7,553       2,469       7,553       2,469
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, SECTION 8.......................       4,914  ..........       3,992  ..........
COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM................         450  ..........         450  ..........
DAM SAFETY PROGRAM:
    DEPARTMENT DAM SAFETY PROGRAM...............................  ..........       1,700  ..........       1,700
    INITIATE SOD CORRECTIVE ACTION..............................  ..........      40,900  ..........      40,900
    SAFETY EVALUATION OF EXISTING DAMS..........................  ..........      18,000  ..........      18,000
    SAFETY OF DAMS CORRECTIVE ACTION STUDIES....................  ..........         500  ..........         500
DEPARTMENTAL IRRIGATION DRAINAGE PROGRAM........................       2,623  ..........       3,623  ..........
DROUGHT EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE....................................       1,120  ..........       3,120  ..........
EFFICIENCY INCENTIVES PROGRAM...................................       3,265  ..........       3,265  ..........
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND DISASTER RESPONSE PROGRAM................  ..........         450  ..........         450
ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION......................      13,371  ..........      13,371  ..........
ENVIRONMENTAL AND INTERAGENCY COORDINATION ACTIVITIES...........       1,804  ..........       1,804  ..........
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION............................       1,483  ..........       1,483  ..........
EXAMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES..............................  ..........       5,521  ..........       5,521
FEDERAL BUILDING SEISMIC SAFETY PROGRAM.........................  ..........       1,575  ..........       1,575
GENERAL PLANNING STUDIES........................................       1,989  ..........       2,089  ..........
INITIATIVES.....................................................      11,000  ..........       7,400  ..........
LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM...............................       8,994  ..........       8,994  ..........
LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM..............................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM.........................      13,822  ..........      13,822  ..........
LOWER COLORADO RIVER INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.....................         325  ..........         325  ..........
MISCELLANEOUS FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS..........................  ..........         639  ..........         639
NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION...........................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM.................................       8,600  ..........       8,600  ..........
NEGOTIATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF WATER MARKETING...............       1,571  ..........       1,571  ..........
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT....................         344       1,029         344       1,029
PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN PROGRAM, OTHER PROJECTS...............       2,998      34,709       2,998      34,709
POWER PROGRAM SERVICES..........................................         991         250       1,241         250
PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY PROGRAM................................         565  ..........         565  ..........
RECLAMATION LAW ADMINISTRATION..................................       4,491  ..........       4,491  ..........
RECLAMATION RECREATION MANAGEMENT...............................       2,800  ..........       2,800  ..........
RECREATION AND FISH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM ADMIN..................       1,720  ..........       1,720  ..........
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM:
    ADVANCED WATER TREATMENT DESALINATION PROGRAM...............       2,000  ..........       2,000  ..........
    APPLIED SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT..................       4,190  ..........       4,190  ..........
    DESALINATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM...............         775  ..........       7,375  ..........
    HYDROELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION/ENHANCE.............         990  ..........         990  ..........
    TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT......................................         350  ..........         350  ..........
    WATERSHED/RIVER SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM..................       1,000  ..........       1,000  ..........
SITE SECURITY...................................................  ..........      28,583  ..........      28,583
SOIL AND MOISTURE CONSERVATION..................................         267  ..........         267  ..........
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO STATES..................................       1,908  ..........       1,908  ..........
TITLE XVI, WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM..................       1,430  ..........       3,130  ..........
UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER ISSUES--TECHNICAL SUPPORT...........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PROGRAM.......................       6,639  ..........       6,639  ..........
WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT............................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
UNDISTRIBUTED REDUCTION BASED ON ANTICIP DELAYS.................     -40,030  ..........     -38,945      -7,133
RESCISSION......................................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
                                                                 ===============================================
      TOTAL, WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES........................     422,965     348,252     508,198     345,319
                                                                 ===============================================
                          LOAN PROGRAM

                             VARIOUS

LOAN ADMINISTRATION.............................................         200  ..........         200  ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Colorado River Front Work and Levee System, AZ.--The 
Committee has included an additional $750,000 for the All 
American Canal Regulating Reservoir under the Colorado River 
Front Work and Levee System.
    Tres Rios Wetland Demonstration, AZ.--An amount of $630,000 
has been provided for the Bureau for the Tres Rios Wetland 
Demonstration program. The Committee strongly supports this 
cost shared effort, and believes it is important that this 
wetland habitat and environmental research and development 
activities continue. This program provides essential data 
needed to support the development and success of the larger 
Tres Rios environmental restoration project, and the Rio Salado 
project being carried out by the Army Corps of Engineers.
    Colusa Basin Integrated Resources Management Plan, CVP, 
Sacramento River Division, CA.--The Committee has provided 
$400,000 for the completion of the feasibility study.
    Glen Colusa Fish Screen, CVP, Sacramento River Division, 
CA.--The Committee has provided an additional $1,600,000 the 
fish screen project.
    Arkansas Valley Conduit, CO.--The Committee has included an 
additional $200,000 to continue the reevaluation report. The 
Committee supports these efforts but believes that the project 
needs appropriate review by the authorizing committee, in 
particular, the Committee notes that the project, if 
authorized, should follow the standard Reclamation policy of an 
M&I project of the beneficiaries paying 100 percent of the 
allocated costs.
    Carter Lake, CO.--The Committee is aware of the issues 
surrounding the Carter Lake, CO project and encourages the 
Bureau to continue working with the conservancy district.
    Hawaii Resources Study, HI.--The Committee has included 
$100,000 for water recycling opportunities in the State of 
Hawaii.
    Fort Peck/Dry Prairie Rural Water System, MT.--The 
Committee has included $8,000,000 for the continued 
construction of this mandated rural water delivery project. The 
Committee remains disappointed that the administration, despite 
the fact the project is in peak construction, chose not to 
budget for this project. The Committee understands that the 
Final Engineering Report is to sit before Congress 90 days 
before construction and that due to the delays within the 
fiscal year 2003 enactment, there was a reduced capability. The 
Committee expects that those funds will be made available for 
this project when needed, as intended by Congress.
    Rocky Boy's/North Central Regional Water System, MT.--The 
Committee has included $915,000 for this project. The funds are 
provided to allow for completion of the Final Engineering 
Report, NEPA compliance documents, and a Water Conservation 
Plan for the system.
    Garrison Diversion Unit, ND.--The Committee has provided 
$28,386,000 for the continued construction and operation of 
this project. This funding level should in no way be considered 
any diminution of interest or support for the project, but 
instead reflects the very limited resources of the Committee.
    Middle Rio Grande Project, NM.--The Committee is aware of 
the current drought situation and the recent court decision 
relating to the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow. As a result of the 
decision, the Committee has determined that the ESA Workgroup, 
though well intentioned, has not produced the much needed 
results to further efforts to meet the Biological Opinion 
requirements. Therefore, the Committee has only provided 
$7,000,000 for this effort this year and has also included a 
new general provision which provides for increased oversight of 
the Workgroup and minnow efforts. Of the $7,000,000 provided, 
the Bureau of Reclamation is to fund the following activities: 
silvery minnow population management, fish passage activities, 
non-native species management, water management activities, and 
improvement of water quality. Prior to the obligation of funds, 
the Bureau is to submit the funding levels for each category, 
accompanied by a detailed spending plan, to the Committee for 
approval. The Committee reiterates that the cost-share 
requirements for this program are 75 percent Federal/25 percent 
non-Federal. The Committee has also included $100,000 for the 
Isleta Pueblo water planning studies.
    Middle Rio Grande Project, Endangered Species Collaborative 
Program, NM.--The Committee is concerned that efforts on the 
part of the Endangered Species Act Collaborative Program 
Workgroup (Workgroup) have been protracted and inefficient. To 
that end, the Committee calls for the Secretary of the 
Interior, acting through the Commissioner of the Bureau of 
Reclamation and the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, 
to establish an executive committee for purposes of 
streamlining and expediting the efforts of the Workgroup. For 
fiscal year 2004, the Committee requires that a detailed 
spending plan be submitted for approval prior to appropriated 
funds being obligated or expended. The Committee further 
requests that the Bureau of Reclamation and the Fish and 
Wildlife Service, within 45 days of enactment of this Act, 
appraise the current composition, structure, and decision-
making processes of the Workgroup, identify any impediments to 
its' efficiency, and report back to the Committee with a 
remedial plan of improvement. Support of future appropriations 
by the Committee will be largely contingent on the success 
demonstrated by the executive committee in achieving the 
desired improvements.
    Middle Rio Grande Project, Middle Rio Grande Levees, NM.--
The Committee has provided an additional $10,000,000 for the 
repair of the Middle Rio Grande levees, work began in fiscal 
year 2003.
    Pecos River Basin Water Supply Salvage Project, NM.--The 
Committee is aware that the Bureau of Reclamation carries out 
the Pecos River Basin Water Supply Salvage project in 
collaboration with the State of New Mexico. The Committee 
directs that the Bureau of Reclamation, within funds 
appropriated for the Facilities and Maintenance and 
Rehabilitation, not to provide less than $200,000 for this 
eradication effort. Finally, the Committee is pleased that the 
Bureau and the State of New Mexico have forged a good working 
relationship with regard to the contentious issues relating to 
the Pecos River.
    Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer, OK.--The Committee has included 
$700,000 to continue Phase One of the investigation assessing 
the hydrology of the aquifer and the future management of water 
resources.
    North Fork of the Red River, OK.--The Committee has 
provided $150,000 to expand the scope of the current W.C. 
Austin Water Availability Study to develop a groundwater flow 
model on the North Fork of the Red River drainage and to 
investigate potential opportunities for augmenting water 
supply.
    Deschutes Project, Tumalo, Bend Feed Canal, OR.--The 
Committee has included $500,000 for the continued construction 
of this project.
    Umatilla Basin Phase III Feasibility Study, OR.--The 
Committee has included an additional $200,000 for the Bureau to 
evaluate the feasibility of several options for improving water 
quality and instream flows.
    Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, SD.--The Committee has 
provided $20,000,000 for this continuing construction project. 
The Committee is disappointed that the administration has 
chosen not to request funding for this project, despite that it 
is in peak construction. The Committee urges the administration 
to budget for this project more responsibly in the future.
    Mid-Dakota Rural Water System, SD.--The Committee has 
included $15,000,000 for this continuing construction project.
    Mni Wiconi Project, SD.--The Committee has provided 
$20,217,000 for this continuing construction project. This 
funding level should in no way be considered any diminution of 
interest or support for the project, but instead reflects the 
very limited resources of the Committee.
    El Paso Water Reclaim and Reuse Project, TX.--The Committee 
has included $371,000 for this continued project.
    Lower Rio Grande Valley Water Resources, TX.--The Committee 
has included $6,000,000 for the Bureau to begin the 
implementation of cost sharing agreements.
    Columbia Basin Project, WA.--Of the funds provided, 
$250,000 is for the final design of Phase 2 of the Icicle Creek 
Restoration project.
    Yakima River Basin Water Storage Study, WA.--The Committee 
has provided $500,000 for the continued feasibility study, 
which was not in the administration's budget request.
    Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project: Title I.--
The Committee is concerned that the Bureau of Reclamation is 
having to make excess releases of more than 100,000 acre feet 
of water per year from storage in Colorado River reservoirs in 
order to meet the delivery requirements of the Mexican Water 
Treaty. This loss of water has become particularly acute due to 
the drought in the Colorado River Basin, and the loss of more 
than 100,000 acre feet per year depletes all seven Basin States 
of badly needed water.
    Title I of the Salinity Control Act of 1974 to implement 
the agreement with Mexico, known as Minute 242, identified 
construction of the Yuma Desalting Plant as the solution 
preferred by the United States, Mexico, and the seven Colorado 
River Basin States.
    The Bureau of Reclamation is urged to expedite its 
modifications to the existing Yuma Desalting Plant to 
accomplish state of the art operation and accelerate the 
permitting and environmental compliance process for the 
operation of the Plant and report the status to the Committee 
within 180 days of enactment of this Act.
    Departmental Irrigation Drainage Program.--The Committee 
has included an additional $750,000 for the Uncompahgre, CO 
selenium project, and an additional $250,000 for the completion 
of the Stewart Lake/Middle Green River, UT selenium project.
    Drought Emergency Assistance Program.--The Committee has 
provided an additional $1,000,000 for drought assistance to the 
Navajo Nation, NM; and $1,000,000 for the completion of the 
emergency wells in Santa Fe, NM and within the funds 
appropriated for drought emergency assistance, the Committee 
urges the agency to provide full and fair consideration of the 
request for drought assistance from the State of Hawaii. The 
Committee understands the impacts of the significant drought 
which has lasted several years in the West, and has provided 
additional funds for drought assistance in an effort to 
mitigate some effects of the drought.
    General Planning Studies.--The Committee has included an 
additional $100,000 for the continuation of the Arch Hurley 
Water Conservation Study, NM.
    Western Water Initiative.--The dire drought the West is 
currently experiencing, combined with an unprecedented number 
of water users and endangered species and related requirements, 
make water use efficiencies more critical than ever. The 
Committee has provided $7,400,000 for this new initiative 
proposed by the administration. The Committee regrets that it 
could not fully fund this effort and the reduction does not 
reflect the Committee's strong support for this effort but 
instead its budget constraints. The initiative is an effort to 
enhance efficiency and performance in water and power delivery. 
Ultimately, the Committee believes that the initiative, if 
successfully carried out, will result in enhanced efficiency in 
the operation of Reclamation programs and projects. Of the 
funds provided $1,400,000 is for the Desert Research Institute 
to address water quality and environmental issues in ways that 
will bring industry and regulators to mutually acceptable 
answers.
    The Committee believes that the water resource and 
efficiency issues, combined with the drought and endangered 
species listings, make the Rio Grande River in New Mexico the 
embodiment of the Western Water Initiative. Therefore, the 
Committee has included $2,000,000 to provide for efficiency and 
water improvements related to the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy 
district, including a system evaluation, siphons, flow 
measurement gages, gates and the automation of diversions.
    Power Program Services.--The Committee has included an 
additional $250,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to evaluate a 
pilot project to optimize the production of hydropower from the 
Colorado River Storage Project.
    Science and Technology, Desalination Research and 
Development Program.--The Committee has included an additional 
$6,600,000 for desalination efforts for research and 
development of new, advanced technologies to create new 
additional water supplies using desalination and related 
technologies. The Commissioner is directed to assess the 
potential use of advanced water treatment technologies as a 
resource to create new net water supplies and to evaluate 
project benefits, economic values and environmental effects. 
Further, the Commissioner should identify resource needs that 
can be met through these technologies and inter-party 
transfers, and to identify obstacles to be overcome (physical, 
financial, institutional, and regulatory). In using the funds 
provided, the Bureau shall pay particular attention to research 
and development of shallow well pretreatment, brine disposal 
and recycling, micro-filtration and ultra-filtration, and water 
conditioning. Further, the Committee continues to urge the 
Bureau of Reclamation to place a higher priority on 
desalination activities in future budgets given the importance 
of sustainable water supplies to the West and to other regions 
of the country.
    Of the funds provided, $4,000,000 is for the continuation 
of the project in Tularosa, NM. The Committee notes that, with 
regard to the Tularosa Basin National Desalination Research 
Center, section 7 of the Water Desalination Act of 1996 does 
not apply to the project because it is a joint Federal effort. 
In addition, $2,600,000 is provided to further desalination 
research and development activities of the Bureau.
    Title XVI, Water Reclamation and Reuse.--The Committee has 
included $500,000 in additional funds for the Alamogordo, NM 
desalination study.
    The Committee has also included $1,000,000 in additional 
funds for the WateReuse Foundation. The funds shall be 
available to support the Foundation's research priorities.
    The Committee recommends $200,000 for the Bureau to work 
with local authorities in Hawaii to investigate and identify 
opportunities for reclamation and reuse of municipal, 
industrial, domestic, and agricultural wastewater, and 
naturally occurring impaired ground and surface waters and to 
design and construct demonstration and permanent facilities to 
reclaim and reuse such waters.
    Water Management and Conservation Program.--Within the 
funds provided, the Committee has provided $500,000 to continue 
urban water conservation programs within the service area of 
the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and 
$200,000 for the Bureau to initiate a cost shared, industrial 
recirculation water efficiency study to determine the benefits 
and liabilities related to recirculating water use by 
industries in Southern California to conserve water.

                CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

Appropriations, 2003....................................     $48,586,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................      39,600,000
Committee recommendation................................      39,600,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $39,600,000, 
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 RESTORATION

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2003....................................................
Budget estimate, 2004...................................     $15,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................

    This account funds activities that are consistent with the 
CALFED Bay-Delta Program, a collaborative effort involving 18 
State and Federal Agencies and representatives of California's 
urban, agricultural, and environmental communities. The goals 
of the program are to improve fish and wildlife habitat, water 
supply reliability, and water quality in the San Francisco Bay-
San Joaquin River Delta, the principle hub of California's 
water distribution system.
    The CALFED Program was established in May 1995, for the 
purpose of developing a comprehensive, long-term solution to 
the complex and inter-related 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.
    Absent authorizing legislation, the Committee has 
recommended no funding under the California Bay-Delta Ecosystem 
Restoration Project. In order to support the efforts of the 
State of California to provide a safe, clean water supply and 
improve the environment, the Committee has provided funds for 
previously authorized studies under the Central Valley Project. 
These studies will support and further the goals of the overall 
CALFED Program until such time as the California Bay-Delta 
Ecosystem Restoration Project is reauthorized.
    The Committee has provided an additional $7,500,000 over 
the budget request for the Central Valley Project. Additional 
funds to support the goals of CALFED are provided as follows:

                         CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT

                      ENVIRONMENTAL WATER ACCOUNT

    Miscellaneous Project Programs.--$1,000,000 to acquire 
water and ground water storage.

                   PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

    Delta Division Oversight.--$500,000 to continue 
coordination, administration, planning, performance tracking 
and science activities in coordination with CALFED Program 
Implementation Plan.

                                STORAGE

    Delta Division.--$1,000,000 for Reclamation to continue 
participating in planning and study activities associated with 
enlarging Los Vaqueros reservoir.
    Friant Division.--$750,000 to continue storage 
investigations in the Upper San Joaquin Watershed.
    Sacramento River Division.--$500,000 to continue planning 
and study activities for Sites reservoir.
    Shasta Division.--$750,000 to continue evaluating the 
potential impacts of the proposed Shasta raise.

                               CONVEYANCE

    Miscellaneous Project Programs.--$1,000,000 for the 
continuation of feasibility levels studies and technical 
assistance to the State of California; $1,000,000 for the 
Bureau for the administration of storage, conveyance, water use 
efficiency, ecosystem restoration, science and water transfer; 
$1,000,000 for the environmental water account.

                       POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2003....................................     $54,513,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................      56,525,000
Committee recommendation................................      56,525,000

    The Committee recommendation for general administrative 
expenses is $56,525,000. 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.
    Endangered Species Requirements.--The Committee is aware 
that the Bureau of Reclamation is facing increasing costs for 
endangered species requirements which currently are not tracked 
nor reflected in the Bureau's budget documents. The Committee 
believes that these costs are dramatically increasing each year 
as the listing of species grows, however the Bureau's budget 
submission, in most instances, does not necessarily reflect 
these costs. Since there is no specific account or activity 
related to the general ESA efforts the Bureau carries out, 
these increasing costs erode the base funding of the budget, 
something which needs to be addressed. Therefore, the Committee 
requests that the Bureau of Reclamation, within 9 months of 
enactment of this Act, is to provide the Committee with a 
report which contains a cost accounting of the ESA expenditures 
the Bureau bears as it carries out its mission. The Committee 
is interested in both costs that are carried in the Water and 
Related Resources account as well as the OM&R account.
    Contracting Out.--The Committee continues to be committed 
to increasing the contracting out of the Bureau's functions 
which are reasonably done in the private sector, particularly 
planning, engineering and design work. However, the Committee 
also believes that some Federal capability is necessary and 
needs to be maintained. The Committee is pleased that the 
Bureau made the 10 percent target for fiscal year 2003, and 
looks forward to working with the Commissioner to further the 
administration's initiative in this area with regards to the 
Bureau.

             GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

    Section 201. The Committee has included a continuing 
provision regarding the Indian Self Determination Act and the 
Bureau of Reclamation.
    Section 202 of the bill includes language regarding the San 
Luis Unit and the Kesterson Reservoir in California.
    Section 203 of the bill includes language that States 
requirements for purchase or lease of water from the Middle Rio 
Grande or Carlsbad Projects, New Mexico.
    Section 204 of the bill includes language concerning 
Drought Emergency Assistance.
    Section 205. The Committee has included a new general 
provision regarding ESA requirements on the Rio Grande River, 
NM.
    Section 206. The Committee has included a new general 
provision which reforms the ESA Collaborative Workgroup.
    Section 207. The Committee has included a new general 
provision regarding the cost-sharing on the Tularosa 
Desalination Facility, NM.
    Section 208. The Committee has included a continuing 
provision regarding CALFED studies.
    Section 209. The Committee has included a new provision 
regarding the Western Water Initiative.
    Section 210. The Committee has included a new provision 
regarding a study authority for Hawaii.
    Section 211. The Committee has included a new provision 
regarding the CUP account.

                    TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Title III provides for the Department of Energy's programs 
relating to energy supply, environmental management, science, 
national security and other related programs, including the 
power marketing administrations, and the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission.

                             REPROGRAMMINGS

    The Committee requires the Department to promptly and fully 
inform the Committee when a change in program execution or 
funding is required during the fiscal year. A reprogramming 
includes the reallocation of funds from one activity to another 
within an appropriation, or any significant departure from a 
program, project, or activity described in the agency's budget 
justification, including contemplated site budgets as presented 
to and approved or modified by Congress in an appropriations 
act or the accompanying statement of managers or report. For 
construction projects, a reprogramming constitutes the 
reallocation of funds from one construction project identified 
in the justifications to another or a significant change in the 
scope of an approved project.
    Reprogrammings should not be employed to initiate new 
programs or to change program, project, or activity allocations 
specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in the 
Act or report. In cases where unforeseen events or conditions 
are deemed to require such changes, proposals shall be 
submitted in advance to the Committee and be fully explained 
and justified. The Committee has not provided the Department 
with any internal reprogramming flexibility in fiscal year 
2004, unless specifically identified in the House, Senate, or 
conference reports. Any reallocation of new or prior year 
budget authority or prior year deobligations must be submitted 
to the Committees in writing and may not be implemented prior 
to approval by the Committees on Appropriations.

                             Energy Supply

Appropriations, 2003....................................    $696,858,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................     861,805,000
Committee recommendation................................     920,357,000

    The purposes of the programs funded under Energy Supply are 
to develop new energy technologies and improve existing energy 
technologies through basic and applied research and targeted 
programs in technology development. This account provides funds 
for both operating expenses and capital equipment for the 
advancement of the various energy technologies. The Energy 
Supply account includes the following major programs: renewable 
energy resources; nuclear energy; electricity transmission and 
distribution; environment, safety and health; energy support 
activities; and energy supply infrastructure.

                       RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

Appropriations, 2003....................................    $419,492,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................     444,207,000
Committee recommendation................................     358,476,000

    The Committee recommendation provides $358,476,000 for 
renewable energy resources, a decrease of $61,016,000 from the 
current year level.
    This program undertakes research and development of 
renewable energy and related technologies to meet the growing 
need for clean and affordable energy. Program activities range 
from basic research in universities and national laboratories 
to cost-shared applied research, development, and field 
validation in partnership with the private sector.
    The recommendation for Renewable Energy Resources reflects 
the Committee's strong belief that only a balanced portfolio of 
production and distribution technologies and strategies will 
fulfill our Nation's long-term needs and goals for both energy 
and the environment.

