[Senate Report 110-127]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                                                       Calendar No. 263
110th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                    110-127

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



 
               ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2008

                                _______
                                

                  July 9, 2007.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                                 REPORT

                         [To accompany S. 1751]

    The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1751) 
making appropriations for energy and water development for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, 
favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.



Amount in new budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2008

Total of bill as reported to the Senate................. $32,791,321,000 Amount of 2007 appropriations..........................\1\32,562,190,000
Amount of 2008 budget estimate..........................  30,887,838,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to--
    2007 appropriations.................................    +229,131,000
    2008 budget estimate................................  +1,903,483,000

\1\Includes Emergency Appropriations of $1,761,665,000.


                                CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Purpose..........................................................     4
Summary of Estimates and Recommendations.........................     4
Transparency in Congressional Directives.........................     4
Title I:
    Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army:
        Corps of Engineers--Civil:
            General Investigations...............................    21
            Construction, General................................    38
            Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries.....    63
            Operation and Maintenance, General...................    68
            Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies................   100
            Regulatory Program...................................   101
            Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program......   102
            General Expenses.....................................   102
            General Provisions--Corps of Engineers--Civil........   106
Title II:
    Department of the Interior:
        Central Utah Project Completion Account..................   109
        Bureau of Reclamation:
            Water and Related Resources..........................   109
            Central Valley Project Restoration Fund..............   121
            California Bay-Delta Restoration.....................   122
            Policy and Administration............................   122
        General Provisions--Department of the Interior...........   122
Title III:
    Department of Energy:
        Energy Supply and Conservation...........................   125
            Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability..........   132
            Nuclear Energy.......................................   134
            Fossil Energy Research and Development...............   137
            Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves...............   140
            Elk Hills School Lands Fund..........................   140
            Strategic Petroleum Reserve..........................   140
            Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve...................   141
            Energy Information Administration....................   141
        Non-defense Environmental Cleanup........................   141
        Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning 
          Fund...................................................   143
        Science..................................................   143
            High Energy Physics..................................   144
            Nuclear Physics......................................   144
            Biological and Environmental Research................   145
            Basic Energy Sciences................................   146
        Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund..............................   148
        Departmental Administration..............................   149
        Office of Inspector General..............................   149
        Atomic Energy Defense Activities:
            National Nuclear Security Administration:
                Weapons Activities...............................   150
                Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.................   160
                Naval Reactors...................................   163
                Office of the Administrator......................   164
        Environmental and Other Defense Activities:
            Defense Environmental Cleanup........................   164
            Other Defense Activities.............................   168
            Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal.......................   169
            Power Marketing Administrations:
                Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power 
                  Administration.................................   170
                Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power 
                  Administration.................................   170
                Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and 
                  Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration.   170
            Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Salaries and 
              Expenses...........................................   171
        General Provisions--Department of Energy.................   194
Title IV:
    Independent Agencies:
        Appalachian Regional Commission..........................   196
        Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board..................   196
        Delta Regional Authority.................................   197
        Denali Commission........................................   197
        Nuclear Regulatory Commission............................   197
            Office of Inspector General..........................   198
        Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.....................   198
        Tennessee Valley Authority Office of the Inspector 
          General................................................   199
Title V: General Provisions......................................   200
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of 
  the 
  Senate.........................................................   201
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules 
  of the 
  Senate.........................................................   201
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of 
  the 
  Senate.........................................................   202
Budgetary Impact Statement.......................................   214

                                PURPOSE

    The purpose of this bill is to provide appropriations for 
the fiscal year 2008 beginning October 1, 2007, and ending 
September 30, 2008, for energy and water development, and for 
other related purposes. It supplies funds for water resources 
development programs and related activities of the Department 
of the Army, Civil Functions--U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' 
Civil Works Program in title I; for the Department of the 
Interior's Bureau of Reclamation in title II; for the 
Department of Energy's energy research activities, including 
environmental restoration and waste management, and atomic 
energy defense activities of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration in title III; and for related independent 
agencies and commissions, including the Appalachian Regional 
Commission, Delta Regional Authority, Denali Commission, and 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in title IV.

                SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    The fiscal year 2008 budget estimates for the bill total 
$30,887,838,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The 
recommendation of the Committee totals $32,791,321,000. This is 
$1,903,483,000 above the budget estimates and $229,131,000 
above the enacted appropriation for the current fiscal year.

                         Subcommittee Hearings

    The Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water held 
five sessions in connection with the fiscal year 2008 
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 throughout the United States. 
Information, both for and against many items, was presented to 
the subcommittee. The recommendations for fiscal year 2008 
therefore, have been developed after careful consideration of 
available data.

                         Votes in the Committee

    By a vote of 28 to 1 the Committee on June 28, 2007, 
recommended that the bill, as amended, be reported to the 
Senate.

                TRANSPARENCY IN CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTIVES

    On January 18, 2007, the Senate passed S. 1, The 
Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007, by a 
vote of 96-2. While the Committee awaits final action on this 
legislation, the chairman and ranking member of the Committee 
issued interim requirements to ensure that the goals of S. 1 
are in place for the appropriations bills for fiscal year 2008.
    The Constitution vests in the Congress the power of the 
purse. The Committee believes strongly that Congress should 
make the decisions on how to allocate the people's money. In 
order to improve transparency and accountability in the process 
of approving earmarks (as defined in S. 1) in appropriations 
measures, each Committee report includes, for each earmark:
  --(1) the name of the Member(s) making the request, and where 
        appropriate, the President;
  --(2) the name and location of the intended recipient or, if 
        there is no specifically intended recipient, the 
        intended location of the activity; and
  --(3) the purpose of such earmark.
    The term ``congressional earmark'' means a provision or 
report language included primarily at the request of a Senator, 
providing, authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of 
discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other 
spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, 
loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or 
targeted to a specific state, locality or congressional 
district, other than through a statutory or administrative, 
formula-driven, or competitive award process.
    For each earmark, a Member is required to provide a 
certification that neither the Member (nor his or her spouse) 
has a pecuniary interest in such earmark, consistent with 
Senate Rule XXXVII(4). Such certifications are available to the 
public at http://appropriations.senate.gov/senators.cfm or go 
to appropriations.senate.gov and click on ``Members''.

                                TITLE I

                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

                              INTRODUCTION

    The Corps of Engineers is made up of approximately 35,000 
civilian and 650 military members that perform both military 
and civil works functions. The military and civilian engineers, 
scientists and other specialists work hand in hand as leaders 
in engineering and environmental matters. The diverse workforce 
of biologists, engineers, geologists, hydrologists, natural 
resource managers and other professionals meets the demands of 
changing times and requirements as a vital part of America's 
Army.
    The Corps' mission is to provide quality, responsive 
engineering services to the Nation including:
  --Planning, designing, building and operating water resources 
        and other civil works projects, (Navigation, Flood 
        Control, Environmental Protection, Disaster Response, 
        etc.)
  --Designing and managing the construction of military 
        facilities for the Army and Air Force. (Military 
        Construction)
  --Providing design and construction management support for 
        other Defense and Federal agencies. (Interagency and 
        International Services)
    The Energy and Water bill only funds the Civil Works 
missions of the Corps of Engineers. Approximately 23,000 
civilians and about 190 military officers are responsible for 
this nationwide mission.
    From our hundreds of rivers, lakes and wetlands to our 
thousands of miles of coastal shoreline, we are fortunate in 
America to enjoy an abundance of water resources. As a Nation, 
we value these resources for their natural beauty; for the many 
ways they help meet human needs; and for the fact that they 
provide habitat for thousands of species of plants, fish and 
wildlife.
    The Congress has given the Corps of Engineers the 
responsibility of helping to care for these important aquatic 
resources.
    Through its Civil Works program the Corps carries out a 
wide array of projects that provide:
  --Coastal storm damage reduction
  --Disaster preparedness and response
  --Environmental protection and restoration
  --Flood damage reduction
  --Hydropower
  --Navigable waters
  --Recreational opportunities
  --Regulatory oversight
  --Water supply
    One of the biggest challenges the Corps and other 
Government agencies face is finding the right balance among the 
often conflicting concerns our society has related to our water 
resources. Society wants these resources to help fuel economic 
growth (navigation, hydropower). Society wants them to provide 
social benefits (recreation). And finally society wants to be 
sure that they are available for future generations 
(environmental protection and restoration).
    The Corps is charged with seeking to achieve the best 
possible balance among these competing demands through an 
integrated approach to water resources management that focuses 
on regional solutions, involving an array of stakeholders (i.e. 
other Government agencies, environmental groups, businesses and 
private organizations). In recent years, the Corps has 
implemented this approach largely by concentrating on 
watersheds.

      OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST

    The fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Corps of 
Engineers is composed of $4,871,000,000 in new budget 
authority. This is the largest budget that the administration 
has ever recommended for the Corps. However it is more than 
$460,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2007 enacted budget for 
the Corps. This budget request continues this administration's 
policy of drastic underfunding of domestic infrastructure. At a 
time when this existing infrastructure, the foundation of our 
economic security and quality of life, is depreciating much 
faster than it is being recapitalized, when our increasing 
population is placing much greater stress on the Nation's vital 
water resources, when shifts in population centers mean new and 
different problems and when a growing environmental awareness 
requires new solutions to persistent problems, this 
underfunding is unacceptable and threatens our continued well-
being.
    In a particularly egregious example of this inattention, 
the administration budget continues the trend of ever lower 
General Investigations [GI] funding thereby depriving us of the 
Nation's primary tool to identify future challenges and develop 
innovative solutions to water resources challenges and needs. 
The fiscal year 2002 GI request was $130,000,000. This has 
declined to $90,000,000 in fiscal year 2008. This decline is 
not due to a reduction in water resources needs, rather, it 
appears to be a deliberate attempt to choke off the Corps 
planning program. Of the $90,000,000 recommended in the budget 
request only about one-third of it is for actual studies that 
might eventually become projects. This is unconscionable given 
the enormous water resource needs facing our Nation. Worse 
still, it eviscerates the Corps ability to do proper planning. 
It is clear that in assembling this budget, no thought was 
given to how these recommendations would impact the workload 
and workforce in the various district offices of the Corps.
    Planning in the Corps is a specialized skillset and once 
that ability is lost, it is difficult to reestablish. Most of 
the criticisms of the Corps project development process in 
recent years have centered on the planning process. The 
administration is providing funding for some improvements to 
the Planning program such as funding the Planning Associates 
Program and Planning Centers of Expertise. However, if there 
are no planning studies to be undertaken this funding is 
wasted. The Committee believes that the Corps should have a 
robust planning program to not only address new water resource 
needs but to evaluate changes throughout the project 
development process. Continued budgets like this will lead to a 
complete loss of this vital Corps of Engineers' competency. The 
administration should seriously revise their priorities for 
this account in the fiscal year 2009 budget.
    The Construction, General [CG] and Operation and 
Maintenance [O&M] accounts have to be discussed jointly due to 
the way the budget request blurs the line between the 
traditional project split between the two accounts.
    Priorities for the CG account are based on six criteria for 
fiscal year 2008. The primary criteria is the project's benefit 
to cost ratio [BCR]. This is a welcome change from previous 
budgets that judged a program on its remaining cost to 
remaining benefits, which put rural projects a significant 
disadvantage. Projects with on going contracts and a BCR 
greater than 1.5 or are significant or cost effective aquatic 
ecosystem restoration projects are given funding for current 
contract needs. Projects that address significant risks to 
human health and safety are given sufficient funding to support 
an uninterrupted level of funding in fiscal year 2008. Projects 
with a BCR less than 1.5 are considered for deferral. No new 
construction starts met the administration's new start criteria 
for fiscal year 2008. Projects complying with treaties and 
biological opinions and/or meeting mitigation requirements as 
well as dam safety, seepage control and static instability 
correction were given the maximum funding for efficient and 
effective execution.
    The O&M account appears to have been increased by nearly 
$500,000,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted amount. However 
this is very misleading. The administration has again proposed 
shifting major project rehabilitations and environmental 
compliance activities associated with completed projects from 
CG to O&M. Also shifted to O&M are dredged material disposal 
projects, beach erosion restoration due to completed navigation 
projects and initial nourishment of beach projects. This 