Renewable Energy Technologies

    Biomass/Biofuels--Energy Systems.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $75,005,000 for biomass/biofuels energy 
systems, an increase of $5,255,000 over the request.
    The Department has indicated a desire to end direct support 
to the Regional Biomass Energy Program [RBEP]. The Committee 
believes that the RBEP has been a successful partnership with 
the five distinct regions it has served. The Committee 
recommendation includes $2,000,000 and directs the Department 
to work with regional governors' organizations to make RBEP 
even more successful. The Committee recommendation also 
includes $3,500,000 for the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology 
Research, a successful consortium of 34 universities and 33 
agribusinesses and trade associations. The recommendation 
includes $20,000,000, the amount of the request, for the 
Bioconversion Production Integration Program.
    Geothermal.--The Committee recommends $26,300,000 for 
geothermal technology development, an increase of $800,000 over 
the request, including continued funding (at current year 
levels) for GeoPowering the West.
    Hydrogen Research.--The Committee recommendation strongly 
supports and endorses the administration's broad new 
investments in hydrogen technology through the FreedomCAR and 
Hydrogen Fuel Initiative and recognizes hydrogen to be a highly 
promising and cost effective energy carrier. As such, the 
Committee recommendation includes $87,982,000 for hydrogen 
research, the amount of the request and $48,522,000 above the 
current year level.
    Industrial consumption of hydrogen, especially by the 
petro-chemical and fertilizer communities is large and growing. 
The rate of petro-chemical hydrogen consumption necessary for 
gasoline-powered vehicles will accelerate as global reserves of 
sweet crude oil diminish. The dominant resource for hydrogen 
production today is natural gas whose reformation into hydrogen 
and carbon dioxide contributes significantly to atmospheric 
greenhouse gases. Moreover, natural gas reserves are 
insufficient to service simultaneously domestic heating and 
electricity requirements, industrial hydrogen consumption, and 
future demands by hydrogen powered vehicles and other fuel cell 
applications that would accompany the future ``Hydrogen 
Economy.'' Thus, the Committee recommendation seeks to focus 
the resources of the initiative on developing the most 
economical means of producing hydrogen from renewable sources 
and nuclear power.
    The administration proposes to eliminate the funding of 
fuel cell activities within the Energy & Water Development 
appropriation. The Committee rejects that portion of the budget 
request and expects appropriate fuel cell activities to 
continue within this appropriation.
    The Committee understands that the funding provided in 
fiscal year 2004 will support several competitive solicitations 
for research, development, and demonstration proposals on 
production, delivery, storage, and infrastructure validation 
technologies. The Committee directs that at least $5,000,000 
should be used to support a competitive solicitation for solid 
oxide fuel cell research under a cost-shared grant program to 
look at the application of solid oxide electrochemical 
technology for co-production of hydrogen and electricity and 
also for storage of electricity through closed and open system 
regenerative fuel cells.
    Hydropower.--The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for 
hydropower, a reduction of $2,489,000 from the request. The 
amount includes $400,000 to assess low head and low power 
resources.
    Solar Energy.--The Committee recommendation for solar 
energy programs is $89,693,000, an increase of $10,000,000 
above the budget request.
    The Committee recommendation includes $2,500,000 for the 
Southeast and Southwest photovoltaic experiment stations. The 
Department should continue to fully support the success of the 
public/private Million Solar Roofs initiative. Based on new 
information before the Committee that calls into question 
earlier concerns raised by the National Research Council 
regarding the potential of concentrating solar power 
technologies, the Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 
from within available funds for concentrating solar power. If 
the Department needs more than $5,000,000 in fiscal year 2004 
to regain lost momentum in the CSP program, the Committee urges 
the Department to seek a reprogramming.
    Zero Energy Buildings.--The Committee recommendation 
includes no funding for zero energy building technologies and 
supports the full transfer and incorporation of these 
activities into the building technologies program funded under 
the jurisdiction of Interior and Related Agencies 
appropriations.
    Wind.--The Committee recommendation includes $41,600,000 
for wind, the same as the request. The Committee expects the 
Department to utilize funds to accelerate development and 
deployment of low wind speed turbines. The Wind Powering 
America initiative is to be continued at last year's funding 
level. The Committee continues to recognize the need for a set-
aside for small wind programs.
    The Committee is aware that the potential for expanding 
wind generated energy to new locations is significant, but 
further development in the Dakotas and the Upper Midwest is 
stymied by transmission constraints. The Committee is committed 
to developing the potential of wind energy in the United States 
and especially on tribal lands. The Committee directs the 
Department to work with the transmission industry to conduct a 
comprehensive analysis of upper Midwest wind energy locations 
and transmission requirements and to report to the Committee on 
Appropriation by May 31, 2004.
    Intergovernmental Activities.--The Committee recommendation 
includes a total of $9,500,000, a reduction of $3,000,000 from 
the budget request. The intergovernmental activities total 
includes $5,000,000 for the tribal energy program to help 
Native Americans develop renewable energy resources on their 
lands and helps tribal leaders develop energy plans. Within the 
funds provided to the tribal energy program, the Committee 
includes $1,000,000 for the Council of Renewable Energy 
Resource Tribes [CERT] to provide technical expertise and 
training of Native Americans in renewable energy resources 
development and electric generation facilities management. The 
intergovernmental total includes $4,500,000 for the 
International Renewable Energy program to promote the use of 
renewable energy resources in international markets. From 
within the funds provided, the Committee recommendation 
includes $750,000 for the Renewable Energy Policy Project 
[REPP] to conduct a survey of all commercially viable renewable 
energy technologies to determine the job and skill requirements 
relating to the manufacturing, installation, and operation and 
maintenance for each technology.
    The Committee is aware that in October 2002 the Department, 
on behalf of an interagency working group of nine Federal 
agencies, released a 5-year strategic plan to implement the 
Clean Energy Technology Exports [CETE] Initiative. The 
Committee notes that the CETE strategic plan outlines a program 
to increase U.S. clean energy technology exports to 
international markets through increased coordination among 
Federal agency programs as well as to enhance program 
coordination with non-governmental, private sector, and other 
international partners. The Committee is disappointed by the 
apparent lack of progress. Recognizing that opportunities to 
open and expand international markets and export U.S. clean 
energy technologies are very important to helping achieve 
national and international energy security, economic, trade, 
environmental, and climate change objectives, the Committee 
directs the interagency working group, through the Department 
of Energy and other Federal agency partners, to provide the 
Appropriations Committee with a report, no later than January 
15, 2004, on the status of the implementation of the strategic 
plan and specific actions that each of the participating 
agencies have taken in fiscal year 2003 and will take in fiscal 
year 2004 to engage non-governmental, private sector, and other 
international partners.

Renewable Support and Implementation

    Departmental Energy Management Program.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $1,800,000, an increase of $310,000 
over the current year level. The Department should continue to 
fund, through internal competition, the most cost effective 
opportunities to improve energy efficiency in the Department's 
facilities, employing renewable or other technologies as 
appropriate.
    Renewable Energy Production Incentive.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $4,000,000, the amount the Department 
requested under the electricity reliability sub-program. The 
Committee instead funds the requested amount under renewable 
support and implementation.
    Renewable Program Support.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $4,000,000 to continue the efforts of the National 
Renewable Energy Laboratory [NREL] to develop renewable energy 
resources uniquely suited to the Southwestern United States 
through its virtual site office in Nevada.

National Climate Change Technology Initiative

    The Department's budget request proposes to create and fund 
this new initiative to support competitive solicitations to 
promote applied research that has, as its primary goal, the 
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions or the sequestration of 
greenhouse gases. The Committee strongly supports the goals of 
this initiative and has recommended funding for the development 
of these technologies within the existing renewable energy and 
nuclear energy programs. The Committee recommendation does not 
include separate funding for the national climate change 
technology initiative.

Facilities and Infrastructure

    National Renewable Energy Laboratory.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $7,700,000 for facilities and 
infrastructure, an increase of $3,500,000 over the current year 
level. The recommendation includes $4,200,000 for operation and 
maintenance of facilities and $3,500,000 for construction of 
Project 04-E-001, Science and Technology Facility, National 
Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado.
    Oak Ridge National Laboratory.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $750,000 for engineering and design of 
the energy reliability and efficiency laboratory.

Program Direction

    The Committee recommendation includes $13,146,000, a 
decrease of $2,750,000 from the current year level, and 
primarily reflects the transfer of those resources to the new 
Office of Electricity and Energy Assurance.

                    ELECTRICITY AND ENERGY ASSURANCE

Appropriations, 2003....................................              $0
Budget estimate, 2004...................................               0
Committee recommendation................................     100,425,000

    The Committee directs the creation of a new Office for 
Electricity and Energy Assurance, reporting directly to the 
Under Secretary for Energy, Science and Environment. The 
Committee's recommendation is consistent with the principles 
espoused in the President's National Energy Policy report 
issued in May, 2001, and section 926 of S. 1005, the Energy 
Policy Act of 2003. The office shall lead a national effort to 
modernize and expand our Nation's electricity delivery system 
to ensure economic and national security. The office should be 
primarily responsible for the full spectrum of transmission, 
distribution, demand response, storage, transmission siting and 
permitting, and other technologies that affect supply and 
demand in the delivery of electricity. In carrying out this 
effort, the office shall coordinate and develop a 
comprehensive, multi-year strategy to improve the Nation's 
electricity transmission and distribution; ensure that the 
recommendations of the Secretary's National Transmission Grid 
Study are implemented; carry out the research, development, and 
demonstration functions; grant authorizations for electricity 
import and export; perform other electricity transmission and 
distribution-related functions assigned by the Secretary; and 
develop programs for workforce training in power and 
transmission engineering. The office shall also assume the 
responsibilities of the energy security and assurance program.
    Activities previously funded under the electric energy 
systems and storage program within the Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy and the energy security and 
assurance program shall be consolidated and funded under this 
new office.
    The Committee recommendation includes $100,425,000 for 
these activities, including $7,587,000 for program direction. 
The Committee recommendation includes a total of $20,000,000 in 
additional funds for the Department's energy assurance mission. 
Of the additional funds included, $16,000,000 shall be 
available for the National Energy Technology Laboratory [NETL] 
to support the Department in accordance with its National 
Agenda for Energy Assurance activities, and $4,000,000 shall be 
available to support construction, renovation, furnishing, and 
demolition of NETL facilities in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and 
Morgantown, West Virginia, as authorized in Public Law 107-63.

                        NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAMS

Appropriations, 2003....................................    $259,990,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................     390,601,000
Committee recommendation................................     437,422,000

    The Committee recommendation provides $437,422,000 for 
nuclear energy, an increase of $44,821,000 above the request.
    Radiological Facilities Management.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $66,650,000, an amount that is 
$4,000,000 above the request for radiological facilities 
management. The Department is directed to use the additional 
resources for upgrades of radiological facilities at Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory.
    University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support.--The 
Committee recommends $22,000,000 for university reactor fuel 
assistance and support, an increase of $3,500,000 over the 
request. University nuclear engineering programs and university 
research reactors represent a fundamental and key capability in 
supporting our national policy goals in health care, materials 
science and energy technology.
    The Committee strongly supports both the University Reactor 
Fuel Assistance and Support program's efforts to provide 
fellowships, scholarships, and grants to students enrolled in 
science and engineering programs at U.S. universities, as well 
as efforts to provide fuel assistance and reactor upgrade 
funding for university-owned research reactors.
    The Committee notes the progress of the Department in 
carrying out congressional direction to establish and support 
regional university reactor consortia. Although progress is 
visible, the Committee remains concerned about the ability of 
the Nation to respond to the growing demand for trained experts 
in nuclear science and technology in the face of financial and 
other challenges affecting engineering programs and research 
reactor facilities at American universities. The Committee 
recommendation includes an increase of $3,500,000 over the 
request to fund additional consortia and strongly encourages 
the Department to request sufficient funding in future years to 
fund all meritorious proposals, including appropriate proposals 
to support health physics university programs.
    The Committee commends the State of South Carolina for 
recently creating one of the first new graduate nuclear 
engineering programs in the last 20 years. The Committee 
strongly encourages the Department to support the University of 
South Carolina's new nuclear engineering graduate program, 
using Departmental resources to further leverage the 
investments recently made by the State of South Carolina. The 
Committee is also aware that the University of Nevada-Las Vegas 
is contemplating the addition of a graduate nuclear engineering 
program to their curriculum. The Committee hopes and expects 
that the Department will be supportive of this worthy effort.

                        RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

    The Committee recommendation for nuclear energy research 
and development includes a total of $151,746,000, an increase 
of $24,721,000 over the budget request.
    Nuclear Energy Research Initiative.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $12,000,000, the same as the budget 
request.
    Nuclear Energy Technologies.--The Committee recommendation 
includes a total of $55,721,000, an increase of $7,721,000 over 
the budget request.
    The recommendation includes $24,973,000 for nuclear power 
2010, a reduction of $10,000,000 from the request, and the 
Department is directed to focus the resources on the 
demonstration of the regulatory licensing processes of 10 CFR 
Part 52 for early site permits, design certifications, and 
combined construction and operating licenses. The Committee 
recommendation does not includes direct support of gas reactor 
fuel technologies within nuclear power 2010, and instead funds 
such activities under the generation IV nuclear systems 
initiative.
    The recommendation includes $29,720,000 for the generation 
IV nuclear energy systems initiative, an increase of 
$20,000,000 over the request, and the Department is directed to 
use the additional resources to begin the research, development 
and design phase of an advanced reactor hydrogen co-generation 
project at Idaho National Laboratory.
    The Committee remains interested in the potential use and 
application of small modular reactors that would be inherently 
safe, be relatively cost effective, contain intrinsic design 
features which would deter sabotage or diversion, require 
infrequent refuelings, and be primarily factory constructed and 
deliverable to remote sites. The Department shall continue to 
support the international effort to develop this technology.
    The recommendation does not include the requested funding 
for the national climate change technology initiative.
    Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $8,000,000, an increase of $4,000,000 over the 
request. The additional funding is provided to support research 
and development necessary to support-high-temperature 
electrolysis and sulfur-iodine thermochemical technologies 
necessary to the advanced reactor hydrogen co-generation 
project at Idaho National Laboratory. Additionally, the 
recommendation includes $2,000,000 to continue the development, 
in partnership with industry and national laboratories, of an 
efficient high temperature heat exchanger at the University of 
Nevada-Las Vegas. These funds shall be provided to the UNLV 
Research Foundation.
    Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $78,025,000, an increase of $15,000,000 
over the budget request. The initiative should continue to 
focus on development of fuel cycle technologies that minimize 
the toxicity of final waste products resulting from spent fuel 
while recovering energy remaining in spent fuel; maximizing the 
utility of the Yucca Mountain repository, consistent with 
statutory limits on its contents, or any future repository; and 
minimizing proliferation concerns and environmental impacts of 
the fuel cycle. The initiative shall assist the Secretary with 
development of alternative technology options that may 
influence the Secretary's 2007 statutorily required 
recommendation for the need to develop a second repository.
    The Committee notes that the January 2003 Report to 
Congress on this project focused primarily on use or 
modification of existing reprocessing technologies. The 
Committee directs that the Department shall also explore new 
and alternative approaches to provide high confidence that the 
options finally chosen are the best for further development. 
The Department shall also contract for studies to determine the 
probable extent of global uranium reserves and global uranium 
demand. Based on these studies, and on a range of assumptions 
about the available capacity of monitored retrievable storage 
and repositories in the country, the project shall identify 
time scales on which elements of an advanced fuel cycle must be 
operational in order to impact national requirements for 
management of spent fuel. This study should include information 
to guide Congress in establishing the date by which an advanced 
recycle facility must be available for performing research on 
scalable, proliferation resistant, waste efficient, recycle 
technologies as well as other key facilities supporting future 
spent fuel management strategies. Based on these studies, the 
Secretary is directed to report to Congress by March 2005 with 
quantitative goals for the program including evaluation of 
future spent fuel inventories, and detailed analysis of the 
various options to achieve these goals.
    To provide confidence in the technology options proposed, 
the project will use Department of Energy national laboratory 
and University expertise to perform research and development of 
advanced technologies for spent fuel treatment and 
transmutation of plutonium, higher actinides and long-lived 
fission products. Advanced nuclear material recycle and 
safeguard technologies, proliferation-resistant nuclear fuels, 
and transmutation systems shall be investigated. Both reactor-
based and a combination of reactor and accelerator-based 
transmutation approaches may be included as part of the 
research and systems analysis.
    The project shall use international and university 
collaborations to provide cost effective use of research 
funding. Within the funds made available for this initiative, 
$1,500,000 is provided for the Idaho Accelerator Center, 
$4,500,000 for the University of Nevada Las Vegas, and 
$3,000,000 for directed research aimed at enhancing university-
based collaborations focused on the Advanced Fuel Cycle 
Initiative with U.S. universities. All university research 
shall be closely coordinated with the technical projects 
conducted by principal investigators within the national 
laboratories.

                      IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

    The Committee recommendation includes $78,160,000, an 
increase of $12,600,000 over the request. The recommendation 
includes an additional $6,000,000 for the addition of a high-
temperature gas loop in the Advanced Test Reactor, and an 
additional $6,600,000 for deferred landlord activities 
including the development of a remote treatment facility to 
treat remote-handled transuranic waste, remediation of an 
industrial waste pond, and to address other critical 
infrastructure issues.

                           PROGRAM DIRECTION

    The Committee recommendation includes $60,207,000 for 
program direction, the amount of the request.

                    ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY, AND HEALTH

Appropriations, 2003....................................     $22,553,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................      30,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      22,437,000

    The Committee recommendation includes $22,437,000 for non-
defense environment, safety, and health which includes 
$15,641,000 for program direction.

                      ENERGY SUPPLY INFRASTRUCTURE

Appropriations, 2003....................................              $0
Budget estimate, 2004...................................               0
Committee recommendation................................      17,600,000

    The Committee recommendation provides $17,600,000 for 
energy supply infrastructure.
    The Energy Supply Infrastructure program provides 
assistance, technical support, and project funding to specific 
energy projects. The Committee recommendation includes 
$2,000,000 for the Upper Lynn Canal power supply project, 
$5,000,000 for the Swan Lake-Lake Tyee segment of the 
Southeastern Alaska Intertie System, $1,000,000 for the 
Tazimina hydroelectric project, $2,000,000 for the Juneau/
Green's Creek/Hoonah intertie project, $100,000 for the Hope 
distribution line relocation, $500,000 to support the planning 
and permitting of the Petersburg/Kake intertie project, and 
$2,000,000 for the Lake Louise/Glenallen facility.
    The Committee recommendation also includes $5,000,000 for 
the National Center on Energy Management and Building 
Technologies and directs that this initiative shall be subject 
to the cost-sharing requirements of a research project rather 
than a demonstration project.

                Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion

Appropriations, 2003....................................              $0
Budget estimate, 2004...................................     170,875,000
Committee recommendation................................     171,875,000

    The Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion program is 
responsible for managing and addressing the environmental 
legacy resulting from nuclear energy and civilian energy 
research programs. The programs and activities are funded 
within the following subprograms.

                      2006 ACCELERATED COMPLETIONS

    The Committee recommendation includes $48,677,000, the same 
as the request. This program provides funding for completing 
cleanup and closing down facilities with an accelerated cleanup 
plan closure date of 2006 or earlier (such as Lawrence Berkeley 
National Laboratory). In addition, this program provides 
funding for environmental management sites where overall site 
cleanup will not be complete by 2006 but cleanup projects 
within a site (for example, spent fuel removal and TRU waste 
shipped off-site) will be complete by 2006.

                      2012 ACCELERATED COMPLETIONS

    The Committee recommendation includes $119,750,000, the 
same as the request. This program provides funding for 
completing cleanup and closing down facilities with an 
Accelerated Cleanup Plan closure date of 2007 through 2012 
(such as, Brookhaven National Laboratory and West Valley 
Demonstration Project). In addition, this program provides 
funding for environmental management sites where overall site 
cleanup will not be complete by 2012 but cleanup projects 
within a site (for example, spent fuel removal and TRU waste 
shipped off-site) will be complete by 2012.
    The Committee understands that the Department recently 
issued a Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No 
Significant Impact related to remediation of the Energy 
Technology and Engineering Center [ETEC]. The Committee is 
concerned that under the Department's plans, the ETEC site will 
not be remediated to CERCLA standards. The Committee 
understands that the Department intends to remediate 5,500 
cubic meters of soil around one installation, leaving in place 
an additional 400,000 cubic meters of contaminated soil. This 
may represent an unacceptable deviation from the Department's 
commitment in a 1995 Department of Energy-EPA Joint Policy. 
Under that agreement, the Department committed to fund an EPA 
radiological survey of the ETEC site and to remediate the site 
to CERCLA standards. The Committee urges the Department to 
fulfill those commitments and reassess whether the decision 
meets the joint policy and CERCLA standards.

                      2035 ACCELERATED COMPLETIONS

    The Committee recommendation includes $6,448,000, an 
increase of $4,000,000 over the request. This program provides 
funding for completing cleanup and closing down facilities that 
are expected to be completed beyond 2012 but by 2035. The 
Committee recommendation includes a total of $6,000,000 for the 
Department to continue activities related to accelerated 
remediation of the former Atlas Mill Site in Moab, Utah. In 
evaluating alternatives for site remediation, the Department 
shall give full consideration to removal or relocation given 
the sites on the Colorado River.

                          FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

    The Committee recommendation includes the use of $3,000,000 
in prior year balances.

      Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund

Appropriations, 2003....................................              $0
Budget estimate, 2004...................................     418,124,000
Committee recommendation................................     396,124,000

    The Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund supports projects to 
maintain, decontaminate, decommission and otherwise remediate 
the gaseous diffusion plants at Portsmouth, Ohio; Paducah, 
Kentucky; and Oak Ridge, Tennessee. In addition, the Uranium/
Thorium Licensee Reimbursement program activities are funded 
within this appropriation.
    Decontamination and Decommissioning.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $370,124,000, an increase of $3,000,000 
above the budget request. The Committee recommendation includes 
$167,359,000 for activities at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and 
$80,894,000 for Portsmouth, Ohio, the amounts of the budget 
request. The Committee recommendation provides a total of 
$121,871,000 for activities related to the Paducah Gaseous 
Diffusion Plant, including $2,000,000 for continued support of 
the Kentucky Consortium for Energy and Environment.
    The Committee is dismayed by the failure of the 
Commonwealth of Kentucky and the Department to reach an 
agreement on accelerated cleanup at the Paducah Gaseous 
Diffusion Plant. Recognizing that environmental contamination 
poses an unacceptable risk to the health and well being of the 
citizens of western Kentucky, this Committee has generously 
provided ample resources for cleanup at Paducah for several 
consecutive years. However, the inability of State and Federal 
regulators to work cooperatively in the best interests of the 
citizens of Kentucky in reaching an agreement places the 
continued availability of such funds in jeopardy. It should be 
noted that Kentucky is the only State that has not yet signed a 
letter of intent to enter into an accelerated cleanup agreement 
with the Department. The Committee eagerly awaits the 
completion of a report from the General Accounting Office 
examining the slow pace of cleanup at the Paducah facility. The 
Committee expects GAO's report to show the absence of an 
agreement and continued intransigence of all parties have 
unnecessarily delayed the cleanup of environmental hazards at 
Paducah.
    Uranium/Thorium Reimbursement.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $26,000,000, a reduction of $25,000,000 
from the budget request, but an increase of $10,000,000 over 
the current year level and $25,000,000 over the fiscal year 
2002 level.