shifting of projects was allegedly done in the name of budget 
transparency--trying to show the true costs of project 
operations. This seems to be a very weak justification in that 
the Bureau of Reclamation which has similar projects in their 
construction accounts did not get similar guidance in their 
budget preparation. By shifting some of these projects such as 
major rehabs and beach nourishments to O&M it appears that the 
administration was able to circumvent their own new start 
criteria. Further, by funding environmental compliance 
activities in the individual O&M projects seems to make the 
budget process less transparent by hiding how much these 
activities are costing the Nation by distributing these costs 
across multiple projects as opposed to a single line item in 
previous budgets. Finally, the administration's budget proposal 
limits coastal storm damage reduction projects that require 
periodic sand renourishments to those where the erosion is due 
to navigation projects. It also proposes to limit Federal 
participation to initial beach nourishment.
    Shifting of projects from the two accounts totals almost 
$300,000,000 of the $500,000,000 increase to O&M. This also 
corresponds to a similar decrease in CG funding for fiscal year 
2008. That still leaves an increase of $200,000,000 for 
traditional O&M projects. The Committee is pleased that the 
administration has provided this increase to O&M for fiscal 
year 2008. This is the first real increase in many years. 
Unfortunately, the Committee notes that the Corps maintenance 
backlog is more than $1,000,000,000 and increases by about 
$100,000,000 annually as the inventory of projects ages.
    O&M is again presented as 21 separate regions based on 
watersheds as opposed to discrete projects. The Committee has 
indicated in the past that this so called ``regional budget'' 
is no more than an aggregation of the projects within a 
specific watershed. It does not appear that this budget is any 
different. The budget for these projects appears to be 
developed in the same way that it has always been and then 
aggregated with the other discrete projects in the watershed. 
The regional budgeting proposed in the last 2 years appears to 
serve no real budgetary purpose other than to circumvent the 
reprogramming guidance provided by the Committee.
    The regulatory budget gets a substantial increase to 
$180,000,000 for fiscal year 2008. This is more than 
$20,000,000 over the amount provided in fiscal year 2007. 
However, the Committee recognizes the substantial increased 
burden to establishing new regulatory guidance in the wake of 
the Rapanos Supreme Court decision.
    The Committee is disappointed that funding for the Formerly 
Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program [FUSRAP] was cut by 
nearly $10,000,000 from the fiscal year 2007 amount of 
$138,672,000. This program was transferred to the Corps from 
the Department of Energy, because the Committee was concerned 
with management and cost issues of the program within the 
Energy Department. This is a program that is being well managed 
by the Corps and should have stable, adequate budget resources 
to continue these radiological clean-up activities.
    The Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account is funded 
at $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2008. The Committee supports 
this funding for disaster readiness and preparedness activities 
of the Corps of Engineers.
    The budget request again combines the budget request for 
the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) 
with the General Expenses [GE] account. The Committee continues 
to believe that the Assistant Secretary's office should be 
funded in the Defense Appropriations bill. However, until such 
time as that can be reintegrated into that bill, the Committee 
believes that it should be funded as a separate account. The 
Assistant Secretary's duties encompass much more than the civil 
works functions of the Corps of Engineers and the budget needs 
of the office should be addressed separately.
    The Committee is pleased to see an increase in the GE 
budget for fiscal year 2008. With the increases in 
responsibilities for the headquarters of the Corps in 
overseeing larger budgets as well as the massive rebuilding of 
the flood and storm damage reduction measures in the New 
Orleans area, it is appropriate that this account should be 
increased. The Committee notes that the Corps operates one of 
the most efficient headquarters staffs in the National Capital 
region. Only about 3.5 percent of their staffing is at their 
headquarters level as opposed to 10 percent or more for 
comparable agencies in the National Capital region.

                      PERFORMANCE BASED BUDGETING

    The Committee has watched with interest over the last 4 
years as the Corps has moved to a ``performance based budget'' 
model. Unfortunately, the Committee does not see improvement in 
the budgeting of the Nation's Civil Works infrastructure 
program. In fact, the Committee believes quite the opposite is 
true. Rather than an integrated program, the budget for the 
Civil Works program seems to be degenerating toward a yearly 
collection of interchangeable projects dependent only on the 
budgetary whims and criteria in use in that particular year. 
The current method of performance based budgeting utilized in 
this budget preparation turns the Nation away from 
infrastructure investments that return two and even three times 
their cost.
    In fiscal year 2005, more than 130 projects were budgeted 
by the administration for construction; this year there are 
only about 66. However, Congress funded more than 300 projects 
in fiscal year 2006 and has averaged about 315 annually since 
fiscal year 2000. Due to the joint funding resolution for 
fiscal year 2007, Congress did not propose any projects for 
construction within the $2,336,368,000 in Construction, General 
funding provided to the executive branch but left that task to 
the administration. The administration funded 244 construction 
projects in their fiscal year 2007 work plan. They could have 
chosen to only fund the 85 proposed in the fiscal year 2007 
budget request, but they didn't. This demonstrates a 
recognition by the administration that their budget proposal 
only partially addressed the Nation's needs. The work plan also 
demonstrated that the administration finds value in many of the 
projects that Congress annually funds. Unfortunately, the 
budget request pretends that these on going projects which have 
been funded annually for many years in enacted legislation do 
not exist. Further the budget assumes it costs nothing to 
ignore these projects. If Congress funded only the budget 
request for Construction, General, the administration would 
quickly discover that termination costs for unfunded on going 
projects could easily exceed the request. This is irresponsible 
budgeting on the part of the administration.
    From the Committee's perspective, the Corps' budget seems 
to be developed exactly in the opposite manner that it should 
be. It appears that overall spending targets are set by the 
administration and then their priority projects are inserted 
within these targets. Criteria are then established to justify 
funding the lower priority projects within the remaining 
funding targets. The problem with budgeting in this manner is 
evident in the construction account for fiscal year 2008. Six 
priority projects consume nearly 30 percent of the requested 
dollars in this account. Another nine projects related to dam 
safety consume another 20 percent. That means that some 51 
projects have to split the remaining construction dollars.
    The logic behind this budgeting rational appears to be that 
concentrating scarce resources on finishing a few higher 
performing projects will allow the Nation to reap the benefits 
of these projects sooner. The trouble with this is that these 
are long-term projects that take many years to complete. At the 
rate the budget is headed, we will only be funding the 
administration's six priority projects and the dam safety 
repairs in another couple of years with little else in the 
pipeline. The Committee questions this rationale when compared 
to the value of the benefits that are deferred by suspending or 
terminating these other projects in order to concentrate 
resources on such a few projects. In some cases these deferred 
benefits may never be realized due to these terminations.
    Local sponsors who share in these projects' cost may lose 
their ability to share these costs or may lose public support 
for finishing these projects. Once these priority projects are 
completed, one has to wonder whether there will be any projects 
or sponsors interested in resuming construction in an 
infrastructure program that suspends projects based on 
changeable annual criteria.
    In the past, Corps budgets were developed from the bottom 
up, District to Division to Headquarters to ASA to OMB. 
District commanders were responsible for developing and 
managing a program within their geographic area. Division 
Commanders were responsible for integrating the District office 
programs into a single Division-wide program. The Headquarters 
office integrated the Division Programs into a single national 
program. The OASA assured that the program complied with 
administration policy and budgetary guidance and OMB developed 
the budgetary guidance and provided funding levels. Decisions 
for budgeting were made within the framework of administration 
policy by those who knew the projects and programs best, not 
Washington level bureaucrats.
    Another benefit of budgeting in this manner is that it 
allows the Corps to undertake workforce planning to distribute 
their work across the Nation. When one chooses to put 40-50 
percent of the budget in a handful of projects, there is no way 
the workload can be balanced across the remainder of the Nation 
with what is left. Unlike other Federal agencies that have a 
salaries and expense component to their budget, the Corps does 
not, at least not at the District office level. Virtually all 
costs at District offices (rent, utilities, labor, materials, 
etc.) are charged to projects and studies as directed by 
Congress. This enables the public to be informed of the true 
cost of all projects. Accordingly, it is necessary that the 
budget process be consistent with the accounting practice. When 
dealing with such large differences in workload from fiscal 
year to fiscal year it is clear that the administration gave no 
thought to how this budget would impact the Corps' 
organizational structure or ability to maintain a technically 
competent workforce. Congress has repeatedly demonstrated that 
it desires to keep the structure of the Corps of Engineers as 
it is currently configured. Yet, if the budget were enacted, 
there would be no way to maintain this workforce, due to how 
budgetary criteria skewed the projects to certain areas of the 
country. Neither a pure ``bottom up'' budget process, nor a 
performance-based budget process is perfect. Experienced 
decision makers are expected to exercise informed judgment to 
achieve a balanced program considering all factors. Once more, 
the administration appears to have submitted a very unbalanced 
program using oversimplified decision metrics to consider only 
a few objectives (e.g. BCR and efficient completion of a few 
projects) that do not take into account the long- term needs of 
the Nation or the organization expected to manage the program.
    The Congress will likely consider the passage of a water 
resources development bill this year. In this bill the BCR 
necessary for a project to be authorized for construction is 
1.0 to 1. The criteria mentioned above requires a BCR to be 3.0 
to 1 for budgeting. This performance based budgeting criteria 
furthers the divide between what is required for authorization 
and what is required to be budgeted. These criteria use to be 
one and the same. Most of the projects in the water resources 
development bill will likely not meet this criteria, increasing 
the backlog of authorized but unconstructed projects. These new 
projects, along with the deferrals in the budget and the major 
rehabilitations needed for aging infrastructure, are affecting 
and will continue to affect the national economy. Existing 
water resources infrastructure is wearing out. The Nation needs 
to recapitalize if we are to remain competitive in a global 
marketplace.