                   Non-Defense Environmental Services

Appropriations, 2003....................................              $0
Budget estimate, 2004...................................     292,121,000
Committee recommendation................................     302,121,000

    The Non-Defense Environmental Services program supports 
non-defense related activities that indirectly support the 
primary environmental management mission of accelerated risk 
reduction and closure. The programs and activities are funded 
within the following subprograms.

                    COMMUNITY AND REGULATORY SUPPORT

    The Committee recommendation includes $1,034,000, the same 
as the request. This program funds activities that are 
indirectly related to on-the-ground cleanup results but are 
integral to the Office of Environmental Management's ability to 
conduct cleanup at specific sites (for example, Agreements in 
Principles with State regulators and tribal nations and Site 
Specific Advisory Boards).

                     ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP PROJECTS

    The Committee recommendation includes $43,842,000, the same 
as the request. This program provides funds to support the 
transfer of additional contaminated excess facilities to the 
environmental management program from other Departmental 
programs for surveillance and maintenance and eventual 
decontamination and decommissioning (for example, the Fast Flux 
Test Facility beginning in 2004). These transfers constitute 
new work for the Office of Environmental Management.

                  NON-CLOSURE ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES

    The Committee recommendation includes $257,245,000, the 
same as the request. This program provides funds for activities 
that indirectly support the Department's accelerated cleanup 
and closure mission such as gaseous diffusion plant uranium 
programs. These activities, while not in direct support of 
cleanup, provide valuable services to other Departmental 
priorities and missions.
    Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Project, Paducah, 
Kentucky and Portsmouth, Ohio.--The Committee recommendation 
includes a total of $100,000,000 including $96,800,000 for the 
construction line item (02-U-101) and $3,200,000 in operating 
funding. The Department shall use these funds only for the 
project scope as described in the budget justifications and 
none of the funds provided may be used to cover administrative 
costs at other Departmental sites. The additional $10,000,000 
shall be used for construction at the Paducah, Kentucky 
facility. The additional funding shall have no effect on the 
amounts available for the Portsmouth, Ohio facility.

                                Science

Appropriations, 2003....................................  $3,261,328,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................   3,310,935,000
Committee recommendation................................   3,360,435,000

    The Science account funds investment in basic research 
critical to the success of the Department's missions in 
national security, energy security and economic security. 
Programs funded under this account perform a leadership role in 
advancing the frontiers of knowledge in the physical sciences 
and areas of biological, environmental and computational 
sciences. The programs are also responsible for providing 
world-class research facilities for the Nation's broader 
scientific enterprise. The Science account includes the 
following major programs: high energy physics, nuclear physics, 
biological and environmental research, basic energy sciences, 
advanced scientific computing research, science laboratories 
infrastructure, and fusion energy sciences.

              GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF THE PHYSICAL SCIENCES

    Investment in the physical sciences and engineering plays a 
critical role in enabling U.S. technological innovation and 
global economic leadership. It is essential to the development 
and utilization of our energy resources, as well as innovations 
in the areas of defense, the environment, communications and 
information technologies, health care and much more. Over the 
past 50 years, half of U.S. economic growth has come from prior 
investment in science and technological innovation. Life 
expectancy has grown from 55 years in 1900 to nearly 80 years 
today.
    The Department of Energy is the leading source of Federal 
investment for R&D facilities and fundamental research in the 
physical sciences. Yet investment in the Department's R&D has 
declined in constant dollars from $11,200,000,000 in 1980 to 
$7,700,000,000 in 2001. As a percentage of GDP, total Federal 
investment in the physical sciences and engineering has been 
cut roughly in half since 1970.
    Shrinking investment in the physical sciences and 
engineering poses serious risks to DOE's ability to perform its 
mission. It also threatens the Nation's science and technology 
enterprise. DOE faces a shortage of nearly 40 percent in its 
technical workforce over the next 5 years. To meet its needs, 
DOE must compete with industry for a shrinking pool of skilled 
workers, many of whose leaders also report serious shortages of 
scientists and engineers.
    American educational institutions are failing to attract 
sufficient numbers of U.S. students, especially women and 
minorities, into undergraduate and graduate programs in the 
physical sciences and engineering. For these skills the United 
States is now more heavily dependent on foreign nations than 
ever before. The H1-B visa has become a main element of U.S. 
technology policy.
    As fewer foreign students choose to pursue their education 
in the United States, and too few U.S. students enter these 
fields, our vulnerability grows. The National Science 
Foundation reports that between 1996 and 1999, the number of 
Ph.D.s in science and engineering awarded to foreign students 
declined by 15 percent. Only 5 percent of U.S. students now 
earn bachelors degrees in natural science or engineering. Since 
1986, the total number of bachelors degrees in engineering is 
down 15 percent. Between 1994 and 2000, the number of Ph.D.s 
awarded in physics in the United States declined by 22 percent.
    These trends must be reversed. Many DOE user facilities do 
not operate at their designed capacity. As a result, 
opportunities and momentum are lost as researchers and students 
encounter barriers to the pursuit of their studies, including 
promising research opportunities at the boundaries of the life 
sciences, physical sciences, engineering, and computer 
sciences. Future U.S. global leadership and technological 
leadership will rely upon today's investment in research in all 
of the science and engineering disciplines.

                          HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

Appropriations, 2003....................................    $722,264,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................     737,978,000
Committee recommendation................................     737,978,000

    The Committee recommendation includes $737,978,000 for high 
energy physics, an increase of $15,714,000 over the current 
year level.
    The high energy physics program focuses on gaining insights 
into the fundamental constituents of matter, the fundamental 
forces in nature, and the transformations between matter and 
energy at the most elementary level. The program encompasses 
both experimental and theoretical particle physics research and 
related advanced accelerator and detector technology R&D. The 
primary mode of experimental research involves the study of 
collisions of energetic particles using large particle 
accelerators or colliding beam facilities.

                            NUCLEAR PHYSICS

Appropriations, 2003....................................    $381,872,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................     389,430,000
Committee recommendation................................     389,430,000

    The Committee recommends $389,430,000 for nuclear physics, 
an increase of $7,558,000 over the current year level.
    The nuclear physics program supports and provides 
experimental equipment to qualified scientists and research 
groups conducting experiments at nuclear physics accelerator 
facilities. These facilities provide new insights and advance 
our knowledge of the nature of matter and energy and develop 
the scientific knowledge, technologies and trained manpower 
needed to underpin the Department's nuclear missions. The 
Committee supports the Continuous Electron Bean Accelerator 
Facility at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility 
and encourages the Jefferson Lab to increase operational time 
and thereby reduce the significant backlog of peer reviewed and 
approved scientific experiments and begin work toward the 12 
GeV upgrade. Therefore, the Committee urges the Department to 
grant approval and include adequate funds in its fiscal year 
2005 request to continue this process.

                 BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

Appropriations, 2003....................................    $506,685,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................     499,535,000
Committee recommendation................................     534,035,000

    The Committee recommendation includes $534,035,000 for 
biological and environmental research, an increase of 
$34,500,000 over the current year level.
    The biological and environmental research program develops 
the knowledge base necessary to identify, understand, and 
anticipate the long-term health and environmental consequences 
of energy use and development. The program utilizes the 
Department's unique scientific and technological capabilities 
to solve major scientific problems in the environment, 
medicine, and biology. The Committee recommendation includes an 
additional $3,000,000 for the Environmental Molecular Sciences 
Laboratory at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Washington 
and $7,776,000 for the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory. The 
Committee recommendation includes the budget request of 
$17,496,000 for low dose radiation research.
    Genomes to Life.--The Committee recommendation continues 
its strong support of the ``genomes to life'' activities aimed 
at understanding the composition and function of biochemical 
networks that carry out essential processes of living 
organisms. This activity is funded at $69,039,000, an increase 
of $10,000,000 over the request.
    Energy-Water Supply Technologies.--The Committee 
recommendation includes an additional $15,500,000 to support a 
research and demonstration program to study energy-related 
issues associated with water resources and issues associated 
with sustainable water supplies for energy production. The 
recommendation includes $6,000,000 to continue the arsenic 
removal research in conjunction with the American Water Works 
Association Research Foundation as begun in fiscal year 2003; 
$4,000,000 in support of desalination research consistent with 
the Desalination and Water Purification Technology Roadmap in 
partnership with the Bureau of Reclamation; and $1,500,000 to 
support the public/private ZeroNet Energy-Water Initiative. The 
Committee recommendation also includes $4,000,000 to fund a 
demonstration of a stand-alone stirling engine that will run on 
any fuel. The engine shall be a portable, closed-cycle, 
reciprocating, and regenerative heat engine used in conjunction 
with an electrical generator to convert heat, external to the 
engine, into electricity and usable thermal power. This engine 
should be combined with an advanced vapor compression 
distillation system for making drinking water from virtually 
any water source. The water system shall remove all 
contaminants, including volatile compounds. The goal of the 
combined stirling and water system is to provide safe water and 
power in remote rural areas. The value and efficiency of the 
combined system will come from using the emission free engine's 
waste heat to help power the water purifier. The demonstration 
of this technology should take place on Native American 
reservations.
    Molecular Medicine.--The Committee recommendation includes 
an additional $6,000,000 for programs that bring together PET 
imaging, systems biology and nanotechnology to develop new 
molecular imaging probes. These probes should provide a 
biological diagnosis of disease that is informative of the 
molecular basis of disease and specific for guiding the 
development of new molecular therapies. The programs must bring 
together chemists, physicists, biologists and imaging 
scientists to produce new technologies and science in the 
stated area. The particular disease orientation is in cancers 
such as breast, prostrate, colorectal, melanoma and others and 
degenerative neurological disorders such as Alzheimer's and 
Parkinson's diseases.
    The Committee is concerned about consequence mitigation 
activities and public health impacts associated with the threat 
of any radiological event and strongly encourages the 
Department to develop therapeutic radiological countermeasures 
to protect against exposure to the effects of ionizing 
radiation. The Committee is aware of the potential of inositol 
signaling molecules as a therapy for exposure to ionizing 
radiation and encourages the Department to support research of 
this emerging technology. The Committee recommends the Science 
and Technology Division of the Department of Energy fund 
medical therapy research arid other treatment options to 
protect the public health against radiation exposure.

                         BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

Appropriations, 2003....................................  $1,023,305,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................   1,008,575,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,008,575,000

    The Committee recommendation includes $1,008,575,000, the 
same as the budget request.
    The basic energy sciences [BES] program funds basic 
research in the physical, biological and engineering sciences 
that support the Department's nuclear and non-nuclear 
technology programs. The BES program is responsible for 
operating large national user research facilities, including 
synchrotron light and neutron sources, a combustion research 
facility, as well as smaller user facilities such as materials 
preparation and electron microscopy centers. The BES program 
supports a substantial basic research budget for materials 
sciences, chemical sciences, energy biosciences, engineering 
and geosciences.

Research

    The Committee recommendation includes $788,625,000, the 
amount of the request, for materials sciences, engineering 
research, chemical sciences, geosciences, and energy 
biosciences.

Construction

    Spallation Neutron Source.--The Committee recommendation 
includes the budget request of $124,600,000 to continue 
construction at Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the 
Spallation Neutron Source [SNS] to meet the Nation's neutron 
scattering needs.
    Nanoscale Science Research Centers.--The Committee 
recommendation supports the high priority given to nanoscale 
research and has included the budget request totaling 
$87,850,000 for the nanoscale science research centers at 
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National 
Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and the joint effort 
between Sandia National Laboratories and Los Alamos National 
Laboratory.

                 ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

    The Committee recommendation provides $183,490,000 for 
advanced scientific computing research, an increase of 
$10,000,000 over the current year level.
    The Advanced Scientific Computing Research [ASCR] program 
supports advanced computational research--applied mathematics, 
computer science, and networking--to enable the analysis, 
simulation and prediction of complex physical phenomena. The 
program also supports the operation of large supercomputer user 
facilities.

                  SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

    The Committee recommends $48,590,000, an increase of 
$5,000,000 for Oak Ridge National Laboratory infrastructure. 
The program supports infrastructure activities at the five 
national labs under the direction of the Office of Science.

                         FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

Appropriations, 2003....................................    $248,375,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................     257,310,000
Committee recommendation................................     257,310,000

    The Committee recommendation for fusion energy sciences is 
$257,310,000, an amount that is equal to the budget request.
    The fusion energy sciences program supports research 
emphasizing the underlying basic research in plasma and fusion 
sciences, with the long-term goal of harnessing fusion as a 
viable energy source.
    International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor.--The 
Committee recommendation includes the budget request of 
$1,990,000 to allow the Department to enter multilateral 
international negotiations aimed at building the International 
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor [ITER], a burning plasma 
physics experiment many view as an essential next step toward 
eventually developing fusion as a commercially viable energy 
source. Reasonably conservative estimates suggest that the 
United States' participation in ITER will require approximately 
$1,500,000,000 over the next 10 years in direct contributions 
to the construction of ITER and in supporting science. The 
Department's request of less than $2,000,000 in direct support 
of the ITER project for fiscal year 2004 certainly leads the 
Committee to question the Department's commitment to supporting 
ITER without prejudice or damage to alternative fusion 
technologies, much less other Departmental science programs.
    The Department's proposed fiscal year 2004 budget proposes 
to cut severely long-term activities in fusion technology and 
advanced design that will have significant impact on the 
ultimate attractiveness of fusion power. The Committee 
recommends that, within available funds, the Department should 
make adjustments to redress the imbalance resulting from these 
cuts.

                        SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

    The Committee recommendation provides $51,887,000 for 
safeguards and security, an increase of $3,760,000 over the 
request.
    The safeguards and security line identifies the funding 
necessary for the physical protection, protective forces, 
physical security, protective systems, information security, 
cyber security, personnel security, materials control and 
accountability and program management activities for national 
laboratories and facilities of the Office of Science.

                     SCIENCE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

    The Committee recommendation provides $6,470,000 for 
science workforce development, an increase of $1,045,000 from 
the current year level.
    The science workforce development program provides limited 
funding to train young scientists, engineers, and technicians 
to meet the demand for a well trained scientific and technical 
workforce, including the teachers that educate the workforce. 
The Committee encourages the Department of Energy to provide 
funds and technical expertise for high school students to 
participate in the 2004 For Inspiration and Recognition of 
Science and Technology [FIRST] Robotics competition. FIRST has 
proven to be a valuable program to introduce and mentor 
students in math and science.

                       SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION

    The Committee recommendation provides $147,053,000 for 
science program direction, an increase of $11,554,000 from the 
current year level.

                      Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund

Appropriations, 2003....................................    $144,058,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................     161,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     140,000,000

    The Committee recommendation includes $425,000,000 for 
nuclear waste disposal. Of that amount, $140,000,000 is derived 
from the nuclear waste fund, and $285,000,000 shall be 
available from the ``Defense nuclear waste disposal'' account.
    The Committee has provided $2,500,000 for the State of 
Nevada and $8,000,000 for affected units of local government in 
accordance with the statutory restrictions contained in the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act. These funds are direct payments, not 
grants or cooperative agreements, and are available until 
expended. The failure of the Department to request any funding 
for state or county oversight programs in fiscal year 2004 
indicates a disturbing lack of support for congressionally-
mandated programs to identify impacts, to make comments and 
recommendations to the Secretary, and to provide information 
about the repository to local residents, particularly 
concerning policy developments at the national level. The 
Committee strongly urges the Department to include funding for 
states and affected units of local government in the fiscal 
year 2005 budget request. During fiscal year 2003, audits of 
affected unit of local government funds provided to Nye and 
Lincoln Counties in Nevada resulted in nearly $2,000,000 in 
disallowed costs. These costs were disallowed despite the 
advance approval of the county work plans by the Office of 
Civilian Radioactive Nuclear Waste. However, the disallowed 
costs should be borne by the the affected units of local 
government [AULGs]. The balance of funds appropriated for the 
AULGs should be made available for appropriate and allowable 
programs and activities of the AULGs and should not be utilized 
by the Department for any other purpose. The Committee expects 
the Department and the AULGs to do a substantially better job 
of complying with congressional direction concerning 
appropriate uses for these funds. The Department and the AULGs 
should work cooperatively to set funding guidelines to prevent 
a repeat of these problems.
    The Committee recommendation includes funding for the 
following research and oversight activities: $2,500,000 for the 
University of Nevada-Reno to conduct nuclear waste repository 
research in the areas of materials evaluation, fundamental 
studies on degradation mechanisms, alternate materials and 
design, and computational and analytical modeling; $1,500,000 
for the Research Foundation at the University of Nevada-Las 
Vegas to conduct safety and risk analyses, simulation and 
modeling, systems planning, and operations and management to 
support radioactive and hazardous materials transportation; 
$1,000,000 for the Research Foundation at the University of 
Nevada-Las Vegas to assess earthquake hazards and seismic risk 
in Southern Nevada; $2,500,000 for the Desert Research 
Institute's Yucca Mountain Environmental Monitoring Program; 
$2,500,000 for the University of Nevada-Reno to expand the 
earthquake engineering and simulation facility. These funds are 
available until expended. In fiscal year 2003, the Office of 
Civilian Radioactive Nuclear Waste appeared to some to be 
dilatory in releasing funding required by Congress to the State 
of Nevada, the affected units of local government, and other 
grant recipients. The Committee directs the Department to 
deliver a report to the House and Senate Appropriations 
Committees, by no later than October 31, 2003, detailing how 
and when all fiscal year 2004 grants will be distributed.

                      Departmental Administration


                                (GROSS)

Appropriations, 2003....................................    $205,280,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................     326,306,000
Committee recommendation................................     309,564,000

                        (MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES)

Appropriations, 2003....................................   -$120,000,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................    -146,668,000
Committee recommendation................................    -146,668,000

    The Department recommends $309,564,000 for departmental 
administration, a net appropriation of $162,896,000. This 
amount represents a decrease of $16,742,000 from the budget 
request and is detailed further in the table at the end of the 
portion of the report regarding Title III.
    The Departmental Administration account funds policy 
development and analysis activities, institutional and public 
liaison functions, and other program support requirements 
necessary to ensure effective operation and management. The 
account also covers salaries and expenses for the Office of the 
Secretary; Board of Contract Appeals; Chief Information 
Officer; Congressional and intergovernmental affairs; Economic 
impact and diversity; General Counsel; Office of Management, 
Budget and Evaluation; Policy and International Affairs; and 
Public Affairs.
    The Committee recommendation includes an additional 
$5,000,000 for the Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation 
for increased oversight and reporting on new Office of 
Environmental Management acceleration contracts.
    The National Research Council [NRC] observed progress in 
improving DOE project management procedures over the past 3 
years, but noted that it is still too soon to observe any 
measurable affect on project performance. The NRC found that it 
will require several more years to determine if changes in DOE 
project management culture have increased its ability to 
undertake projects that support its missions and whether DOE 
project managers have the ability plan and execute them 
successfully. Accordingly, the Committee directs DOE to 
contract with the NRC to provide continued oversight until 
sustained improvement in project performance can be documented 
and measured.

                           Inspector General

Appropriations, 2003....................................     $37,426,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................      39,462,000
Committee recommendation................................      39,462,000

    The Committee has provided $39,462,000 for the Office of 
the Inspector General, the same as the budget request.
    The Office of the Inspector General provides agency-wide 
audit, inspection, and investigative functions to identify and 
correct management and administrative deficiencies which create 
conditions for existing or potential instances of fraud, waste, 
and mismanagement.

                    ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

    Atomic energy defense activities of the Department of 
Energy are provided for in two categories--the National Nuclear 
Security Administration and Environmental and Other Defense 
Activities. Appropriation accounts under the National Nuclear 
Security Administration [NNSA] are Weapons Activities, Defense 
Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and the Office of the 
Administrator. Environmental and Other Defense Activities 
include appropriation accounts for Defense Site Acceleration 
Completion, Defense Environmental Services, Other Defense 
Activities, and Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal.

                National Nuclear Security Administration

    The National Nuclear Security Administration [NNSA], a 
separately organized and semi-autonomous agency within the 
Department of Energy, came into existence on March 1, 2000. The 
missions of the NNSA are: (1) to enhance United States national 
security through the military application of nuclear energy; 
(2) to maintain and enhance the safety, reliability, and 
performance of the United States nuclear weapons stockpile, 
including the ability to design, produce, and test, in order to 
meet national security requirements; (3) to provide the United 
States Navy with safe, militarily effective nuclear propulsion 
plants and to ensure the safe and reliable operation of those 
plants; (4) to promote international nuclear safety and 
nonproliferation; (5) to reduce global danger from weapons of 
mass destruction; and (6) to support United States leadership 
in science and technology. The programs and activities of the 
NNSA are funded through the following appropriation accounts: 
Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval 
Reactors, and Office of the Administrator.

                           Weapons Activities

Appropriations, 2003....................................  $5,914,409,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................   6,378,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   6,473,814,000

    The Weapons Activities account provides for the maintenance 
and refurbishment of nuclear weapons in order to sustain 
confidence in their safety, reliability, and performance; the 
expansion of scientific, engineering, and manufacturing 
capabilities to enable certification of the enduring nuclear 
weapons stockpile; and the manufacture of nuclear weapon 
components under a comprehensive test ban. The Weapons 
Activities account also provides for maintaining the capability 
to return to the design and production of new weapons and to 
underground nuclear testing if so directed by the President. 
The major elements of the program include the following: 
directed stockpile work, campaigns, readiness in technical base 
and facilities, facilities and infrastructure, secure 
transportation asset, and safeguards and security.
    Weapons Activities Reprogramming Authority.--The conference 
agreement provides limited reprogramming authority within the 
Weapons Activities account without submission of a 
reprogramming to be approved in advance by the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations. The reprogramming thresholds will 
be as follows: directed stockpile work, science campaigns, 
engineering campaigns, inertial confinement fusion, advanced 
simulation and computing, pit manufacturing and certification, 
readiness campaigns, and operating expenses for readiness in 
technical base and facilities. In addition, funding of not more 
than $5,000,000 may be transferred between each of these 
categories and each construction project subject to the 
following limitations: only one transfer may be made to or from 
any program or project; the transfer must be necessary to 
address a risk to health, safety or the environment or to 
assure the most efficient use of weapons activities funds at a 
site; and funds may not be used for an item for which Congress 
has specifically denied funds or for a new program or project 
that has not been authorized by Congress. Congressional 
notification within 15 days of the use of this reprogramming 
authority is required. Transfers during the fiscal year which 
would result in increases or decreases in excess of $5,000,000 
or which would be subject to the limitations outlined above 
require prior notification and approval from the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations.