                  FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET INITIATIVES

    The administration has proposed several changes to how the 
civil works program is appropriated for fiscal year 2007. These 
include the regionalization of operations and maintenance 
funding and migrating four categories of projects from the 
Construction, General account to the Operations and Maintenance 
account. The Committee has rejected all of these initiatives.
    Regionalized operations and maintenance funding segregates 
funding for projects into 21 watershed regions around the 
country as opposed to displaying operations and maintenance 
costs by project as has been the tradition. As projects, not 
regions, are authorized and funded by Congress, the Committee 
must reject this proposal. Operation and Maintenance budgets 
are developed on a project by project basis. For large river 
basins such as the Ohio or the Missouri, budgeting for the 
individual projects, as authorized, involve multiple Districts 
and Divisions. As the proposals in the budget are not developed 
as a systemized budget, aggregating them in the fashion 
proposed does not lead to the ``true costs'' of operating the 
system, it just adds up the various parts. The Committee does 
not believe that this proposal advances the budgeting for 
operations and maintenance.
    The Committee is not opposed to a systemized budget for 
projects. However, the Corps must demonstrate the value of this 
approach to the Committee. The Corps is directed to prepare 
four systemized, integrated budgets for four different areas of 
the Nation, the Ohio River, the Great Lakes, the Texas Coast 
and the California coast, to demonstrate the value of system or 
watershed based planning and budgeting. Should the Corps want 
to select different areas they must coordinate their 
recommendations with the Committees prior to implementation. 
This process should start at the initial development phases of 
the budget so that goals can be developed and carried through 
the entire budget development process.
    The Committee rejects the initiative to move Endangered 
Species Act [ESA] compliance activities from Construction, 
General to Operations and Maintenance. The stated reason was 
budget transparency, or to more appropriately show the true 
costs of operating these projects. The Committee has two issues 
with this logic. Budget transparency fades when the costs are 
rolled into the regionalized budgets. However, even if they 
were budgeted on a project by project basis, the casual 
observer would have no notion of how much of the operational 
costs of these projects is related to ESA compliance. Second, 
these are only being considered as operational costs because 
mitigation for these projects was not undertaken when the 
projects were constructed as is now required by subsequent 
laws. Were these projects constructed today, formulation of the 
projects would have required avoidance and minimization 
measures for the endangered species.
    If one wanted to take this argument to the extreme, all of 
the Everglades Restoration should be budgeted under the Central 
and South Florida O&M project since construction of this 
project resulted in the environmental restorations that are now 
being implemented. However, the costs for this work would not 
be transparent in the budget. By retaining the ESA compliance 
measures as separate line items in the CG account, it is much 
more transparent as to how much is being funded for these 
activities.
    The budget has proposed moving major rehabilitation for 
locks and dams from the Construction, General account to the 
Operations and Maintenance account. Corresponding to this is a 
legislative proposal to allow the proceeds from the Inland 
Waterway Trust Fund to be utilized in the Operations and 
Maintenance account. Current law only allows these funds to be 
utilized in the Construction, General account. The Congress 
moved major rehabilitation from the Construction, General 
account to the Operation and Maintenance account in fiscal year 
1985. Subsequently as the backlog increased, it was returned to 
the Construction, General account in the fiscal year 1993 
budget. The stipulations involved in moving it back to the 
Construction account included that these major rehabilitations 
would involve more than a simple restoration of project 
function. Operational improvements were considered as a part of 
the rehab. As such, the rehabilitated, or recapitalized, 
projects were considered new investment opportunities for the 
country, the same as other new projects, and had to compete as 
new starts in the Construction, General program. This is 
entirely appropriate as these recapitalized projects provide 