                        DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK

    The Committee recommendation includes $1,367,786,000 for 
directed stockpile work, an increase of $3,000,000 over the 
request.
    The directed stockpile work program encompasses all 
activities that directly support specific weapons in the 
stockpile. These activities include maintenance and day-to-day 
care; planned refurbishment; reliability assessments; weapon 
dismantlement and disposal; and research, development, and 
certification technology efforts to meet future stockpile 
requirements.The NNSA Administrator shall insure that all of 
the assessments provided to him have utilized the judgements of 
independent, expert, and cognizant reviewers who are not 
normally involved in the stewardship of the assessed nuclear 
warheads or their associated delivery systems.
    Stockpile Research and Development.--The Committee 
recommends $433,150,000, the same as the budget request. 
Stockpile R&D provides for assessment, certification, 
surveillance and maintenance research and development for 
systems comprising our enduring nuclear weapons stockpile. The 
recommendation also includes $21,000,000, the amount of the 
request for advanced concept initiative activities.
    Stockpile Maintenance.--The Committee recommends 
$415,746,000, an increase of $10,000,000 over the request, to 
provide for stockpile maintenance and production and exchange 
of limited life components in the enduring stockpile, as well 
as major refurbishment activities to extend the stockpile life 
of the W87, W76, W80, and B61 weapons systems. The additional 
resources are intended to support activities at the Y-12 Plant 
in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
    Stockpile Evaluation.--The Committee recommends 
$202,886,000, the amount of the request, to support new 
material laboratory tests, new material flight tests, stockpile 
laboratory tests, stockpile flight tests, quality evaluations, 
special testing, and surveillance of weapons systems to support 
assessment of the safety and reliability of the nuclear weapons 
stockpile, all of which contributes to the Annual Certification 
to the President.
    Dismantlement/Disposal.--The Committee recommends 
$37,722,000, the amount of the request. The program includes 
all activities associated with weapon retirement and 
disassembly.
    Production Support.--The Committee recommends $271,113,000, 
a reduction of $7,000,000 from the request to adjust for a 
lower-than-expected program growth.

                               CAMPAIGNS

    The Committee recommendation includes $2,370,655,000 for 
campaigns, a reduction of $24,800,000 from the budget request.
    The campaigns program focuses on scientific, technical and 
engineering efforts to develop and maintain critical 
capabilities and tools needed to support stockpile 
refurbishment and continued assessment and certification of the 
stockpile for the long term in the absence of underground 
nuclear testing. The major elements of the campaigns program 
are: science campaigns, engineering campaigns, inertial 
confinement fusion and high yield, advanced simulation and 
computing, pit manufacturing and certification, and readiness 
campaigns.

Science Campaigns

    Primary Certification.--The Committee recommends 
$64,849,000, a reduction of $1,000,000 to adjust for a lower-
than-expected program growth.
    Dynamic Materials Properties.--The Committee recommends 
$87,251,000 an increase of $5,000,000 from the request. The 
Committee commends the administration for its investment in the 
future through university grants, partnerships and cooperative 
agreements. Using $5,000,000 of the available funds, the 
Administration is directed to make full use of existing and 
developing capabilities for materials properties studies, 
including the subcritical experiments at the U1a facility, 
Joint Actinide Shock Physics Experimental Research facility and 
the Atlas facility at the Nevada Test Site. The Committee 
understands that this materials work is essential to predicting 
the safety and reliability of nuclear weapons in the absence of 
nuclear weapons testing.
    Advanced Radiography.--The Committee recommends 
$65,985,000, the same as the request. The recommendation 
includes $24,844,000 for advanced radiography requirements and 
technology development.
    Secondary Certification and Nuclear Systems Margins.--The 
Committee recommends $54,463,000, a reduction of $1,000,000 to 
adjust for a lower-than-expected program growth, for radiation 
source development, radiation, case dynamics studies radiation 
transport and the effects of aging, and refurbishment on 
secondary performance.

Engineering Campaigns

    Enhanced Surety.--The Committee recommends $36,974,000, a 
reduction of $1,000,000 to adjust for a lower-than-expected 
program growth, to develop and demonstrate advanced initiation 
concepts and enhanced use denial concepts, and to enhance 
efforts to establish high precision, micro-system technologies 
for enhanced surety of future weapon systems.
    Weapons Systems Engineering Certification.--The Committee 
recommends $27,238,000, a reduction of $1,000,000 to adjust for 
a lower-than-expected program growth, to accelerate the 
acquisition of experimental data necessary to validate new 
models and simulation tools being developed in the Advanced 
Simulation and Computing Campaign.
    Nuclear Survivability.--The Committee recommends 
$22,977,000, a reduction of $1,000,000 to adjust for a lower-
than-expected program growth, to develop and validate tools to 
simulate nuclear environments for survivability assessments and 
certification; restore the capability to provide nuclear-
hardened microelectronics and microsystem components for the 
enduring stockpile; and accelerate the qualification and 
certification of the neutron generator and the arming, fusing 
and firing system for the refurbished W76.
    Enhanced Surveillance.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $92,781,000, a reduction of $2,000,000 from the 
request to adjust for a lower-than-expected program growth.
    Advanced Design and Production Technologies.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $77,917,000, a reduction of $2,000,000 
from the request to adjust for a lower-than-expected program 
growth.
    Project 01-D-108 Microsystem and Engineering Science 
Applications [MESA], SNL, Albuquerque, NM.--The Committee 
recommendation includes an additional $43,200,000 to accelerate 
the construction schedule consistent with projected stockpile 
needs.

Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield

    The Committee recommends $432,769,000, a decrease of 
$34,000,000 from the budget request. The Committee 
recommendation includes $150,000,000 for National Ignition 
Facility construction, Project 96-D-111, and $282,769,000 for 
the ICF ignition and high yield program.
    National Ignition Facility.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $150,000,000 for construction and $96,300,000 for the 
NIF demonstration program, consistent with the revised NIF 
project baseline. All construction and support activities 
related to the NIF should be funded from either the NIF 
construction line or the NIF demonstration program. The 
Committee is concerned about the dramatic growth in other NIF-
related activities funded elsewhere in the inertial confinement 
fusion campaign and specifically rejects that portion of the 
budget request. As such, the budget request for experimental 
support technologies is reduced by $44,000,000, and the balance 
of that sub-program is directed towards the support of other 
high energy density physics laboratories and facilities.
    Inertial Fusion Technology.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $5,000,000 to initiate assessments and initial 
development and testing of Z-Pinch inertial fusion energy.
    Petawatt Lasers.--The Committee also includes an additional 
$5,000,000 for university grants and other support. Within this 
amount, $2,500,000 is provided for continued development of an 
ultra short pulse petawatt laser at the University of Texas; 
and $2,500,000 is provided to continue short-pulse laser 
development and research at the University of Nevada, Reno.
    The Committee understands that high intensity laser physics 
enables major new areas of science and engineering endeavor in 
the United States and that advances in this field will enable 
important progress in critical aspects of basic science, fusion 
energy, and national security. A robust, coordinated program in 
high intensity lasers will affordably maintain U.S. leadership 
in this critically important area. Accordingly, the Committee 
directs that Department to pursue a joint high intensity laser 
program with the National Science Foundation. The Committee 
further directs the NNSA and the Department's Office of Science 
to develop, in collaboration with the NSF, a report that 
identifies the benefits and disadvantages of multi-agency 
coordinated research in high intensity laser science and 
delineates how a joint program in this area will be structured. 
This report should be delivered to the Committee no later than 
April 15, 2004.

Advanced Simulation and Computing

    The Committee recommendation includes $725,626,000, an 
amount that is $25,000,000 below the budget request.
    Currently the National Academies Computer Science and 
Telecommunications Board and the JASONs are completing separate 
reports due to the Committee on August 1, 2003 as directed in 
the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003, Public Law 
108-7. The recommendation of the Committee to reduce the 
program by $25,000,000 still leaves the program with just under 
a $60,000,000 increase over the adjusted current year level, 
excluding construction. The recommended reduction is without 
prejudice and the Committee expects to revisit the appropriate 
level of funding at conference with the benefit of the National 
Academies' and JASONs' reports.

Pit Manufacturing and Certification

    The Committee recommendation includes a total of 
$320,228,000 for the pit manufacturing and certification 
campaign, the same as the budget request. This amount includes 
$235,365,000 to support the manufacturing and certification of 
a W88 pit consistent with the project baseline. The Committee 
directs the NNSA to revise as appropriate the pit production 
and certification plan and submit the report to the relevant 
congressional committees by March 31, 2003, and annually 
thereafter.
    Modern Pit Facility.--The Committee recommendation includes 
a total of $22,810,000, the same as the budget request. The 
recommendation includes $7,000,000 to continue conceptual 
design of the modern pit facility and $15,810,000 to support a 
site selection decision for the modern pit facility in fiscal 
year 2004.

Readiness Campaigns

    Stockpile Readiness Campaign.--The Committee recommends 
$55,158,000 for the stockpile readiness campaign the amount of 
the request. This program, initiated in fiscal year 2001, 
enables the Y-12 National Security Complex to replace or 
restore production capability and to modernize aging 
facilities. At present, all of the critical manufacturing 
capabilities required for weapons refurbishments at Y-12 do not 
exist.
    High Explosives Manufacturing and Weapons Assembly/
Disassembly Readiness.--The Committee recommends $27,649,000, a 
reduction of $2,000,000 to adjust for lower-than-expected 
program growth, to establish production-scale high explosives 
manufacturing and qualification; to deploy and validate 
technologies and facilities for production re-qualification; 
and, to demonstrate and validate Enterprise Integration and 
Collaborative Manufacturing.
    Non-Nuclear Readiness.--The Committee recommends 
$34,397,000, a reduction of $3,000,000 to adjust for lower-
than-expected program growth, to deploy commercial products and 
processes for components supporting the B61, W80, and W76 
stockpile life extension programs; to modify existing tritium 
loading and cleaning facilities to support stockpile life 
extension programs; and, to support neutron target loading and 
detonator production.
    Tritium Readiness.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$134,893,000 for the tritium readiness campaign, the same as 
the request.
    Cooperative Agreements.--The Committee recognizes that 
cooperative agreements with universities are important 
resources for developing essential technical data for stockpile 
stewardship. Additionally, such long-term relationships with 
universities allow considerable opportunity for promoting 
advanced studies and recruiting the future workforce in 
technical areas that are critical to the continuing stewardship 
enterprise. The Committee remains supportive of this activity 
and directs the administration to honor existing cooperative 
agreements as this new office implements its responsibilities. 
The Committee is aware of the successful partnerships between 
the NNSA and the University of Nevada-Las Vegas and the 
University of Nevada-Reno that have been fostered through a 
series of cooperative agreements. The Department is encouraged 
to renew these agreements at higher levels as appropriate.

               READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES

    The Committee recommendation includes $1,731,585,000, an 
increase of $118,114,000 from the budget request.
    The readiness in technical base and facilities [RTBF] 
program provides the underlying physical infrastructure and 
operational readiness for the directed stockpile work and 
campaign programs. RTBF activities include ensuring that 
facilities are operational, safe, secure, and in compliance 
with regulatory requirements, and that a defined level of 
readiness is sustained at facilities funded by the Office of 
Defense Programs.
    Operations of Facilities.--The Committee recommends 
$1,091,773,000, an increase of $117,000,000, to maintain warm 
standby readiness for all RTBF facilities with some allowance 
for inflation. Within available funds, an additional 
$10,000,000 is provided to support the operation of facilities 
at the Nevada Test Site, including the Device Assembly 
Facility, the Joint Actinide Shock Physics Experimental 
Research facility, operations associated with the Atlas 
relocation project, U1a operations, general plant projects and 
other NTS support facilities.
    For continued facility upgrades, refurbishments, operations 
and maintenance costs associated with and for the National 
Center for Combating Terrorism, an additional $25,000,000 is 
provided. The Committee directs that not less than $5,000,000 
of the funds for the NCCT be provided jointly to the Institute 
for Security Studies at UNLV and the comparable program at the 
University of Nevada-Reno.
    The Committee recommendation also includes an additional 
$10,000,000 for facility operations at Pantex, an additional 
$10,000,000 for operation of facilities at Y-12, an additional 
$20,000,000 for the Kansas City Plant to address pension 
liability issues, an additional $15,000,000 for the Lawrence 
Livermore National Laboratory, and an additional $20,000,000 
for the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The Committee 
recommendation includes an additional $8,000,000 for 
modification of the Z-Beamlet laser to the Z Machine at Sandia 
National Laboratories.
    Technology Transfer and Industrial Partnerships.--The 
Committee recognizes that partnerships with industry may enable 
the weapons complex to accomplish its mission more efficiently. 
Such partnership can provide access to new technologies, 
processes, and expertise that improve NNSA's mission 
capabilities. One of the most successful technology transfer 
and commercialization efforts in the Department of Energy has 
occurred with the not-for-profit Technology Ventures 
Corporation around Sandia National Laboratories, resulting in 
over 30 start-up ventures and thousands of jobs created. The 
Committee has included an additional $3,000,000 and directs the 
NNSA to continue to support this highly successful public/
private partnership at the NNSA laboratories and the Nevada 
Test Site. The Committee recommendation also includes 
$1,000,000 for the NNSA to utilize the capabilities of its 
laboratories for a joint effort with the U.S. Consumer Product 
Safety Commission on sensor technologies and applications.
    Program Readiness.--The Committee recommends $131,093,000, 
the same as the budget request, to enhance readiness and 
maintain materials processing and component manufacturing 
readiness.
    Special Projects.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$60,025,000 for special projects. Within available funds, 
$6,900,000 is provided for the New Mexico Education Enrichment 
Foundation; $500,000 for the design, fabrication, and 
installation of exhibits at the Atomic Testing History 
Institute; $2,500,000 for stockpile stewardship research at the 
Nevada terrawatt facility at the University of Nevada-Reno; and 
$6,900,000 for the Sandia National Laboratories. The Los Alamos 
County Schools Program is funded at the level of the 
President's request.
    The Committee is aware of concerns expressed by the City of 
Oak Ridge and Anderson and Roane counties in the State of 
Tennessee regarding the level of financial assistance provided 
by the Department of Energy. As a Manhattan Project atomic 
energy community, the Department has a special relationship 
with Oak Ridge. Although the area receives modest support from 
the Department as part of the Payment in Lieu of Tax program, 
economic development has been severely limited by extensive 
Federal ownership of lands, aging infrastructure, and 
disproportionately high local tax rates. Unfortunately, Oak 
Ridge has not achieved the level of self-sufficiency envisioned 
by the Atomic Energy Community Act of 1955. The Committee urges 
the Department to work with city and county officials to 
develop a plan to help the Oak Ridge community achieve 
financial self-sufficiency.
    Material Recycle and Recovery.--The Committee recommends 
$76,189,000, the amount of the budget request.
    Nuclear Weapons Incident Response.--The Committee 
recommends $89,694,000, the amount of the request, to enhance 
the state of response readiness at various locations.
    Construction Projects.--The Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $274,940,000, for construction projects under 
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities.
    The following list details changes in appropriations for 
construction projects under Readiness in Technical Base and 
Facilities:
    Project 04-D-103 Project Engineering and Design [PED], 
Various Locations.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$3,564,000, an increase of $1,564,000. The additional amount is 
to support the replacement of Fire Station No. 1, Nevada Test 
Site, Nevada. The base request also includes $800,000 to 
support the replacement of Fire Station No. 2, Nevada Test 
Site, Nevada. The Department is directed to provide a study of 
the potential benefits in terms of both time and cost of 
utilizing a design-build process for the replacement of these 
fire stations. Neither station meets current fire regulations 
which has practical and potential impacts on the state of test 
readiness. This report shall be provided to the House and 
Senate Committee by August 31, 2003.

         FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE RECAPITALIZATION PROGRAM

    The Committee recommendation includes $265,123,000, the 
same as the budget request.
    The facilities and infrastructure recapitalization program 
is a multi-year but limited term effort to restore the physical 
infrastructure of the weapons complex and eliminate the 
maintenance backlog. The program provides funds to accomplish 
deferred maintenance and utilities replacement while improving 
facility management practices to preclude further 
deterioration.
    The FIRP program was designed to be a program of limited 
duration to accomplish these purposes. The Committee notes its 
concern that the regular maintenance budgets within the RTBF 
account remain under funded and are thus still contributing to 
the deferred maintenance backlog--3 years after the FIRP 
program was created, and during a period when weapons complex 
funding increased from an annual rate of approximately 
$5,000,000,000 to approximately $6,700,000,000. The Committee 
directs the NNSA to request a budget that allows all sites 
within the complex to adequately fund maintenance activities at 
appropriate levels to achieve an orderly reduction of the 
infrastructure deferred maintenance backlog down to the private 
industry standard for comparable facilities. The NNSA shall 
establish procedures to ensure the site managers and laboratory 
managers are appropriately funding maintenance.

                      SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET

    The Committee recommendation includes a total of 
$162,400,000, a reduction of $20,000,000 from the budget 
request. The fiscal year 2003 supplemental included an 
additional $20,000,000 for the secure transportation asset and 
the Committee directs the use of these carryover balances for 
fiscal year 2004.
    The secure transportation asset program provides for the 
safe, secure movement of nuclear weapons, special nuclear 
material, and weapon components between military locations and 
nuclear complex facilities within the United States.

                        SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

    The Committee recommendation includes $585,750,000, the 
same as the budget request.
    The safeguards and security line identifies the funding 
necessary for all safeguard and security requirements (except 
for personnel security investigations) at NNSA landlord sites, 
specifically the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los 
Alamos National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, the 
Nevada Test Site, Kansas City Plant, Pantex Plant, Y-12 Plant, 
and the Savannah River Site Tritium Facilities.
    The Committee encourages the Administration to support a 
joint Air Force/NNSA research and development program in 
physical security systems and technologies at the Sandia 
National Laboratory.
    The Committee remains concerned about the unintended 
effects of the misguided effort to fund security as a separate 
line item, rather than as an element of overhead. This 
situation results in the relative inability of line management 
to control the resources required to execute the security 
mission and interferes with the risk-management decisions 
necessary to effective management by the laboratory directors 
and plant or site managers. Ironically, the separate funding of 
security, introduced 3 years ago as a measure to improve 
security, restricts the ability of managers to move monies into 
security activities when needed. Therefore, the Committee 
directs the NNSA to eliminate the separate line-item treatment 
of the security budget in its fiscal year 2005 budget request 
in a manner consistent with the recommendation of the April 
2002 Report of the Commission on Science and Security (``Hamre 
Commission''). Furthermore, the Administrator of the NNSA shall 
have the ability to authorize the augmentation of the 
Safeguards and Security account upon the request of a 
laboratory director, plant manager, or site manager in order to 
address urgent security needs or provide enhanced protection 
for special weapons projects. The augmentation of funds shall 
be permissible with 15 days advance notification to the House 
and Senate Appropriations Committees and shall not require the 
approval of a formal reprogramming action by the Congress. 
Funds for security augmentation shall be derived from other 
NNSA accounts or from indirect funds of the laboratory, plant 
or site.

                    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

Appropriations, 2003....................................  $1,020,860,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................   1,340,195,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,340,195,000

    The Committee recommendation includes $1,340,195,000 for 
defense nuclear nonproliferation, the same as the budget 
request.
    The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account funds programs 
and activities to (1) prevent the spread of materials, 
technology, and expertise relating to weapons of mass 
destruction; (2) detect the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction worldwide; (3) provide for international nuclear 
safety, and (4) eliminate inventories of surplus fissile 
materials usable for nuclear weapons. These highly important 
initiatives address the danger that hostile nations or 
terrorist groups may acquire weapons of mass destruction or 
weapons-usable material, dual-use production technology or 
weapons of mass destruction expertise. The major elements of 
the program include the following: nonproliferation and 
verification research and development, nonproliferation and 
international security, and nonproliferation programs with 
Russia.
    The fiscal year 2003 Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act provided $1,020,860,000 for nuclear 
nonproliferation activities. Since that time, Congress has 
appropriated an additional $148,000,000 for defense nuclear 
nonproliferation in supplemental appropriations bills. 
Unfortunately, a substantial portion of the total appropriated 
funding for fiscal year 2003 remains unspent and unobligated.
    These programs are of critical interest to this Committee 
and to Congress as a whole. However, success is still coming 
much too slowly. Security upgrades have still not begun on more 
than 100 tons of Russia's plutonium and HEU. In the year since 
United States and Russian officials proclaimed the removal of 
HEU from 24 research institutes around the world a high 
priority, none has been removed. Many of Russia's nuclear 
warhead storage sites have yet to receive interim security 
upgrades and few if any have received permanent upgrades. And 
this is added to a complete lack of credible information on the 
location and status of Russia's substantial stockpile of 
tactical nuclear weapons. There is no question that the Russian 
bureaucracy is slow and problematical, but such should not be 
used as an excuse for the difficulty of the task, but as the 
reason these issues deserve greater levels of coordination and 
attention at the highest levels of the U.S. government.
    Furthermore, the Committee is concerned that the rate of 
expenditure for nonproliferation programs lags substantially 
behind that of the rest of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration. Carry-over rates of 40 percent are not 
uncommon. Although the Committee recognizes the difficulty in 
implementing nonproliferation activities in Russia, the 
Committee strongly urges the Department to improve on this 
level of performance. However, the Committee does not expect 
the Department to carry out these programs with any less 
rigorous oversight in ensuring efficient and cost-effective 
implementation. The securing and safeguarding of fissile 
nuclear material abroad is a critical component of our Nation's 
terrorism prevention effort.

         NONPROLIFERATION VERIFICATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

    The Committee recommendation includes $234,873,000, an 
increase of $31,000,000 from the request.
    The nonproliferation and verification research and 
development program conducts applied research, development, 
testing, and evaluation leading to prototype demonstrations and 
detection systems that are critical to the United States 
response to current and projected threats posed by the 
proliferation of nuclear weapons, and diversion of special 
nuclear material. The program works directly with agencies 
responsible for monitoring proliferation and combating 
terrorism.
    The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 to 
complete funding for the Incorporated Research Institutions for 
Seismology PASSCAL Instrument Center. The Committee 
recommendation includes $8,000,000 in emergency response 
funding for the Remote Sensing Laboratory to recover eroding 
emergency response infrastructure, repair and replace aging 
equipment, and begin upgrading capabilities to current 
technology. From within the funds provided to RSL, the 
Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 for the University 
of Nevada-Reno for the development of state-of-the-art 
chemical, biological, and nuclear detection sensors. The 
Committee also encourages the Office of Nuclear 
Nonproliferation to assess the capabilities of the Fire 
Training Academy in Elko, Nevada, to determine if it has 
utility to the Department as a place to conduct nuclear 
exposure training activities. The Department should report back 
to the House and Senate Committees by December 31, 2003.
    The Committee recommendation includes an additional 
$20,000,000 in support of the nuclear and radiological national 
security program. The NNSA is directed to provide for the 
sustained development of advanced technologies needed to 
counter nuclear terrorism threats and should focus on improving 
capabilities through research and development in threat 
assessment and prediction, basic nuclear understanding, sensors 
and detection systems, consequence mitigation, forensics and 
attribution and render-safe technologies. From within the funds 
provided for ground-based nuclear explosion monitoring, the 
Committee recommendation includes $2,500,000 in support of the 
3-year research effort by the Caucasus Seismic Information 
Network.

              NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

    The Committee recommendation includes $121,734,000, an 
increase of $20,000,000 from the request.
    The nonproliferation and international security program 
supports activities to: control the export of items and 
technology useful for weapons of mass destruction [WMD]; 
implement international safeguards in conjunction with the 
International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA]; monitor and 
implement treaties and agreements; develop and implement policy 
in support of international security efforts aimed at securing 
high-risk nuclear material; develop and implement transparency 
measures to assure international nonproliferation and arms 
control commitments; and explore and implement innovative 
approaches to improve regional security.
    The Committee recommendation includes $8,270,000 for 
continuing the efforts for disposition of spent nuclear fuel in 
Kazakhstan.
    The Committee commends the NNSA for engaging the wider U.S. 
scientific community in contributions to the treaty monitoring 
program. The Committee will not continue direction that the 
NNSA compete a specific portion of the treaty monitoring 
program, but strongly encourages the laboratories to continue 
to incorporate more industry and academic involvement and to 
establish metrics that will allow the Committee to track 
progress in this effort.
    The Committee recommendation includes an additional 
$20,000,000 to reinvigorate initiatives focused on removing 
nuclear weapons-usable materials from vulnerable sites around 
the world. These activities are essential to prevent terrorist 
groups or states hostile to the United States from acquiring 
destructive nuclear capabilities. The Administrator, working 
with the Secretary, must utilize the NNSA's strength in the 
inter-agency process to become the lead agency for all such 
governmental activities world-wide.

                 NONPROLIFERATION PROGRAMS WITH RUSSIA

    The Committee recommendation includes $1,030,505,000, a 
decrease of $4,083,000 from the request.
    International Materials Protection, Control, and 
Cooperation.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$226,000,000, the same as the request. This program will 
continue to improve the security for nuclear material and 
weapons in Russia by installing basic rapid upgrades and 
through comprehensive security improvements.
    The increased funding from fiscal year 2003 supplemental 
appropriations and the fiscal year 2004 recommendation will 
allow for additional material consolidation and control work. 
The Committee continues to believe that these activities are 
critical elements of the United States nonproliferation 
efforts.
    Regarding the second line of defense activities within the 
MP,C&C program, the Committee urges the NNSA to continue its 
efforts in the use of integrated monitoring methodology for 
special nuclear monitoring detection at airports, ports, and 
border crossing in the former Soviet Union and newly 
independent States and to continue to accelerate the Megaports 
initiative funded with $84,000,000 in the fiscal year 2003 
supplemental.
    The Committee directs that $5,000,000 of the total amounts 
available to the NNSA to address the threats of radiological 
dispersion devices be made available to the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission for bilateral and international efforts to 
strengthen regulatory controls over radioactive sources that 
are at the greatest risk of being used in RDDs.
    Accelerated Materials Disposition.--The Committee 
recommendation recommends $30,000,000, the amount of the budget 
request to accelerate the purchase of Russian HEU in amounts 
beyond the 1993 United States-Russia HEU Purchase Agreement. 
These additional amounts would be used to: establish a reserve 
inventory of low enriched uranium for use as fuel in the United 
States; accelerate development of low enriched research reactor 
fuel designs, and increase the amount of Russian HEU down-
blended under the material consolidation and conversion 
program.
    Russian Transition Initiatives.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $50,000,000 to support the Initiatives 
for Proliferation Prevention [IPP] and the Nuclear Cities 
Initiative [NCI] programs to reduce the risk of adverse 
migration of former Soviet nuclear and other WMD expertise, and 
to work with the Russians in downsizing their nuclear weapons 
complex. The Committee recommendation includes an additional 
$10,000,000 over the budget request for IPP.
    HEU Transparency Implementation.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $18,000,000 to support continued work 
with Russia to provide confidence to the United States that the 
Russian highly enriched uranium [HEU] being converted is from 
its military stockpile, consistent with the 1993 United States-
Russia HEU Purchase Agreement.
    International Nuclear Safety.--With the completion of the 
Soviet-designed reactor safety program in fiscal year 2003, the 
Committee recommendation does not continue a separately funded 
international nuclear safety program. The Committee strongly 
recommends the remaining programs in research reactor safety 
and shutdown in the former Soviet Union, Kazakhstan BN-350 
reactor shutdown, nuclear power plant protection, nuclear 
safety cooperation with China and other international 
organizations, and international emergency management and 
cooperation shall be consolidated and continued within the 
nonproliferation and international security program.
    Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production 
Program.--The Committee recommendation includes $50,000,000 for 
this program to assist the Russian Federation in ceasing its 
production of weapons-grade plutonium production by providing 
replacement power production capacity.
    Fissile Materials Disposition.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $656,505,000, the same as the budget 
request. This program conducts activities in both the United 
States and Russia to dispose of fissile materials that would 
pose a threat to the United States if acquired by hostile 
nations or terrorist groups.
    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 comparable 
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 recommendation includes $193,805,000 for U.S. 
surplus materials disposition, the same as the budget request.
    Construction.--
    Project 99-D-141 Pit Disassembly & Conversion Facility.--
The Committee recommends $13,600,000, the same as the budget 
request.
    Project 99-D-143 Mixed Oxide [MOX] Fuel Fabrication 
Facility.--The Committee recommends $402,000,000, the same as 
the budget request.

                          FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

    The Committee recommendation includes the use of 
$46,917,000 in prior year balances.

                             Naval Reactors

Appropriations, 2003....................................    $702,196,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................     768,400,000
Committee recommendation................................     768,400,000

    The Committee recommendation includes $768,400,000, the 
same as the budget request.
    The Naval Reactors account funds the design, development, 
and testing necessary to provide the Navy with safe, militarily 
effective nuclear propulsion plants in keeping with the 
Nation's nuclear-powered fleet defense requirements. During 
2003, the program expects to exceed 126 million miles safely 
steamed by the nuclear fleet, and will continue to support and 
improve operating reactors and plant components, and carry out 
test activities and verification. Additionally, Naval Reactors 
will continue to develop nuclear reactor plant components and 
systems for the Navy's new attack submarine and next-generation 
aircraft carriers, and continue to maintain the highest 
standards of environmental stewardship by responsibly 
inactivating shut down prototype reactor plants.

                      Office of the Administrator

Appropriations, 2003....................................    $325,102,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................     347,980,000
Committee recommendation................................     337,980,000

    The Committee recommendation includes $337,980,000, a 
reduction of $10,000,000 from the budget request.
    The Office of the Administrator account provides corporate 
planning and oversight for programs funded by the Weapons 
Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and Naval 
Reactors appropriations including the National Nuclear Security 
Administration field offices. This account provides the Federal 
salaries and other expenses of the Administrator's direct 
staff, headquarters employees, and employees at the field 
service center and site offices. Program Direction for Naval 
Reactors remains within that program's account, and program 
direction for the Secure Transportation Asset remains in 
Weapons Activities.
    The National Nuclear Security Administration Act and 
subsequent Appropriations Acts have included requirements or 
direction to develop and implement a planning, programming, and 
budgeting system. The Committee directs the Department to 
retain the Institute for Defense Analysis to conduct an 
independent assessment of the NNSA's PPBS process and 
structure, including its comparability to that of the 
Department of Defense. The review should also determine whether 
the NNSA's PPBS is capable of being used as the central 
decision making process for resource allocation decisions and 
the extent to which it has been incorporated by NNSA M&O 
contractors.
    In December 2003, the National Nuclear Security 
Administration [NNSA] implemented a major reorganization. The 
new organizational structure eliminated a layer of management 
and set the NNSA to achieve an overall 20 percent reduction in 
Federal personnel, with Headquarters committing to take a 30 
percent cut. The Administrator said the reorganization follows 
the principles of the President's Management Agenda, which 
strives to improve Government through performance and results. 
As a result of this organizational change, the NNSA field 
operation was affected the most. An NNSA Service Center was 
established in Albuquerque, New Mexico, consolidating numerous 
functions from the previous field operations offices. This 
consolidation of functions was done to streamline business 
functions and involves the movement of personnel from the 
previous Nevada and Oakland Operations Offices. The movement of 
personnel is scheduled to be complete by the end of fiscal year 
2004. The Committee directs the Administrator to forward to the 
House and Senate Committees, no later than October 31, 2003, a 
position-by-position listing of the exact Headquarters jobs to 
be eliminated in order to achieve the agreed-to 30 percent 
Federal personnel reduction.

               ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

    The 2004 budget proposes to restructure Environmental 
Management programs. Activities funded under the Defense 
Environmental Restoration and Waste Management account, the 
Defense Facilities Closure Projects account, and the Defense 
Environmental Management Privatization account in 2003 and 
prior years are transferred to the Defense Site Acceleration 
Completion account and the Defense Environmental Services 
accounts.
    The Department is pursuing alternative accelerated cleanup 
and risk-reduction strategies that are intended to 
significantly reduce life-cycle cost and schedules for cleanup 
of the former nuclear weapons production complex. When the 
Department reaches agreement with regulatory officials on these 
strategies, establishes a new funding profile and estimates the 
cost savings for the alternate cleanup strategy, these 
activities will be funded within the appropriate Defense or 
Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion accounts.
    The Department's defense environmental management program 
is responsible for identifying and reducing health and safety 
risks, and managing waste at sites where the Department carried 
out defense 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.

      ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONTRACT PERFORMANCE AND OVERSIGHT

    The Committee notes with concern the recent notification by 
the Department that the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant, 
Richland, Washington, construction project baseline would 
increase from $4,350,000,000 to $5,781,000,000, an increase of 
over $1,400,000,000. The relative lack of outrage over a 
baseline change of that magnitude speaks volumes about what the 
Congress and public have come to expect from the Department's 
clean-up program. The tank waste treatment project has a long 
and sordid history that indicates both the magnitude of the 
task before the Department, as well as the Department's 
historic combination of overly optimistic cost estimates 
coupled with consistent project mismanagement. The Committee 
notes its concern in the demonstrated pattern of Departmental 
officials announcing reform of some aspect of the clean-up 
program, only to depart and be replaced by a new set of 
officials coming before the Committee to describe dramatic cost 
overruns on the project baselines promised by their 
predecessors, and claiming no responsibility for the 
assumptions underlying those previous commitments.
    The Department is now into the second year of entering into 
new acceleration and reform agreements consistent with the 
policy conclusions of the Secretary's 2001 top-to-bottom review 
of the environmental clean-up program. The effort is 
commendable in its success in focusing the Department and its 
stakeholders on the importance of completing clean-up 
activities decades earlier than planned. The acceleration 
agreements entered into at the various clean-up sites have 
allowed the Department to book huge paper out-year savings and 
acceleration of completion dates. For example, the Department 
is claiming savings of $12,000,000,000 and 20 years at the 
Savannah River Site, South Carolina; $30,000,000,000 and 35 
years at Hanford, Washington; $2,000,000,000 and 6 years at Oak 
Ridge, Tennessee; and $19,000,000,000 and 35 years at Idaho. In 
many cases the savings are based on assumed changes in law, 
yet-to-be reformed regulatory environments, contractor savings, 
and other highly optimistic assumptions. The Department has had 
its successes, most notably Rocky Flats, Colorado, and should 
be commended. But even with such highlights, the weight of the 
historical record leaves the Committee to question who will be 
around in the future (other than the taxpayers) when these 
estimated cost savings will inevitably be revised.
    Thus, the Committee recommendation includes an additional 
$5,000,000 for the Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation 
to increase its oversight of the Department's new acceleration 
and reform clean-up agreements. The Department is directed to 
report back to the Committee by March 15, 2004, on a proposal 
to utilize the additional funds to establish a formal process 
by which the Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation shall 
certify to the Committees that new acceleration and reform 
agreements based on the site performance management plans are 
comprehensive in their cost estimates and contain adequate 
contingency. Among the items that should be considered are, for 
example, whether the contract cost estimate is dependent on any 
change of existing law or regulation, whether contract success 
is dependent on the development of certain technology; whether 
the contract estimate contains reserves for normal or 
foreseeable project evolution; or other items that would allow 
both the Department and the Congress to improve oversight and 
confidence in the cost savings promised in the acceleration and 
reform agreements.

                  Defense Site Acceleration Completion

Appropriations, 2003....................................              $0
Budget estimate, 2004...................................   5,814,635,000
Committee recommendation................................   5,770,695,000

    The Defense Site Acceleration Completion account funds 
programs responsible for managing and addressing the 
environmental legacy resulting from nuclear weapons related 
activities. The account's activities are funded within the 
following subprograms.

                      2006 ACCELERATED COMPLETIONS

    The Committee recommendation includes $1,245,171,000, the 
same as the budget request. This program includes all 
geographic sites with an accelerated cleanup plan closure date 
of 2006 or earlier (such as Rocky Flats, Fernald and Mound). In 
addition, this account provides funding for Environmental 
Management [EM] sites where overall site cleanup will not be 
complete by 2006 but cleanup projects within a site will be 
complete by 2006.
    The Committee strongly urges the Department to establish 
and implement a plan, or use existing plans, in which the waste 
material in the Fernald silos will be packaged, transported, 
and disposed at a commercial, NRC-licensed or Agreement State-
licensed facility. The Fernald silos' waste is waste from 
processing ore for its source material content and disposal of 
this waste as if it were ``11e.(2) by-product material'' is 
critical to meeting the congressional expectation of a safe, 
timely and cost-effective closure of the Fernald facility by 
2006.

                      2012 ACCELERATED COMPLETIONS

    The Committee recommendation includes $2,221,714,000, a 
reduction of $6,600,000 from the request. This program includes 
all geographic sites with an accelerated cleanup plan closure 
date of 2007 through 2012 (such as Pantex and Lawrence 
Livermore National Laboratory--Site 300). In addition, this 
account provides funding for EM sites where overall site 
cleanup will not be complete by 2012 but cleanup projects 
within a site will be complete by 2012.
    The Committee recommendation reflects the transfer of 
$6,600,000 from the Office of Environmental Management to the 
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology at Idaho 
National Laboratory for support of deferred landlord 
activities.

                      2035 ACCELERATED COMPLETIONS

    The Committee recommendation includes $1,899,384,000, an 
increase of $6,500,000 above the request. This program provides 
funding for site closures and site specific cleanup and closure 
projects that are expected to be completed after 2012 but by 
2035.
    The Department is expected to continue making PILT payments 
to counties that have the Hanford reservation within their 
boundaries and at last year's level. Within available funds for 
activities on the Hanford reservation, the Committee also 
directs the Department to fund the following: The Hazardous 
Waste Worker Training Program at levels consistent with fiscal 
year 2003 levels. The Committee recommendation includes 
$6,000,000 for the worker training programs at the Hazardous 
Materials Management and Emergency Response Training and 
Education Center [HAMMER] and $1,000,000 to support 
communications infrastructure, oversight, and management 
activities for HAMMER. In fiscal year 2003 the Committee 
directed that this program was to be transferred to the 
Department of Homeland Security and is disappointed that this 
has not yet occurred. The Committee recognizes the critical 
importance of HAMMER to Washington State and the Nation and 
expects the Department to make every effort to transfer this 
program to the Department of Homeland Security during fiscal 
year 2004 and beyond. Finally, the Committee provides 
$1,000,000 to the State of Oregon to cover costs of its clean-
up effort, including emergency drills, planning activities, 
technical review of Departmental waste management and clean-up 
plans, participation in the Hanford Advisory Board meetings and 
other meetings at Hanford.
    The Department is directed to pay its title V air 
permitting fees at the Idaho National Laboratory consistent 
with prior year levels.
    The Committee recommendation includes the budget request of 
$1,356,000 for activities at Amchitka Island, Alaska.
    The Committee also encourages the Office of Environmental 
Management to assess the capabilities of the Fire Training 
Academy in Elko, Nevada, to determine if it has utility to the 
Department as a place to conduct environmental management 
training activities. The Department should report back to the 
House and Senate Committees by December 31, 2003.
    The conferees are aware that the resolution of the Pit 9 
dispute at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental 
Laboratory has been in process for over 5 years at the cost of 
tens of millions of dollars in legal expenses with no 
appreciable progress. In the Statement of the Managers 
accompanying the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Act, 
the Department of Energy was directed to participate in 
mediation and failing that to go to binding arbitration to end 
this dispute and proceed with clean up activities. The 
conferees note with disappointment that the Department has made 
little or no progress toward that end. The Pit 9 litigation 
should be brought to an end as expeditiously as possible.
    Carlsbad Field Office.--The recommendation includes an 
additional $3,500,000 which shall be made available to the 
Carlsbad community for educational support, infrastructure 
improvements, and related initiatives to address the impacts of 
accelerated operations.
    The Committee understand that the Carlsbad Field Office has 
established a joint task force with the City of Carlsbad to 
evaluate the needs, functions, and requirements of a record 
center in Carlsbad. In order to provide more timely information 
in a useable format to citizens, researchers, stakeholders, and 
regulators, the Committee provides an additional $2,000,000 
directs the Department to consolidate at Carlsbad, all record 
archives relevant to the operations of WIPP and the TRU waste 
in the repository.
    The Committee directs the Department to utilize up to 
$5,000,000 from within funds available to the Office of 
Environmental Management to support the important work of the 
National Border Technology Partnership Program to reduce waste 
streams that threaten public health and safety in collaboration 
with the United States-Mexico Border Health Commission.
    Waste Analysis Requirements for the Waste Isolation Pilot 
Plant.--The Committee recognizes that the WIPP facility is 
central to the cleanup of the nuclear weapons complex and that 
waste should be emplaced as quickly and safely as possible--for 
reasons of reducing clean-up costs, public safety, and with the 
growing threat of radiological terrorism, for national 
security. Current law and regulation regarding the sampling and 
analysis of waste destined for WIPP produces substantial health 
and safety risks to workers with little if any corresponding 
public benefit. Both the New Mexico Environmental Evaluation 
Group, an independent WIPP oversight group, and the National 
Academy of Sciences have strongly suggested that waste destined 
for disposal at WIPP should not undergo hazardous waste 
sampling and analysis. To this end, the Committee believes that 
eliminating dangerous and excessive waste confirmation 
requirements that offer little if any benefit to the health and 
safety of the public will serve the national interests inherent 
in the safe and expeditious cleanup of the nuclear weapons 
complex. For these reasons, the Committee has included language 
in section 310 that requires that waste characterization be 
limited to determining that the waste is not ignitable, 
corrosive, or reactive. This confirmation will be performed 
using radiography or visual examination of a representative 
subpopulation of the waste. The language further directs the 
Secretary of Energy to seek a modification to the WIPP 
Hazardous Waste Facility Permit to implement the provisions of 
this bill by December 31, 2003. The Committee recommendation 
includes $1,000,000 for regulatory and technical assistance to 
the State of New Mexico to amend the existing WIPP Hazardous 
Waste Permit to comply with the provisions of the bill.

                        SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

    The Committee recommendation includes $299,977,000, the 
same as the request. The safeguards and security line 
identifies the funding necessary for all safeguard and security 
requirements for sites at which Office of Environmental 
Management has responsibility. This includes activities related 
to site-specific safeguards and security plans; facilities 
master security plans, cyber security plans, and personnel 
security programs at EM sites.

                 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND DEPLOYMENT

    The Committee recommendation includes $85,080,000, an 
increase of $21,160,000 over the budget request. This program 
focuses on high priority technical needs at near-term closure 
sites and projects. In addition, the technology program will 
focus on identifying technical vulnerabilities and alternative 
solutions in support of the Department's accelerated cleanup 
strategies.
    Within available funds, the Committee provides $6,000,000 
for the Western Environmental Technology Office; $6,000,000 for 
the Diagnostic Instrumentation and Analysis Laboratory; and 
$4,350,000 for the University Research Programs in Robotics.
    The Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000 for the 
subsurface science research institute under development with 
Idaho National Laboratory and the Inland Northwest Research 
Alliance [INRA] institutions.
    The Department is directed to renew its cooperative 
agreements with the University of Nevada-Las Vegas through its 
Research Foundation, and the University of Nevada-Reno.
    The Department shall continue its support of the Tribal 
Colleges Initiative grant, involving Crownpoint Institute of 
Technology, Dine College, Southwestern Indian Polytechnic 
Institute, to develop high-quality environmental programs at 
tribal colleges.
    The Committee recommendation includes an additional 
$4,000,000 for continued support of the international agreement 
and collaboration with AEA Technology to address alternative 
cost effective technologies for cleaning up legacy waste.

                          FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

    The Committee recommendation for Defense Site Acceleration 
Completion includes a funding adjustment of $65,000,000 for use 
of prior year balances and anticipated schedule slippage, a 
reduction of $15,924,000 from the current year level.

                     Defense Environmental Services

Appropriations, 2003....................................              $0
Budget estimate, 2004...................................     995,179,000
Committee recommendation................................     987,679,000

    The Defense Environmental Services account funds defense 
related activities that indirectly support the primary 
environmental management mission of accelerated risk reduction 
and closure. The programs and activities are funded within the 
following subprograms.

                    COMMUNITY AND REGULATORY SUPPORT

    The Committee recommendation includes $63,837,000, an 
increase of $2,500,000 over the request. This program funds 
activities that are indirectly related to on-the-ground cleanup 
results and are integral to the Department's ability to conduct 
cleanup at sites (for example, Agreements in Principle with 
State regulators and tribal nations, and Site Specific Advisory 
Boards).
    The Committee recommendation includes an additional 
$2,500,000 for the Waste Management Education and Research 
Consortium consistent with the terms of its cooperative 
agreement with the Department. From within available funds, 
$500,000 shall be used to support the Energy and Environmental 
Hispanic Community Participation project of the Self Reliance 
Foundation needed to increase Hispanic community understanding 
of and participation in environmental management initiatives of 
the Department.
    The Committee encourages the Department of Energy to 
continue to work collaboratively with the Western States to 
reach consensus on mutually agreeable routes for the 
transportation of transuranic nuclear waste to the Waste 
Isolation Plant in New Mexico. The Committee believes that the 
success of the WIPP Program Implementation Guide agreed to by 
the Department and the Western Governor's Association can be 
attributed to the cooperative relationship between the States 
and DOE. The Committee urges DOE to continue to work in a 
cooperative fashion with the States toward consensus and 
concurrence on proposed shipping routes.

  FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND 
                       DECOMMISSIONING [D&D] FUND

    The Committee recommendation includes $452,000,000, the 
same as the budget request. This program funds the Federal 
Government contribution to the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund, as 
required by the Energy Policy Act of 1992.

                  NON-CLOSURE ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES

    The Committee recommendation includes $189,698,000, the 
same as the budget request. This program funds ongoing 
activities that indirectly support the Environmental Management 
accelerated cleanup and closure mission. These activities 
provide valuable support to other Departmental priorities and 
missions.

                           PROGRAM DIRECTION

    The Committee recommendation includes $282,144,000, a 
reduction of $10,000,000 from the budget request. This program 
provides the funding necessary for oversight and management 
functions for the EM program, including Federal salaries and 
benefits, travel, and other costs.

                        Other Defense Activities

Appropriations, 2003....................................    $511,659,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................     522,678,000
Committee recommendation................................     492,209,000

    The Other Defense Activities account provides funding for 
the following Departmental offices and functions: security; 
intelligence; counterintelligence; independent oversight and 
performance assurance; defense-related environment, safety and 
health support; worker and community transition, legacy 
management; and hearings and appeals.

                                SECURITY

    The Committee recommendation includes $211,757,000, the 
same as the budget request.
    The security program consists of the following elements: 
nuclear safeguards and security, security investigations, and 
program direction. These programs provide policy for the 
protection of the Department's nuclear weapons, nuclear 
materials, classified information, and facilities. They ensure 
a Department-wide capability to continue essential functions 
across a wide range of potential emergencies, allowing DOE to 
uphold its national security responsibilities and provide 
security clearances for Federal and contractor personnel.