increased levels of service and performance not envisioned in 
their original construction. If they didn't, under existing 
adminstration policy, the repairs would be considered major 
maintenance and would be funded under the Operation and 
Maintenance Account. To help fund these major rehabs, 
legislation allowed half the costs of the major rehab to be 
borne by the Inland Waterway Trust Fund with the other half to 
come from the General Treasury. The Committee does not believe 
moving these projects back to the Operations and Maintenance 
account will solve the backlog of major rehabs and rejects this 
proposal. The Committee believes that the real intent of this 
proposal is to skirt the new start issue in the CG account.
    The Committee is disappointed that the administration has 
recycled their beach policy from the fiscal year 2007 budget. 
This was only a slight tweak to the fiscal year 2006 proposal 
that was rejected by the Congress. The Committee rejects the 
new policy as well. The Committee notes that beaches are the 
leading tourist destination in the United States. Typically 
beach projects are justified on storm damages prevented alone, 
and the recreation benefits only enhance the benefit to cost 
ratio. The maximum Federal Government contribution to Federal 
shore protection projects is 65 percent of the total project 
cost but the Government receives all the benefits in reducing 
Federal disaster assistance payments. By paying for Federal 
shore protection projects now, we can avoid many of the 
catastrophic losses and disaster assistance payments associated 
with hurricanes and coastal storms. Simply stated, the Nation 
can pay now to avoid losses or pay more later to recover from 
severe impacts. It truly makes sense to be proactive and not 
reactive in this environment.
    It is instructive to compare the Federal investment in 
beach infrastructure (beach nourishment) versus Federal tax 
revenues from tourists. The annual Federal investment in beach 
nourishment is approximately $100,000,000 a year. Travel and 
tourism in the United States produce $223,900,000,000 in tax 
revenues and growth in this sector exceeds 5 percent annually. 
About 53 percent or $119,000,000,000 of these tax revenues go 
to the Federal Government. Assuming that half of these tourists 
are beach tourists (beaches are the leading U.S. tourist 
destination by more than a 2 to 1 margin), beach tourists 
produce Federal taxes of about $60,000,000,000 a year. 
Therefore, for every dollar in annual Federal expenditures for 
beach nourishment, the Federal Government is receiving tax 
revenues of approximately $600 from beach tourists.
    Interestingly, the administration has been pursuing 
authorization for coastal wetland restoration projects to 
protect coastal areas from hurricane storm surge. Yet the 
placement of sand in coastal areas for the exact same reason is 
given no priority by the administration in the budget process. 
While the Committee supports restoration of the coastal 
wetlands, it is difficult to imagine that wetlands will provide 
a greater national economic impact than placing sand on public 
beaches to mitigate storm surges on our densely populated 
coastal areas.
    The Committee believes that this budget proposal is no way 
to run a robust national infrastructure program. The Committee 
recommended that the Corps include additional criteria into the 
project prioritization process and commends the administration 
for having done so for the fiscal year 2008 budget request. The 
Committee also commends the administration for changing from 
the Remaining Benefits/Remaining Costs Ratio to the projects 
actual Benefit to Cost Ratio. However, the net result is that 
the mix of projects is substantially unchanged and fewer 
projects are proposed for funding in fiscal year 2008. The 
Committee does not believe that this prioritization method can 
be salvaged into a useable system. Further, the Committee has 
seen no evidence that it has improved the budget process.
    Rather than trying new budget models and new prioritization 
criteria, the country needs to invest more heavily in its water 
resources. Water resource projects are some of the only Federal 
expenditures that go through a rigorous benefit to cost process 
to determine benefits to the national economy. The standard of 
living that we currently enjoy is due to the excess capacity 
that was built into our water resources infrastructure by 
previous generations. By failing to make new investments and 
recapitalizing aging infrastructure, the Nation is not only 
falling behind our competition around the world, but is 
jeopardizing our future economic growth.