                              INTELLIGENCE

    The Committee recommendation includes $39,823,000 for 
intelligence activities, the same as the budget request.
    The intelligence program is focused on providing the 
Department, other U.S. Government policy makers, and the 
Intelligence Community with foreign intelligence technical 
analyses and technology applications relevant to the 
Department's core missions and unique capabilities.

                          COUNTERINTELLIGENCE

    The Committee recommendation includes $45,955,000, the same 
as the budget request.
    The counterintelligence program is responsible for the 
development and implementation of an effective program 
throughout the Department to identify, neutralize and deter 
foreign government or industrial intelligence, and 
international terrorist activities at or involving departmental 
programs, personnel, facilities, technologies, classified 
information and unclassified sensitive information.
    The Department has proposed consolidating the 
counterintelligence activities of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration into one office within the Department of Energy. 
While the Department's concerns about the duplication of effort 
and inefficiency are valid, the Committee is not prepared to 
accept the notion that the Department, rather than the NNSA, is 
the appropriate home for the consolidated counterintelligence 
program. The most critical counterintelligence programs are 
currently found in the NNSA, not the Department. In the view of 
the Committee, a preferable solution may be to move the 
Department's counterintelligence programs into the NNSA.

            INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT AND PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE

    The Committee recommendation includes $22,575,000 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, environment, safety, health emergency management, 
cyber security and other critical functions for the Department.

                     ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

    The Committee recommendation includes a total of 
$105,761,000, a decrease of $1,925,000 from the budget request. 
The recommendation includes $17,410,000 for program direction, 
a reduction of $3,000,000 from the budget request.
    The defense-related environment, safety and health program 
is a corporate resource that provides Departmental leadership 
and management to protect the workers, public, and environment 
in the areas of oversight, health studies, radiation effects 
research, employee compensation support, and program direction.
    The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 to 
continue the DOE worker records digitization project through 
the Research Foundation at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas. 
The Committee continues to be concerned that the Department has 
failed to recognize the importance of automating records 
management processes and continues to encumber extraordinary 
costs by employing labor intensive procedures in support of 
these requirements. Though the Committee recommended a 
Department-wide standardization of processes to ensure data 
preservation and access, the Committee is not aware of a 
comprehensive coordinated effort being undertaken within the 
Department. The Committee is also aware that even within the 
Environment Safety & Health organization, parallel activities 
were undertaken to digitize worker records while another part 
of the organization sought the digitization of similar worker 
records to support the Employee Compensation Initiative. To the 
extent that there is a desire to digitize records in support of 
the ECI, the Committee strongly encourages the Department to 
utilize the existing program at UNLV.
    The Committee recommends $3,075,000, an increase of 
$2,075,000 above the request, for medical monitoring at the 
gaseous diffusion plants at Paducah, Kentucky, Portsmouth, 
Ohio, and Oak Ridge, Tennessee. This will fully fund, as 
required by law, the worker screening program for both current 
and former workers. The Committee strongly supports and 
requires the continued use of helical low-dose CAT scanning for 
early lung cancer detection in workers with elevated risks of 
lung cancer. Such tests may detect lung cancers at an early 
stage even when they are not visible with conventional x-rays. 
The program in place at the gaseous diffusion plants is 
successfully identifying early lung cancers at a stage when 
they are treatable and can be expected to dramatically increase 
survival rates.
    The Committee supports and is pleased with the Department's 
efforts to expand the Voluntary Protection Program [VPP] and 
other voluntary cooperative programs. The Department's work in 
expanding participation in the program and promoting prompt 
review and processing of applications is particularly 
noteworthy. In fiscal year 2004, the Committee expects DOE to 
continue to place priority on the DOE-VPP as it is an important 
part of the Department's ability to ensure worker safety and 
health.
    The Committee urges the Department to consider, as 
appropriate, requiring its contractor at the Nevada Test Site 
to assume responsibility for self-insuring for worker 
compensation for all diagnosed occupationally induced hearing 
loss claims for those employed at the Nevada Test Site prior to 
1994, to notify former employees and the State of Nevada, and 
to reimburse the DOE contractor for the related costs.
    Energy Employees Compensation Initiative.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $16,000,000, the amount of the request, 
for the Energy Employees Compensation Initiative. Title 36 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act of 2001 (Public Law 106-
398) established the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 
Compensation program to provide benefits to DOE contractor 
workers made ill as a result of exposures from nuclear weapons 
production. The Department is responsible for establishing 
procedures to assist workers in filing compensation claims.

                           LEGACY MANAGEMENT

    The Committee recommendation includes $57,525,000, an 
increase of $10,000,000 from the budget request.
    The Department proposes the creation of a new Office of 
Legacy Management in fiscal year 2004. The purpose of the 
office would be to conduct stewardship activities at sites 
where active environmental remediation as a result of weapons 
production has been completed. These activities include records 
management, ground-water monitoring and the administration of 
post closure contractor liabilities. The Committee endorses the 
creation of such an office and also recommends that the new 
Office of Legacy Management incorporate the mission and budget 
of the Office of Worker and Community Transition. Beginning in 
fiscal year 2004, those activities carried out pursuant to 
section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1993 
to provide options to assist workers affected by workforce 
restructuring, assistance to communities, and disposition of 
excess assets shall be carried out by the new Office of Legacy 
Management.
    The Committee directs the Department to complete without 
further delay the remaining record of decision for the Weldon 
Spring Site Remedial Action Project and provide such funding as 
it necessary for remaining site clean-up activities.

           NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

    The Committee recommendation includes $25,000,000 for 
National Security Programs Administrative support. This fund 
pays for departmental services that are provided in support of 
the National Nuclear Security Administration.

                     OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

    The Committee recommendation includes $3,797,000 for the 
Office of Hearings and Appeals, the same as the budget request.
    The Office of Hearings and Appeals conducts all of the 
Department's adjudicative process and provides various 
administrative remedies as may be required.

                     Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal

Appropriations, 2003....................................    $312,952,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................     430,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     285,000,000

    The Committee recommends $285,000,000 for defense nuclear 
waste disposal, a decrease of $65,000,000 from the budget 
request.
    This account provides the Federal Government's fiscal year 
2004 contribution to the nuclear waste repository program to 
support nuclear waste repository activities attributed to 
atomic energy defense activities.

                    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.

                  BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION FUND

    The Bonneville Power Administration [BPA] 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 states in the Columbia River basin. BPA markets 
hydroelectric power from 21 multipurpose water resource 
projects of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and 10 projects of 
the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, plus some energy from non-
Federal generating projects in the region. These generating 
resources and BPA's transmission system are operated as an 
integrated power system with operating and financial results 
combined and reported as the Federal Columbia River Power 
System [FCRPS]. BPA is the largest power wholesaler in the 
Northwest and provides about 45 percent of the region's 
electric energy supply and about three-fourths of the region's 
electric power transmission capacity.
    BPA finances its operations on the basis of the self-
financing authority provided by Federal Columbia River 
Transmission System Act of 1974 (Transmission Act) (Public Law 
93-454) and the borrowing authority provided by the Pacific 
Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (Pacific 
Northwest Power Act) (Public Law 96-501) for energy 
conservation, renewable energy resources and capital fish 
facilities. Authority to borrow is available to the BPA on a 
permanent, indefinite basis.

      OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2003....................................      $4,505,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................       5,100,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,100,000

    The Southeastern Power Administration markets hydroelectric 
power produced at Corps of Engineers projects in 11 
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 recommendation includes $34,400,000 for 
purchase power and wheeling activities, an increase of 
$19,937,000 over the current year level.

      OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2003....................................     $27,200,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................      28,600,000
Committee recommendation................................      28,600,000

    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 recommendation includes $2,800,000 for 
purchase power and wheeling activities, an increase of 
$1,288,000 over the current year level.

 CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE WESTERN AREA 
                          POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2003....................................    $167,760,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................     171,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     177,950,000

    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 almost 17,000 
miles of high-voltage transmission lines with more than 260 
substations.
    Utah Mitigation and Conservation Fund.--This fund is 
dedicated primarily for environmental mitigation expenditures 
covering fish and wildlife, and recreation resources impacted 
by the Central Utah Project and the Colorado River Storage 
Project in the State of Utah. For fiscal year 2004, the 
President's Budget proposes to transfer the authorities and 
future contributions for the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and 
Conservation Account from the Secretary of Energy, Western Area 
Power Administration, to the Secretary of the Interior, Bureau 
of Reclamation. The Committee recommendation does not include 
this change in law. Of the total resources available to the 
Western Power Administration, $6,200,000 shall be transferred 
to the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission. 
The Committee recommendation includes $750,000 on a non-
reimbursable basis for a transmission study on the placement of 
500 MW of wind energy in North Dakota and South Dakota.
    The Committee recommendation includes $186,100,000 for 
purchase power and wheeling activities, an increase of 
$29,976,000 over the current year level.

           FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

    The Committee recommendation is $2,640,000, the same as the 
budget request.
    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.

                  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2003....................................    $192,000,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................     199,400,000
Committee recommendation................................     199,400,000

                SALARIES AND EXPENSES--REVENUES APPLIED

Appropriations, 2003....................................   -$192,000,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................    -199,400,000
Committee recommendation................................    -199,400,000

    The Committee recommendation includes $199,400,000, the 
amount of the budget request, 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 (Commission) 
regulates key interstate aspects of the electric power, natural 
gas, oil pipeline, and hydropower industries. Regulated 
entities pay fees and charges sufficient to recover the 
Government's full costs of operations.
    The Federal Power Act [FPA] requires the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission to collect from non-Federal hydropower 
project licensees reasonable annual charges to recompense the 
United States for a project's use, occupancy, and enjoyment of 
Federal lands, but in setting such charges, to seek to avoid 
increasing the price of power to the consumer. Since 1987, the 
Commission has used an established U.S. Forest Service [USFS] 
and Bureau of Land Management [BLM] assessment system. The 
method satisfies the legislative mandate to collect reasonable 
fees without increasing the cost of power to the consumer and 
provides significant administrative savings.
    Recently, the General Accounting Office [GAO] conducted an 
analysis of the Commission's charges for use of Federal lands 
(GAO-03-383), and although not determining what would be a 
reasonable fee pursuant to the FPA, attempted to determine the 
net benefits of a select few hydropower projects as a 
substitute for fair market value. It should be noted here that 
the provisions of section 10(e) of the FPA do not call for the 
Commission to collect either fair market value or net benefits. 
Nevertheless, GAO concluded that the Commission is only 
collecting 2 percent of the fair market value. As the GAO 
Report itself acknowledges, the analysis of such a limited 
sample of projects cannot reliably be extrapolated to the 
unstudied projects; to obtain valid results, all projects would 
have to be analyzed. The cost of undertaking such analyses 
would be prohibitive, which was a major reason the Commission 
has never adopted a project-specific valuation methodology. The 
GAO's project-specific methodology would in most cases, result 
in drastic increases in charges to licensees that ultimately 
would be passed on to the consumers and would require extensive 
data collection and analysis thereby increasing the 
Commission's administrative costs, which would increase costs 
to almost all licensees, not only those which occupy Federal 
lands. Also, there would be a high probability that the 
assessed charges would be challenged resulting in further 
increases in administrative costs. Considering all of these 
factors, the GAO net benefits methodology appears to be 
inconsistent with the previously stated requirements of the 
FPA.
    Therefore, the Commission's continued use of locally 
determined values for fixing annual charges is appropriate, 
administratively efficient, and consistent with the 
requirements of setting reasonable charges that seek to avoid 
increasing the costs of power to the consumer, as required by 
section 10(e) of the FPA.

             Defense Environmental Management Privatization


                              (RESCISSION)

    The Committee recommendation includes the rescission of 
$15,329,000 from Defense Environmental Management 
Privatization. The balances shall be derived as follow: 
$13,329,000 from the Paducah Disposal Facility Privatization 
(OR-574) and $2,000,000 from the Portsmouth Disposal Facility 
Privatization (OR-674).

                        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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Budget         Committee
                                  Project title                                      estimate     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  ENERGY SUPPLY

                           RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

Renewable energy technologies:
    Biomass/biofuels energy systems.............................................          69,750          75,005
    Geothermal technology development...........................................          25,500          26,300
    Hydrogen research...........................................................          87,982          87,982
    Hydropower..................................................................           7,489           5,000
    Solar energy................................................................          79,693          89,693
    Zero energy building........................................................           4,000  ..............
    Wind energy systems.........................................................          41,600          41,600
    Intergovernmental activities................................................          12,500           9,500
    Electricity reliability.....................................................          76,866  ..............
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Total, Renewable energy technologies......................................         405,380         335,080

Electric energy systems and storage.............................................  ..............  ..............

Renewable support and implementation:
    Departmental energy management..............................................           2,300           1,800
    International renewable energy program......................................  ..............  ..............
    Renewable energy production incentive program...............................  ..............           4,000
    Renewable Indian energy resources...........................................  ..............  ..............
    Renewable program support...................................................  ..............           4,000
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Total, Renewable support and implementation...............................           2,300           9,800

National climate change technology initiative...................................          15,000  ..............

Facilities and infrastructure:
    National renewable energy laboratory........................................           4,200           4,200
        Construction:
            02-E-001 Project engineering and design, NREL Golden, CO............  ..............  ..............
            04-E-001 Science and technology facility............................  ..............           3,500
                                                                                 -------------------------------
              Total, National renewable energy laboratory.......................           4,200           7,700

    Oak Ridge National Laboratory:
        Construction: 04-E-TBD Plant engineering and design (PED), energy                    750             750
         reliability and efficiency laboratory..................................
                                                                                 -------------------------------
            Total, Facilities and infrastructure................................           4,950           8,450

Program direction...............................................................          16,577          13,146
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Renewable Energy Resources......................................         444,207         366,476
                                                                                 ===============================
Use of prior year balances......................................................  ..............  ..............
Reduction for nuclear hydrogen initiative.......................................  ..............          -8,000
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      TOTAL, RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES.........................................         444,207         358,476
                                                                                 ===============================
                        ELECTRICITY ENERGY AND ASSURANCE

Office of Electricity and Energy Assurance......................................  ..............          45,000
High temperature superconducting R&D............................................  ..............          47,838
Program direction...............................................................  ..............           7,587
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      TOTAL, ELECTRICITY AND ENERGY ASSURANCE...................................  ..............         100,425

                                 NUCLEAR ENERGY

Radiological facilities management:
    Space and defense infrastructure............................................          36,230          40,230

    Medical isotopes infrastructure.............................................          26,425          26,425
        Isotope support and production..........................................  ..............  ..............
            Construction: 599-E-201 Isotope production facility (LANL)..........  ..............  ..............
                                                                                 -------------------------------
              Subtotal, Isotope support and production..........................  ..............  ..............

        Offsetting collections..................................................  ..............  ..............
                                                                                 -------------------------------
          Subtotal, Medical isotopes infrastructure.............................          26,425          26,425
                                                                                 -------------------------------
          Total, Radiological facilities management.............................          62,655          66,655

University reactor fuel assistance and support..................................          18,500          22,000

Research and development:
    Nuclear energy plant optimization...........................................  ..............  ..............
    Nuclear energy research initiative..........................................          12,000          12,000
    Nuclear energy technologies.................................................          48,000          55,721
    Nuclear hydrogen initiative.................................................           4,000           8,000
    Advanced fuel cycle initiative..............................................          63,025          78,025
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Total, Research and development...........................................         127,025         153,746

Fast flux test facility (FFTF)..................................................  ..............  ..............

Idaho facilities management:
    Radiological facilities.....................................................  ..............  ..............
    ANL-West operations.........................................................          31,615          44,215
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Subtotal..................................................................          31,615          44,215

    INEEL infrastructure........................................................          31,605          31,605
        Test reactor area landlord..............................................  ..............  ..............
        Construction:
            99-E-201 Isotope production facility (LANL).........................  ..............  ..............
            99-E-200 Test reactor area electrical utility upgrade, Idaho                   1,840           1,840
             National Engineering Lab, ID.......................................
            95-E-201 Test reactor area fire and life safety improvements, Idaho              500             500
             National Engineering Lab, ID.......................................
                                                                                 -------------------------------
                Subtotal, Construction..........................................           2,340           2,340
                                                                                 -------------------------------
                Subtotal, INEEL infrastructure..................................          33,945          33,945
                                                                                 -------------------------------
                Total, Idaho facilities management..............................          65,560          78,160

Idaho sitewide safeguards and security..........................................          56,654          56,654

Nuclear facilities management:
    EBR-II shutdown.............................................................  ..............  ..............
    Disposition of spent fuel and legacy materials..............................  ..............  ..............
    Disposition technology activities...........................................  ..............  ..............
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Total, Nuclear facilities management......................................  ..............  ..............

Advanced fuel cycle initiative..................................................  ..............  ..............
Program direction...............................................................          60,207          60,207
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Nuclear Energy..................................................         390,601         437,422
                                                                                 ===============================
Use of prior year balances......................................................  ..............  ..............
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY.....................................................         390,601         437,422
                                                                                 ===============================
                         ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

Office of Environment, Safety and Health (non-defense)..........................          10,000           6,796
Program direction...............................................................          20,000          15,641
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      TOTAL, ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH.....................................          30,000          22,437
                                                                                 ===============================
                            ENERGY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES

Technical information management program........................................  ..............  ..............
    Program direction...........................................................  ..............  ..............
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES..........................................  ..............  ..............
                                                                                 ===============================
                          ENERGY SUPPLY INFRASTRUCTURE

Energy Supply Infrastructure....................................................  ..............          17,600
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPLY INFRASTRUCTURE.......................................  ..............          17,600
                                                                                 ===============================
      Subtotal, Energy supply...................................................         864,808         936,360
                                                                                 ===============================
General reduction...............................................................  ..............         -13,000
Less security charge from reimbursable work.....................................          -3,003          -3,003
                                                                                 ===============================
      TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPLY......................................................         861,805         920,357
                                                                                 ===============================

                    NON-DEFENSE SITE ACCELERATION COMPLETION

Accelerated completions, 2006...................................................          48,677          48,677
Accelerated completions, 2012...................................................         119,750         119,750
Accelerated completions, 2035...................................................           2,448           6,448
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Subtotal..................................................................         170,875         174,875
Use of prior year balances......................................................  ..............          -3,000
                                                                                 ===============================
      TOTAL, NON-DEFENSE SITE ACCELERATION COMPLETION...........................         170,875         171,875
                                                                                 ===============================
                      NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Site closure....................................................................  ..............  ..............
Site/project completion.........................................................  ..............  ..............
Post 2006 completion............................................................  ..............  ..............
Fast flux test facility (FFTF)..................................................  ..............  ..............
Long-term stewardship...........................................................  ..............  ..............
Excess facilities...............................................................  ..............  ..............
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Non-Defense Environmental Management............................  ..............  ..............
                                                                                 ===============================
Use of prior year balances......................................................  ..............  ..............
                                                                                 ===============================
      TOTAL, NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT...............................  ..............  ..............
                                                                                 ===============================
           URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECOMTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING FUND

Decontamination and decommissioning.............................................         367,124         370,124
Uranium/thorium reimbursement...................................................          51,000          26,000
                                                                                 ===============================
      TOTAL, URANIUM ENRICHMENT D&D FUND........................................         418,124         396,124
                                                                                 ===============================
                       NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

Community and regulatory support................................................           1,034           1,034
Environmental cleanup projects..................................................          43,842          43,842
Non-closure environmental activities............................................         160,445         160,445
    Construction: 02-U-101 Depleted uranium hexafluoride conversion project,              86,800          96,800
     Paducah, KY and Portsmouth, OH.............................................
                                                                                 ===============================
        TOTAL, NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES...............................         292,121         302,121
                                                                                 ===============================
                 URANIUM FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND REMEDIATION

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund:
    Decontamination and decommissioning.........................................  ..............  ..............
    Uranium/thorium reimbursement...............................................  ..............  ..............
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Total, Uranium enrichment D&D fund........................................  ..............  ..............

Other Uranium Activities:
    Maintenance and pre-existing liabilities....................................  ..............  ..............
    02-U-101 Depleted uranium hexafluoride conversion project, Paducah, KY and    ..............  ..............
     Portsmouth, OH.............................................................
    96-U-201 DUF6 cylinder storage yard, Paducah, KY............................  ..............  ..............
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Total, Other uranium activities...........................................  ..............  ..............

Use of prior year balances......................................................  ..............  ..............
                                                                                 ===============================
      TOTAL, URANIUM FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND REMEDIATION.....................  ..............  ..............
                                                                                 ===============================
                                     SCIENCE

High energy physics.............................................................  ..............  ..............
    Research & Technology.......................................................  ..............  ..............
    Facility operations.........................................................  ..............  ..............
    Proton accelerator-based physics............................................         399,494         399,494
    Electron accelerator-based physics..........................................         159,486         159,486
    Non-accelerator physics.....................................................          43,000          43,000
    Theoretical physics.........................................................          42,256          42,256
    Advanced technology R&D.....................................................          81,242          81,242
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Subtotal..................................................................         725,478         725,478

    Construction: 98-G-304 Neutrinos at the main injector, Fermilab.............          12,500          12,500
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Total, High energy physics................................................         737,978         737,978

Nuclear physics.................................................................         389,430         389,430

Biological and environmental research...........................................         499,535         534,035
    Construction: 01-E-300 Laboratory for Comparative and Functional Genomics,    ..............  ..............
     ORNL.......................................................................
                                                                                 -------------------------------
        Total, Biological and environmental research............................         499,535         534,035

Basic energy sciences:
    Research:
        Materials sciences and engineering research.............................         567,711         567,711
        Chemical sciences, geosciences and energy biosciences...................         220,914         220,914
        Engineering and geosciences.............................................  ..............  ..............
        Energy biosciences......................................................  ..............  ..............
                                                                                 -------------------------------
          Subtotal, Research....................................................         788,625         788,625

    Construction:
        04-R-313-Nanoscale science research center, the molecular foundry.......          35,000          35,000
        04-R-314 Nanoscale science research center, the center for integrated             29,850          29,850
         nontechnologies, SNL/LASL..............................................
        03-SC-002 Project engineering & design (PED) SLAC.......................           7,500           7,500
        03-R-312 Center for nanophase materials sciences, ORNL..................          20,000          20,000
        03-R-313 Center for Integrated Nenotechnology...........................  ..............  ..............
        02-SC-002 Project engineering and design (VL)...........................           3,000           3,000
        99-E-334 Spallation neutron source (ORNL)...............................         124,600         124,600
                                                                                 -------------------------------
          Subtotal, Construction................................................         219,950         219,950
                                                                                 -------------------------------
          Total, Basic energy sciences..........................................       1,008,575       1,008,575

Advanced scientific computing research..........................................         173,490         183,490
Energy research analyses........................................................  ..............  ..............
Science laboratories infrastructure:
    Infrastructure support......................................................           1,520           1,520
    Oak Ridge landlord..........................................................           5,079          10,079
    Excess facilities disposal..................................................           5,055           5,055
    Construction:
        04-SC-001 Project engineering and design (PED), various locations.......           2,000           2,000
        03-SC-001 Science laboratories infrastructure project engineering and     ..............  ..............
         design (PED), various loc..............................................
        MEL-001 Multiprogram energy laboratory infrastructure projects, various           29,936          29,936
         locations..............................................................
        02-SC-001 Multiprogram energy laboratories, project engineering design,   ..............  ..............
         various locations......................................................
                                                                                 -------------------------------
          Subtotal, Construction................................................          31,936          31,936
                                                                                 -------------------------------
          Total, Science laboratories infrastructure............................          43,590          48,590

Fusion energy sciences..........................................................         257,310         257,310
Safeguards and security.........................................................          48,127          51,887
Science workforce development...................................................           6,470           6,470

Science program direction:
    Field offices...............................................................          83,802          80,102
    Headquarters................................................................          58,217          58,217
    Science education...........................................................  ..............  ..............
    Technical information management program....................................           7,774           7,714
    Energy research analyses....................................................           1,020           1,020
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Total, Science program direction..........................................         150,813         147,053
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Science.........................................................       3,315,318       3,364,818
                                                                                 ===============================
General reduction/use of prior year balances....................................  ..............  ..............
Less security charge for reimbursable work......................................          -4,383          -4,383
Supplemental appropriations (Public Law 108-11).................................  ..............  ..............
                                                                                 ===============================
      TOTAL, SCIENCE............................................................       3,310,935       3,360,435
                                                                                 ===============================

                             NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Repository program..............................................................          85,830          64,830
Program direction...............................................................          75,170          75,170
                                                                                 ===============================
      TOTAL, NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL.............................................         161,000         140,000
                                                                                 ===============================
                           DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

Administrative operations:
    Salaries and expenses:
        Office of the Secretary.................................................           4,624           4,624
        Board of Contract Appeals...............................................             653             653
        Chief information officer...............................................          42,214          35,214
        Congressional and intergovernmental affairs.............................           4,724           4,724
        Economic impact and diversity...........................................           4,701           4,701
        General counsel.........................................................          22,879          22,879
        International affairs...................................................  ..............  ..............
        Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation.............................         104,210         109,210
        Policy office...........................................................  ..............  ..............
        Policy and international affairs........................................          17,777          14,777
        Public affairs..........................................................           4,465           4,465
                                                                                 -------------------------------
          Subtotal, Salaries and expenses.......................................         206,247         201,247

    Program support:
        Minority economic impact................................................           1,400           1,192
        Policy analysis and system studies......................................           1,000             397
        Energy security and assurance...........................................           2,000           2,000
        Environmental policy studies............................................           1,500             569
        Engineering and construction management reviews.........................  ..............  ..............
        Cybersecurity and secure communications.................................          26,432          26,432
        Corporate management information program................................          37,632          27,632
                                                                                 -------------------------------
          Subtotal, Program support.............................................          69,964          58,222
                                                                                 -------------------------------
          Total, Administrative operations......................................         276,211         259,469

Cost of work for others.........................................................          75,095          75,095
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Departmental Administration.....................................         351,306         334,564
                                                                                 ===============================
Use of prior year balances and other adjustments................................  ..............  ..............
Funding from other defense activities...........................................         -25,000         -25,000
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Total, Departmental administration (gross)................................         326,306         309,564
                                                                                 ===============================
Miscellaneous revenues..........................................................        -146,668        -146,668
                                                                                 ===============================
      TOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION (net)..................................         179,638         162,896
                                                                                 ===============================
                           OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Office of Inspector General.....................................................          39,462          39,462
                                                                                 ===============================
      TOTAL, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL........................................          39,462          39,462
                                                                                 ===============================
                        ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

                    NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

                               WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Directed stockpile work:
    Stockpile research and development..........................................         433,150         433,150
    Stockpile maintenance.......................................................         405,746         415,746
    Stockpile evaluation........................................................         202,885         202,885
    Dismantlement/disposal......................................................          37,722          37,722
    Production support..........................................................         278,113         271,113
    Field engineering, training and manuals.....................................           7,170           7,170
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Total, Directed stockpile work............................................       1,364,786       1,367,786

Campaigns:
    Science campaigns:
        Primary certification...................................................          65,849          64,849
        Dynamic materials properties............................................          82,251          87,251
        Advanced radiography....................................................          65,985          65,985
        Secondary certification and nuclear systems margins.....................          55,463          54,463
                                                                                 -------------------------------
          Subtotal, Science campaigns...........................................         269,548         272,548

Engineering campaigns:
    Enhanced surety.............................................................          37,974          36,974
    Weapons system engineering certification....................................          28,238          27,238
    Nuclear survivability.......................................................          23,977          22,977
    Enhanced surveillance.......................................................          94,781          92,781
    Advanced design and production technologies.................................          79,917          77,917

    Engineering campaigns construction activities...............................           4,500           4,500
        Construction: 01-D-108 Microsystem and engineering science applications           61,800         105,000
         (MESA), SNL, Albuquerque, NM...........................................
                                                                                 -------------------------------
            Subtotal, Engineering campaigns & construction......................          66,300         109,500
                                                                                 -------------------------------
            Subtotal, Engineering campaigns.....................................         331,187         367,387

    Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield.........................         316,769         282,769
        Construction: 96-D-111 National ignition facility, LLNL.................         150,000         150,000
                                                                                 -------------------------------
          Subtotal, Inertial confinement fusion.................................         466,769         432,769

    Advanced simulation and computing...........................................         713,326         688,326
        Construction:
            01-D-101 Distributed information systems laboratory, SNL, Livermore,          12,300          12,300
             CA.................................................................
            00-D-103, Terascale simulation facility, LLNL, Livermore, CA........          25,000          25,000
            00-D-105 Strategic computing complex, LANL, Los Alamos, NM..........  ..............  ..............
            00-D-107 Joint computational engineering laboratory, SNL,             ..............  ..............
             Albuquerque, NM....................................................
                                                                                 -------------------------------
                Subtotal, Construction..........................................          37,300          37,300
                                                                                 -------------------------------
                Subtotal, Advanced simulation and computing.....................         750,626         725,626

    Pit manufacturing and certification.........................................         320,228         320,228

    Readiness campaigns:
        Stockpile readiness.....................................................          55,158          55,158
        High explosives manufacturing and weapons assembly/disassembly readi-             29,649          27,649
         ness...................................................................
        Non-nuclear readiness...................................................          37,397          34,397
        Materials readiness.....................................................  ..............  ..............
        Tritium readiness.......................................................          59,893          59,893
            Construction: 98-D-125 Tritium extraction facility, SR..............          75,000          75,000
                                                                                 -------------------------------
              Subtotal, Tritium readiness.......................................         134,893         134,893
                                                                                 -------------------------------
              Subtotal, Readiness campaigns.....................................         257,097         252,097
                                                                                 -------------------------------
              Total, Campaigns..................................................       2,395,455       2,370,655

Readiness in technical base and facilities:
    Operations of facilities....................................................         972,773       1,091,773
    Program readiness...........................................................         131,093         131,093
    Special projects............................................................          42,975          60,025
    Material recycle and recovery...............................................          76,189          76,189
    Containers..................................................................          16,006          16,006
    Storage.....................................................................          11,365          11,365
    Nuclear weapons incident response...........................................          89,694          89,694
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Readiness in technical base and fac.............................       1,340,095       1,476,145

    Construction:
        04-D-101 Test capabilities revitalization, Sandia National Laboratories,          36,450          36,450
         Albuquerque, NM........................................................
        04-D-102 Exterior communications infrastructure modernization, Sandia             20,000          20,000
         National Laboratories..................................................
        04-D-103 Project engineering and design (PED), various locations........           2,000           3,564
        04-D-104 National security sciences building, Los Alamos National                 50,000          50,000
         Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM.............................................
        04-D-125 Chemistry and metallurgy facility replacement project, Los               20,500          20,500
         Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM.............................
        04-D-126 Building 12-44 production cells upgrade, Pantex plant,                    8,780           8,780
         Amarillo, TX...........................................................
        04-D-127 Cleaning and loading modifications, Savannah River site, Aiken,           2,750           2,750
         SC.....................................................................
        04-D-128 TA-18 mission relocation project, Los Alamos Laboratory, Los              8,820           8,820
         Alamos, NM.............................................................
        03-D-101 Sandia underground reactor facility SURF, SNL, Albuquerque, NM.  ..............  ..............
        03-D-102 LANL Administration Building (LANL)............................  ..............  ..............
        03-D-103 Project engineering and design various locations...............          10,570          10,570
        03-D-121 Gas transfer capacity expansion, Kansas City Plant, Kansas               15,300          15,300
         City,  MO..............................................................
        03-D-122 Purification facility, Y-12 plant, Oak Ridge, TN...............  ..............  ..............
        03-D-123 Special nuclear materials requalification, Pantex plant,                  7,628           7,628
         Amarillo, TX...........................................................
        02-D-103 Project engineering and design, various locations..............          10,950          10,950
        02-D-105 Engineering technology complex upgrade, LLNL, CA...............           9,776           9,776
        02-D-107 Electrical power systems safety communications and bus                    2,887           2,887
         upgrades, NV...........................................................
        01-D-103 Project engineering and design (PE&D), various locations.......           1,600           1,600
        01-D-107 Atlas relocation, Nevada test site, NV.........................  ..............  ..............
        01-D-108 Microsystems and engineering sciences applications complex       ..............  ..............
         (MESA), SNL, Albuquerque, NM...........................................
        01-D-124 HEU materials facility, Y-12 plant, Oak Ridge, TN..............          45,000          45,000
        01-D-126 Weapons Evaluation Test Laboratory Pantex Plant, Amarillo, TX..           2,838           2,838
        01-D-800 Sensitive compartmented information facility, LLNL, CA.........  ..............  ..............
        99-D-103 Isotope sciences facilities, LLNL, Livermore, CA...............  ..............  ..............
        99-D-104 Protection of real property (roof reconstruction--Phase II),              3,500           3,500
         LLNL, Livermore, CA....................................................
        99-D-106 Model validation & system certification center, SNL,             ..............  ..............
         Albuquerque, NM........................................................
        99-D-108 Renovate existing roadways, Nevada Test Site, NV...............  ..............  ..............
        99-D-125 Replace boilers and controls, Kansas City plant, Kansas City,    ..............  ..............
         MO.....................................................................
        99-D-127 Stockpile management restructuring initiative, Kansas City               12,475          12,475
         plant, Kansas City, MO.................................................
        99-D-128 Stockpile management restructuring initiative, Pantex            ..............  ..............
         consolidation, Amarillo, TX............................................
        98-D-123 Stockpile management restructuring initiative, Tritium factory   ..............  ..............
         modernization and consolidation, Savannah River, SC....................
        98-D-124 Stockpile management restructuring initiative, Y-12              ..............  ..............
         consolidation, Oak Ridge, TN...........................................
        97-D-123 Structural upgrades, Kansas City plant, Kansas City, MO........  ..............  ..............
        96-D-102 Stockpile stewardship facilities revitalization (Phase VI),               1,552           1,552
         various locations......................................................
                                                                                 -------------------------------
            Subtotal, Construction..............................................         273,376         274,940
                                                                                 -------------------------------
            Total, Readiness in technical base and facilities...................       1,613,471       1,751,085

Facilities and infrastructure recapitalization program..........................         261,404         261,404
    Construction: 04-D-203 Facilities and infrastructure recapitalization                  3,719           3,719
     program (FIRP), project engineering design (PED), various locations........
                                                                                 -------------------------------
        Total, Facilities and infrastructure recapitalization program...........         265,123         265,123

Secure transportation asset:
    Operations and equipment....................................................         123,605         123,605
    Program direction...........................................................          58,795          58,795
    Use of prior year balances..................................................  ..............         -20,000
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Total, Secure transportation asset........................................         182,400         162,400

Safeguards and security.........................................................         582,067         582,067
    Construction: 99-D-132 SMRI nuclear material safeguards and security upgrade           3,683           3,683
     project (LANL), Los Alamos, NM.............................................
                                                                                 -------------------------------
        Total, Safeguards and security..........................................         585,750         585,750
                                                                                 -------------------------------
        Subtotal, Weapons activities............................................       6,406,985       6,502,799

Use of prior year balances......................................................  ..............  ..............
General reduction...............................................................  ..............  ..............
Less security charge for reimbursable work......................................         -28,985         -28,985
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Weapons activities..............................................       6,378,000       6,473,814

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107-117)...................................  ..............  ..............
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107-206)...................................  ..............  ..............
Rescission (Public Law 107-206).................................................  ..............  ..............
Supplemental appropriations (Public Law 108-11).................................  ..............  ..............
                                                                                 ===============================
      TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES.................................................       6,378,000       6,473,814
                                                                                 ===============================

                        DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Nonproliferation and verification, R&D..........................................         203,873         234,873
    Construction: 00-D-192 Nonproliferation and international security center     ..............  ..............
     (NISC), LANL...............................................................
                                                                                 -------------------------------
        Total, Nonproliferation and verification, R&D...........................         203,873         234,873

Nonproliferation and international security.....................................         101,734         121,734

Nonproliferation programs with Russia:
    International materials protection, control, and cooperation................         226,000         226,000
    Accelerated highly enriched uranium (HEU) disposition.......................  ..............  ..............
    Russian transition initiative...............................................          40,000          50,000
    HEU transparency implementation.............................................          18,000          18,000
    International nuclear safety................................................          14,083  ..............
    Elimination of weapons-grade plutonium production program...................          50,000          50,000
    Accelerated materials disposition...........................................          30,000          30,000

    Fissile materials disposition:
        U.S. surplus materials disposition......................................         193,805         193,805
        Russian surplus materials disposition...................................          47,100          47,100
        Construction:
            01-D-407 Highly enriched uranium (HEU) blend down, Savannah River,    ..............  ..............
             SC.................................................................
            99-D-141 Pit disassembly and conversion facility Savannah River, SC.          13,600          13,600
            99-D-143 Mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility, Savannah River, SC..         402,000         402,000
                                                                                 -------------------------------
              Subtotal, Construction............................................         415,600         415,600
                                                                                 -------------------------------
              Subtotal, Fissile materials disposition...........................         656,505         656,505
                                                                                 -------------------------------
              Total, Nonproliferation programs with Russia......................       1,034,588       1,030,505

Program direction...............................................................  ..............  ..............
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Defense nuclear nonproliferation................................       1,340,195       1,387,112

Use of prior year balances......................................................  ..............         -46,917
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107-117)...................................  ..............  ..............
Regular appropriations (Public Law 107-206).....................................  ..............  ..............
Supplemental appropriations (Public Law 108-11).................................  ..............  ..............
                                                                                 ===============================
      TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION...................................       1,340,195       1,340,195
                                                                                 ===============================
                                 NAVAL REACTORS

Naval reactors development......................................................         724,600         724,600
    Construction:
        03-D-201 Cleanroom technology facility, Bettis atomic power lab, West                300             300
         Mifflin, PA............................................................
        01-D-200 Major office replacement building, Schenectady, NY.............  ..............  ..............
        90-N-102 Expended core facility dry cell project, Naval Reactors                  18,300          18,300
         Facility, ID...........................................................
                                                                                 -------------------------------
          Subtotal, Construction................................................          18,600          18,600
                                                                                 -------------------------------
          Total, Naval reactors development.....................................         743,200         743,200

Program direction...............................................................          25,200          25,200
                                                                                 ===============================
      TOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS.....................................................         768,400         768,400
                                                                                 ===============================
                           OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

Office of the Administrator.....................................................         347,980         337,980
Defense nuclear nonproliferation................................................  ..............  ..............
                                                                                 ===============================
      TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR........................................         347,980         337,980
                                                                                 ===============================
      TOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION...........................       8,834,575       8,920,389
                                                                                 ===============================
                DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND WASTE MGMT.

Site/project completion:
    Operation and maintenance...................................................  ..............  ..............
    Construction:
        03-D-414, Preliminary project engineering and design (PE&D), Aiken, SC..  ..............  ..............
        02-D-402 Intec cathodic protection system expansion project, INEEL,       ..............  ..............
         Idaho Falls, ID........................................................
        02-D-420 Plutonium packaging and stabilization, Savannah River..........  ..............  ..............
        01-D-414 Preliminary project, engineering and design (PE&D), various      ..............  ..............
         locations..............................................................
        99-D-402 Tank farm support services, F&H area, Savannah River site,       ..............  ..............
         Aiken, SC..............................................................
        99-D-404 Health physics instrumentation laboratory (INEL), ID...........  ..............  ..............
        98-D-453 Plutonium stabilization and handling system for PFP, Richland,   ..............  ..............
         WA.....................................................................
        96-D-471 CFC HVAC/chiller retrofit, Savannah River site, Aiken, SC......  ..............  ..............
        86-D-103 Decontamination and waste treatment facility (LLNL), Livermore,  ..............  ..............
         CA.....................................................................
                                                                                 -------------------------------
            Subtotal, Construction..............................................  ..............  ..............
                                                                                 -------------------------------
            Total, Site/project completion......................................  ..............  ..............

Post 2006 completion:
    Operation and maintenance...................................................  ..............  ..............
    Construction: 93-D-187 High-level waste removal from filled waste tanks,      ..............  ..............
     Savannah River, SC.........................................................

    Office of River Protection:
        Operation and maintenance...............................................  ..............  ..............
        Construction:
            03-D-403 Immobilized high-level waste interim storage facility,       ..............  ..............
             Richland, WA.......................................................
            01-D-416 Hanford waste treatment plant, Richland, WA................  ..............  ..............
            97-D-402 Tank farm restoration and safe operations, Richland, WA....  ..............  ..............
            94-D-407 Initial tank retrieval systems, Richland, WA...............  ..............  ..............
                                                                                 -------------------------------
              Subtotal, Construction............................................  ..............  ..............
                                                                                 -------------------------------
              Subtotal, Office of River Protection..............................  ..............  ..............
                                                                                 -------------------------------
              Total, Post 2006 completion.......................................  ..............  ..............

Uranium enrichment D&D fund contribution........................................  ..............  ..............
Science and technology..........................................................  ..............  ..............
Excess facilities...............................................................  ..............  ..............
Multi-site activities...........................................................  ..............  ..............
Safeguards and security.........................................................  ..............  ..............
Program direction...............................................................  ..............  ..............
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Defense environmental management................................  ..............  ..............

Use of prior year balances......................................................  ..............  ..............
General reduction...............................................................  ..............  ..............
Less security charge for reimbursable work......................................  ..............  ..............
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107-117)...................................  ..............  ..............
Rescission (Public Law 107-206).................................................  ..............  ..............
Supplemental appropriations (Public Law 108-11).................................  ..............  ..............
                                                                                 ===============================
      TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRON. RESTORATION AND WASTE MGMT........................  ..............  ..............
                                                                                 ===============================
                       DEFENSE FACILITIES CLOSURE PROJECTS

Site closure....................................................................  ..............  ..............
Safeguards and security.........................................................  ..............  ..............
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      TOTAL, DEFENSE FACILITIES CLOSURE PROJECTS................................  ..............  ..............
                                                                                 ===============================
                      DEFENSE SITE ACCELERATION COMPLETION

Accelerated completions, 2006...................................................       1,245,171       1,245,171

Accelerated completions, 2012...................................................       1,512,554       1,505,954
    Construction:
         04-D-414 Project engineering and design (PED), various locations.......          23,500          23,500
        04-D-423 Container surveillance capability in 235-F, Savannah River.....           1,134           1,134
        02-D-402 Intec cathodic protection system expansion project, INEEL,                1,126           1,126
         Idaho Falls, ID........................................................
        01-D-416 Hanford waste treatment plnt, Richland WA......................         690,000         690,000
                                                                                 -------------------------------
          Subtotal, Construction................................................         715,760         715,760
                                                                                 -------------------------------
          Total, Accelerated completions, 2012..................................       2,228,314       2,221,714

Accelerated completions, 2035...................................................       1,892,884       1,899,384
    Construction:
        04-D-408 Glass waste storage building #2, Savannah River................          20,259          20,259
        03-D-403 Immobilized high-level waste interim storage facility,                   13,954          13,954
         Richland,  WA..........................................................
        03-D-414 Project engineering and design (PED), various locations........          51,500          51,500
                                                                                 -------------------------------
          Subtotal, Construction................................................          85,713          85,713
                                                                                 -------------------------------
          Total, Accelerated completions, 2035..................................       1,978,597       1,985,097

Safeguards and security.........................................................         299,977         299,977
Technology development and deployment...........................................          63,920          85,080
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Defense site acceleration completion............................       5,815,979       5,837,039
Less security charge for reimbursable work......................................          -1,344          -1,344
Use of prior year balances......................................................  ..............         -65,000
                                                                                 ===============================
      TOTAL, DEFENSE SITE ACCELERATION COMPLETION...............................       5,814,635       5,770,695
                                                                                 ===============================
                 DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRIVATIZATION

Privatization initiatives, various locations....................................  ..............  ..............
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT. PRIVATIZATION..........................  ..............  ..............
                                                                                 ===============================
                         DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

Community and regulatory support................................................          61,337          63,837
Federal contribution to the uranium enrichment..................................         452,000         452,000
Non-closure environmental activities............................................         189,698         189,698
Program direction...............................................................         292,144         282,144
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES.....................................         995,179         987,679
                                                                                 ===============================
      TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT...................................       6,809,814       6,758,374
                                                                                 ===============================
                            OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Other national security programs:
    Energy security and assurance:
        Energy security.........................................................  ..............  ..............
        Program direction.......................................................           4,272  ..............
                                                                                 -------------------------------
          Subtotal, Energy security and assurance...............................           4,272  ..............

    Office of Security:
        Nuclear safeguards and security.........................................         104,713         104,713
        Security investigations.................................................          54,554          54,554
        Corporate management information program................................  ..............  ..............
        Cyber security and secure communications................................  ..............  ..............
        Program direction.......................................................          52,490          52,490
                                                                                 -------------------------------
          Subtotal, Office of Security..........................................         211,757         211,757

    Intelligence................................................................          39,823          39,823
    Counterintelligence.........................................................          45,955          45,955
    Independent oversight and performance assurance.............................          22,575          22,575
    Advanced accelerator applications...........................................  ..............  ..............

    Environment, safety and health (Defense)....................................          87,276          88,351
        Program direction--EH...................................................          20,410          17,410
                                                                                 -------------------------------
          Subtotal, Environment, safety & health (Defense)......................         107,686         105,761

    Worker and community transition.............................................          12,321  ..............
        Program direction--WT...................................................           2,679  ..............
                                                                                 -------------------------------
          Subtotal, Worker and community transition.............................          15,000  ..............

    Office of Legacy Management.................................................          47,525          45,216
        Program Direction.......................................................  ..............          12,309
                                                                                 -------------------------------
          Subtotal, Office of Legacy Management.................................          47,525          57,525

    National Security programs administrative support...........................          25,000          25,000
    Office of hearings and appeals..............................................           3,797           3,797
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Other defense activities........................................         523,390         512,193

Use of prior year balances......................................................  ..............         -15,000
Less security charge for reimbursable work......................................            -712            -712
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107-117)...................................  ..............  ..............
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107-206)...................................  ..............  ..............
Supplemental appropriations (Public Law 108-11).................................  ..............  ..............
Less transfer of Energy Security and Assurance..................................  ..............          -4,272
                                                                                 ===============================
      TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES...........................................         522,678         492,209
                                                                                 ===============================
                         DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Defense nuclear waste disposal..................................................         430,000         285,000

                          CERRO GRANDE FIRE ACTIVITIES

Cerro Grande fire activities (rescission).......................................         -75,000  ..............
                                                                                 ===============================
      TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES...................................      16,522,067      16,455,972
                                                                                 ===============================
                         POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

                        SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance:
    Purchase power and wheeling.................................................          15,000          34,400
    Program direction...........................................................           5,100           5,100
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Operation and maintenance.......................................          20,100          39,500

Offsetting collections..........................................................  ..............         -19,400
Offsetting collections (Public Law 106-377).....................................         -15,000         -15,000
Use of prior year balances......................................................  ..............  ..............
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      TOTAL, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION..................................           5,100           5,100
                                                                                 ===============================
                        SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance:
    Operating expenses..........................................................           4,663           4,663
    Purchase power and wheeling.................................................             288           2,800
    Program direction...........................................................          19,205          19,205
    Construction................................................................           4,732           4,732
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Operation and maintenance.......................................          28,888          31,400

Offsetting collections..........................................................  ..............          -2,512
Offsetting collections (Public Law 106-377).....................................            -288            -288
Use of prior year balances......................................................  ..............  ..............
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      TOTAL, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION..................................          28,600          28,600
                                                                                 ===============================
                        WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance:
    Construction and rehabilitation.............................................          12,200          12,950
    System operation and maintenance............................................          36,204          36,204
    Purchase power and wheeling.................................................          20,000         186,100
    Program direction...........................................................         126,588         126,588
    Utah mitigation and conservation............................................  ..............           6,200
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Operation and maintenance.......................................         194,992         368,042

Offsetting collections..........................................................  ..............        -166,100
Offsetting collections (Public Law 98-381)......................................          -3,992          -3,992
Offsetting collections (Public Law 106-377).....................................         -20,000         -20,000
Use of prior year balances......................................................  ..............  ..............
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      TOTAL, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION..................................         171,000         177,950
                                                                                 ===============================
                FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

Operation and maintenance.......................................................           2,640           2,640
                                                                                 ===============================
      TOTAL, POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS....................................         207,340         214,290
                                                                                 ===============================
                      FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Federal energy regulatory commission............................................         199,400         199,400
FERC revenues...................................................................        -199,400        -199,400
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Federal energy regulatory commission............................  ..............  ..............

Defense Environmental Management Privatization (rescission).....................  ..............         -15,329
                                                                                 ===============================
      GRAND TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.........................................      22,163,367      22,148,203
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    The following list of general provisions are recommended by 
the Committee. The recommendation includes several provisions 
which have been included in previous Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Acts and new provisions as follows:
    Language under section 301 prohibits the use of funds to 
award, amend or modify a contract in a manner that deviates 
from the Federal Acquisition Regulations unless on a case-by-
case basis, a waiver is granted by the Secretary of Energy. 
Similar language was contained in the Energy and Water 
Development Act, 2003.
    Language is included under section 302 which prohibits the 
use of funds in this Act to develop or implement a workforce 
restructuring plan or enhanced severance payments and other 
benefits for Federal employees of the Department of Energy 
under section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 
Fiscal Year 1993, Public Law 484. A similar provision was 
contained in the Energy and Water Development Act, 2003.
    Language is included under section 303 which prohibits the 
use of funds for severance payments under the worker and 
community transition program. A similar provision was contained 
in the Energy and Water Development Act, 2003.
    Language is included under section 304 which prohibits the 
use of funds in this Act to initiate requests for proposals or 
expression of interest for new programs which have not yet been 
presented to Congress in the annual budget submission, and 
which have not yet been approved and funded by Congress. A 
similar provision was contained in the Energy and Water 
Development Act, 2003.
    Language is included under section 305 which permits the 
transfer and merger of unexpended balances of prior 
appropriations with appropriation accounts established in this 
bill. A similar provision was contained in the Energy and Water 
Development Act, 2003.
    Language is included under section 306 that prohibits the 
use of funds by the Bonneville Power Administration to enter 
into energy efficiency contracts outside its service area.
    Language is included under section 307 which provides that 
the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration may authorize 2 percent of the amount allocated 
to a nuclear weapons production plant for the production plant 
to engage in research, development, and demonstration 
activities with respect to the Engineering and manufacturing 
capabilities of the plant in order to maintain and enhance such 
capabilities at the plant. A similar provision was contained in 
the Energy and Water Development Act, 2003.
    Language is included in section 308 specifically 
authorizing intelligence activities pending enactment of the 
fiscal year 2004 Intelligence Authorization Act.
    Language is included under section 309 which provides that 
none of the funds in this Act may be used to dispose of 
transuranic waste in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant which 
contains concentrations of plutonium in excess of 20 percent by 
weight for the aggregate of any material category on the date 
of enactment of this Act, or generated after such date. A 
similar provision was contained in the Energy and Water 
Development Act, 2003.
    Language is included in section 310 that requires that 
waste characterization at WIPP be limited to determining that 
the waste is not ignitable, corrosive, or reactive. This 
confirmation will be performed using radiography or visual 
examination of a representative subpopulation of the waste. The 
language directs the Department of Energy to seek a 
modification to the WIPP Hazardous Waste Facility Permit to 
implement the provisions of this bill by December 31, 2003.
    Language is included in section 311 that allows the 
Department to dispose of certain waste at Fernald, Ohio as 
``byproduct material'' as defined by section 11e.(2) of the 
Atomic Energy Act.
    Language is included in section 312 that requires the 
Secretary to collect fees for Army Corps of Engineers 
hydropower operation and maintenance funding under certain 
conditions.

                     TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                    Appalachian Regional Commission

Appropriations, 2003....................................     $70,827,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................      33,145,000
Committee recommendation................................      71,145,000

    The Committee recommendation for the Appalachian Regional 
Commission totals $71,145,000, $38,000,000 more than the 
request.
    The Appalachian Regional Commission [ARC] is a regional 
economic development agency established in 1965. It is composed 
of the Governors of the 13 Appalachian States and a Federal 
cochairman who is appointed by the President.
    Consistent with the administration's budget request, the 
Committee recommendation does not include funding for ARC 
highways. Funding for ARC development highways is provided 
through the Highway Trust Fund in fiscal years 1999 through 
2004 consistent with provision contained in the Intermodal 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act.
    The Committee recognizes the importance of trade and 
investment opportunities to the Appalachian region, and is 
encouraged by the findings of a preliminary trade report 
determining that Appalachian firms might find significant trade 
and investment opportunities, particularly in the energy, high 
technology, and transportation sectors, in the Republic of 
Turkey and the surrounding region. In this regard, the 
Committee supports the Appalachian-Turkish Trade Project 
[ATTP], a project to promote opportunities to expand trade, 
encourage business interests, stimulate foreign studies, and to 
build a lasting and mutually meaningful relationship between 
the Appalachian States and the Republic of Turkey, as well as 
the neighboring regions, such as Greece. The Committee commends 
the ARC for its leadership role in helping to implement the 
mission of the ATTP. The Committee expects the ARC to continue 
to be a prominent ATTP sponsor.
    The Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000 to 
construct a multi-purpose facility for Noxubee County, 
Mississippi. The Committee typically does not choose to direct 
funding to specific projects within the jurisdiction of the 
Appalachian Regional Commission. However, the Committee notes 
the severe economic conditions in this poor rural area require 
immediate action, and believes it appropriate to exercise the 
Congressional prerogative in this case.

                Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2003....................................     $18,876,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................      19,559,000
Committee recommendation................................      19,559,000

    An appropriation of $19,559,000, the amount of the request, 
is recommended for fiscal year 2004.
    The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board was created by 
the Fiscal Year 1989 National Defense Authorization Act. The 
Board, composed of five members appointed by the President, 
provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy 
regarding public health and safety issues at the Department's 
defense nuclear facilities. The Board is also responsible for 
investigating any event or practice at a defense nuclear 
facility which has or may adversely affect public health and 
safety. The Board is responsible for reviewing and evaluating 
the content and implementation of the standards relating to the 
design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of defense 
nuclear facilities of the Department of Energy.

                        Delta Regional Authority

Appropriations, 2003....................................      $7,948,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................       2,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       7,000,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,000,000 for 
the Delta Regional Authority.
    The Delta Regional Authority [DRA], authorized by Public 
Law 106-554, was established to assist an eight-state, 236-
county region of demonstrated distress in obtaining 
transportation and basic public infrastructure, skills 
training, and opportunities for economic development essential 
to strong local economies.

                           Denali Commission

Appropriations, 2003....................................     $47,688,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................       9,500,000
Committee recommendation................................      48,500,000

    The Committee recommendation includes $48,500,000 for the 
Denali Commission.
    The Denali Commission is a regional economic development 
agency established in 1998 for the intended purpose of 
delivering basic utilities, including affordable power, and 
other essential infrastructure to the nation's most 
geographically isolated communities. The Committee is 
encouraged by the progress of the Denali Commission in 
assisting distressed communities throughout Alaska, and urges 
continued work among local and State agencies, non-profit 
organizations and other participants in meeting the most 
pressing infrastructure needs.
    The Committee recommendation includes funding for the Eyak 
power plant remediation project, relocation and modernization 
of the Nome power plant, the Tok/Chistochina transmission line, 
the Fire Island power line extension, and the CVEA co-
generation project.
    Of the amounts provided to the Denali Commission, 
$5,000,000 is for community showers and washeteria in villages 
with homes with no running water; $5,000,000 is for multi-
purpose community facilities including the Bering Straits 
Region; $10,000,000 is for teacher housing in remote villages 
such as Savoogna, Allakaket, Hughes, Huslia, Minto, Nulato, and 
Ruby where there is limited housing available for teachers 
which, in some instances, forces teachers to live in their 
schools; $10,000,000 is for facilities serving Native elders 
and senior citizens to enable them to remain in their home 
village; and $5,000,000 is for (1) the Rural Communications 
service to provide broadcast facilities in communities with no 
television or radio station or no more than one television or 
radio station and (2) the Public Broadcasting Digital 
Distribution Network to link rural broadcasting facilities 
together to improve economies of scale, share programming, and 
reduce operating costs.

                     Nuclear Regulatory Commission


                         salaries and expenses


                          gross appropriation

Appropriations, 2003....................................    $577,806,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................     618,800,000
Committee recommendation................................     618,800,000

                                revenues

Appropriations, 2003....................................   -$520,087,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................    -538,844,000
Committee recommendation................................    -538,844,000

                           net appropriation

Appropriations, 2003....................................     $57,719,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................      79,956,000
Committee recommendation................................      79,956,000

    The Committee recommendation includes $79,956,000, the same 
amount as the request, for the Commission.
    Nuclear energy received a strong endorsement in the 
National Energy Policy of May 2001 and serious industry 
interest has emerged in building a new generation of nuclear 
power plants in the United States to meet the Nation's 
electricity demands. Three nuclear utilities have announced 
intentions to submit early site permit applications to the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC]. Others are also expected 
to submit early site permit applications over the next few 
years. Industry has proposed a new risk-informed regulatory 
framework to license the next generation of plants. The 
framework would build on the successful structure of the 
revised reactor oversight process and be reactor design 
neutral. NRC should evaluate the merits of this approach and 
establish the new framework through rulemaking.
    The Committee recommendation for the NRC is $618,800,000. 
This amount is offset by estimated revenues of $538,844,000 
resulting in a net appropriation of $79,956,000.
    Fee Recovery.--Pursuant to the agreement reached in fiscal 
year 2001, the NRC is required to recover 92 percent of its 
budget authority, less the appropriation from the Nuclear Waste 
Fund, by assessing license and annual fees.
    Reports.--The Committee directs the Commission to continue 
to provide monthly reports on the status of its licensing and 
other regulatory activities. In addition, continued 
congressional oversight is necessary to ensure the NRC 
streamlines its business processes to improve regulatory 
efficiency while reducing unnecessary burden on licensees.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                          gross appropriation

Appropriations, 2003....................................      $6,797,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................       7,300,000
Committee recommendation................................       7,300,000

                                revenues

Appropriations, 2003....................................     -$6,392,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................      -6,716,000
Committee recommendation................................      -6,716,000

    This appropriation provides for the Office of Inspector 
General of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $584,000 for fiscal year 2004.

                  Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

Appropriations, 2003....................................      $3,179,000
Budget estimate, 2004...................................       3,177,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,177,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,177,000 for 
the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. The Nuclear Waste 
Policy Amendments Act of 1987 directed the Board to evaluate 
the technical and scientific validity of the activities of the 
Department of Energy's nuclear waste disposal program. The 
Board must report its findings not less than two times a year 
to the Congress and the Secretary of Energy.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    The following list of general provisions are recommended by 
the Committee. The recommendation includes several provisions 
which have been included in previous Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Acts:
    Language is included under section 501 which provides that 
none of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used in any 
way, directly or indirectly, to influence congressional action 
on any legislation or appropriation matters pending before 
Congress, other than to communicate to Members of Congress as 
described in section 1913 of Title 18, United States Code. A 
similar provision was contained in the Energy and Water 
Development Act, 2000, Public Law 106-60.
    Language is included under section 502 which requires that 
American-made equipment and goods be purchased to the greatest 
extent practicable. A similar provision was contained in the 
Energy and Water Development Act, 2000, Public Law 106-60.
    Language is included under section 503 making a technical 
correction to the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003.

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

    Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on 
general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment 
to the House bill ``which proposes an item of appropriation 
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing 
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously 
passed by the Senate during that session.''
    The recommended appropriations in title III, Department of 
Energy, generally are subject to annual authorization. However, 
the Congress has not enacted an annual Department of Energy 
authorization bill for several years, with the exception of the 
programs funded within the atomic energy defense activities 
which are authorized in annual defense authorization acts. The 
authorization for the atomic energy defense activities, 
contained in the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal 
Year 2004, is currently in conference with the House.

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

    Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on July 17, 2003, 
the Committee ordered reported en bloc: S. 1427, an original 
bill making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, 
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004; S. 1424, an original 
bill making appropriations for Energy and Water Development for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004; and S. 1426, an 
original bill making appropriations for Foreign Operations, 
Export Financing, and related programs for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2004; each subject to amendment and each 
subject to the budget allocations, by a recorded vote of 29-0, 
a quorum being present. The vote was as follows:
        Yeas                          Nays
Chairman Stevens
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Campbell
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. DeWine
Mr. Brownback
Mr. Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Hollings
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Reid
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson
Ms. Landrieu

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

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

                                            BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
  PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
                                                     AMENDED
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Budget authority                 Outlays
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Committee     Amount  of     Committee     Amount  of
                                                        allocation \1\      bill     allocation \1\      bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee
 allocations to its subcommittees of amounts in the
 Budget Resolution for 2004: Subcommittee on Energy
 and Water Development:
    Discretionary.....................................         27,313        27,313         27,359    \1\ 27,310
Projections of outlays associated with the
 recommendation:
    2004..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............   \2\ 18,112
    2005..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............        7,815
    2006..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............        1,342
    2007..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............           36
    2008 and future years.............................  ..............  ...........  ..............           17
Financial assistance to State and local governments                NA           119             NA            23
 for  2004............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.


  COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
                                                                        YEAR 2004
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           Senate Committee recommendation compared with (+
                                                                                                                                 or -)
               Item                       2003             Budget       House allowance     Committee    ----------------------------------------------------
                                     appropriation   estimate        deg.        recommendation        2003             Budget            House
                                                                                                           Pappropriation  estimate  allowance
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------

 TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--

      DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

     Corps of Engineers--Civil

General investigations............         134,141           100,000           131,700           -2,441          +31,700
Construction, general.............       1,744,598         1,350,000         1,538,000         -206,598         +188,000
Flood control, Mississippi River           342,334           280,000           329,000          -13,334          +49,000
 and tributaries, Arkansas,
 Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana,
 Mississippi, Missouri, and
 Tennessee........................
Operation and maintenance, general       1,927,556         1,939,000         1,949,000          +21,444          +10,000
    Supplemental appropriations             39,000   .................  ...............         -39,000   ...............
     (Public Law 108-11)..........
Regulatory program................         138,096           144,000           139,000             +904           -5,000
FUSRAP............................         144,057           140,000           140,000           -4,057   ...............
Flood control and coastal                   14,902            70,000            40,000          +25,098          -30,000
 emergencies......................
General expenses..................         154,143           171,000           160,000           +5,857          -11,000
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, title I, Department         4,638,827         4,194,000         4,426,700         -212,127         +232,700
       of Defense--Civil..........
                                   =====================================================================================================================
    TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE
             INTERIOR

  Central Utah Project Completion
              Account

Central Utah project construction.          23,489            42,463            42,463          +18,974   ...............
Fish, wildlife, and recreation              11,186   .................  ...............         -11,186   ...............
 mitigation and conservation......
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal....................          34,675            42,463            42,463           +7,788   ...............

Program oversight and                        1,317             1,728             1,728             +411   ...............
 administration...................
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Central Utah project           35,992            44,191            44,191           +8,199   ...............
       completion account.........

       Bureau of Reclamation

Water and related resources.......         808,203           771,217           853,517          +45,314          +82,300
    Supplemental appropriations             25,000   .................  ...............         -25,000   ...............
     (Public Law 108-11)..........
Loan program......................  ...............              200               200             +200   ...............
    (Limitation on direct loans)..  ...............  .................  ...............  ...............  ...............
Central Valley project restoration          48,586            39,600            39,600           -8,986   ...............
 fund.............................
California Bay-Delta restoration..  ...............           15,000    ...............  ...............         -15,000
Working capital fund (rescission).  ...............           -4,525            -4,525           -4,525   ...............
Policy and administration.........          54,513            56,525            56,525           +2,012   ...............
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Bureau of Reclamation         936,302           878,017           945,317           +9,015          +67,300
                                   =====================================================================================================================
      Total, title II, Department          972,294           922,208           989,508          +17,214          +67,300
       of the Interior............
                                   =====================================================================================================================
  TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Energy supply.....................         696,858           861,805           920,357         +223,499          +58,552
Non-defense site acceleration       ...............          170,875           171,875         +171,875           +1,000
 completion.......................
Non-defense environmental                  213,624   .................  ...............        -213,624   ...............
 management.......................
Uranium enrichment decontamination  ...............          418,124           396,124         +396,124          -22,000
 and decommissioning fund.........
Non-defense environmental services  ...............          292,121           302,121         +302,121          +10,000
Uranium facilities maintenance and         453,409   .................  ...............        -453,409   ...............
 remediation......................
Science...........................       3,261,328         3,310,935         3,360,435          +99,107          +49,500
    Supplemental appropriations             11,000   .................  ...............         -11,000   ...............
     (Public Law 108-11)..........
Nuclear Waste Disposal............         144,058           161,000           140,000           -4,058          -21,000
Departmental administration.......         205,280           326,306           309,564         +104,284          -16,742
    Miscellaneous revenues........        -120,000          -146,668          -146,668          -26,668   ...............
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Net appropriation.........          85,280           179,638           162,896          +77,616          -16,742

Office of the Inspector General...          37,426            39,462            39,462           +2,036   ...............

 Atomic Energy Defense Activities

National Nuclear Security
 Administration:
    Weapons activities............       5,914,409         6,378,000         6,473,814         +559,405          +95,814
        Supplemental                        67,000   .................  ...............         -67,000   ...............
         appropriations (Public
         Law 108-11)..............
    Defense nuclear                      1,020,860         1,340,195         1,340,195         +319,335   ...............
     nonproliferation.............
        Supplemental                       148,000   .................  ...............        -148,000   ...............
         appropriations (Public
         Law 108-11)..............
    Naval reactors................         702,196           768,400           768,400          +66,204   ...............
    Office of the Administrator...         325,102           347,980           337,980          +12,878          -10,000
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, National             8,177,567         8,834,575         8,920,389         +742,822          +85,814
           Nuclear Security
           Administration.........

Environmental and Other Defense
 Activities:
    Defense environmental                5,428,806   .................  ...............      -5,428,806   ...............
     restoration and waste
     management...................
        Supplemental                         6,000   .................  ...............          -6,000   ...............
         appropriations (Public
         Law 108-11)..............
    Defense facilities closure           1,130,915   .................  ...............      -1,130,915   ...............
     projects.....................
    Defense site acceleration       ...............        5,814,635         5,770,695       +5,770,695          -43,940
     completion...................
    Defense environmental                  157,369   .................  ...............        -157,369   ...............
     management privatization.....
    Defense environmental services  ...............          995,179           987,679         +987,679           -7,500
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Defense                  6,723,090         6,809,814         6,758,374          +35,284          -51,440
       environmental management...

Other defense activities..........         511,659           522,678           492,209          -19,450          -30,469
    Supplemental appropriations              4,000   .................  ...............          -4,000   ...............
     (Public Law 108-11)..........
Defense nuclear waste disposal....         312,952           430,000           285,000          -27,952         -145,000
Cerro Grande fire activities        ...............          -75,000    ...............  ...............         +75,000
 (rescission).....................
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Environmental and        7,551,701         7,687,492         7,535,583          -16,118         -151,909
       Other Defenses Activities..
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Atomic Energy Defense      15,729,268        16,522,067        16,455,972         +726,704          -66,095
       Activities.................

  Power Marketing Administrations

Operation and maintenance,                   4,505             5,100             5,100             +595   ...............
 Southeastern Power Administration
Operation and maintenance,                  27,200            28,600            28,600           +1,400   ...............
 Southwestern Power Administration
Construction, rehabilitation,              167,760           171,000           177,950          +10,190           +6,950
 operation and maintenance,
 Western Area Power Administration
Falcon and Amistad operating and             2,716             2,640             2,640              -76   ...............
 maintenance fund.................
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Power Marketing               202,181           207,340           214,290          +12,109           +6,950
       Administrations............

     Federal Energy Regulatory
            Commission

Salaries and expenses.............         192,000           199,400           199,400           +7,400   ...............
Revenues applied..................        -192,000          -199,400          -199,400           -7,400   ...............
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Federal Energy      ...............  .................  ...............  ...............  ...............
       Regulatory Commission......

Defense Environmental Management    ...............  .................         -15,329          -15,329          -15,329
 Privatization (rescission).......
                                   =====================================================================================================================
      Total, title III, Department      20,834,432        22,163,367        22,148,203       +1,313,771          -15,164
       of Energy..................
                                   =====================================================================================================================
  TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Appalachian Regional Commission...          70,827            33,145            71,145             +318          +38,000
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety           18,876            19,559            19,559             +683   ...............
 Board............................
Delta Regional Authority..........           7,948             2,000             7,000             -948           +5,000
Denali Commission.................          47,688             9,500            48,500             +812          +39,000

Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
    Salaries and expenses.........         577,806           618,800           618,800          +40,994   ...............
    Revenues......................        -520,087          -538,844          -538,844          -18,757   ...............
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal....................          57,719            79,956            79,956          +22,237   ...............

    Office of Inspector General...           6,797             7,300             7,300             +503   ...............
    Revenues......................          -6,392            -6,716            -6,716             -324   ...............
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal....................             405               584               584             +179   ...............
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Nuclear Regulatory             58,124            80,540            80,540          +22,416   ...............
       Commission.................

Nuclear Waste Technical Review               3,179             3,177             3,177               -2   ...............
 Board............................
                                   =====================================================================================================================
      Total, title IV, Independent         206,642           147,921           229,921          +23,279          +82,000
       agencies...................
                                   =====================================================================================================================
      Grand total:................
          New budget                    26,652,195        27,427,496        27,794,332       +1,142,137         +366,836
           (obligational)
           authority..............
              Appropriations......     (26,652,195)      (27,507,021)      (27,814,186)     (+1,161,991)       (+307,165)
              Rescissions.........  ...............         (-79,525)         (-19,854)        (-19,854)        (+59,671)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