                         BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS

    The Committee continues to be concerned about the manner 
that budget justifications were prepared for the fiscal year 
2008 budget. In the past, the Corps provided justification 
sheets for each project and presented them in budget order by 
Division across the country. Again for fiscal year 2008, a 
single book of justification sheets was provided by business 
lines. The Committee finds this manner of displaying the budget 
not very helpful in being able to find meaningful information 
on individual projects and studies. While the Committee 
believes that budget justifications could be improved by 
providing more relevant budget information, particularly for 
operations and maintenance projects, the method used for 
display in fiscal year 2008 provides less useful information, 
not more. For fiscal year 2009, the Committee instructs that 
the budget justifications should be prepared in the format used 
for fiscal year 2004, that is, prior to the business line 
budget model. This should include information on fund items in 
preceding acts that will have out year funding requirements as 
well as budgeted items. If the administration chooses to 
continue to provide the business line information, it may be 
provided as a separate appendix to the justifications.

                 CONTINUING CONTRACTS AND REPROGRAMMING

    Traditionally, the Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works 
Program has been a truly integrated nationwide water 
infrastructure program. As such, flexibility was required to 
manage the program. Congress has given the Chief of Engineers 
great latitude in management of this program in order to expend 
annual appropriations as efficiently and effectively as 
possible. Water resources projects, because of the nature of 
the work involved, are funded on an incremental annual basis. 
While aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines and even spacecraft 
have been constructed without the use of continuing contracts 
Congress recognized that those amounts of budget resources 
would never be available to the Corps, so they provided 
continuing contract authority to allow them to construct large 
scale projects without the Congress having to provide all of 
the budget authority up front. Additionally, this method of 
funding the Corps allowed the Congress to have more projects 
underway at the same time with the same budget authority. 
Congress recognized that by providing this flexibility it was 
relinquishing some measure of control over future 
appropriations; however, Congress believed that this was an 
acceptable trade off for the efficient use of limited funds.
    This system worked well from the 1920s until 2005. For the 
few years prior to fiscal year 2006, the Corps had gotten 
somewhat sloppy in their management of continuing contracts as 
well as reprogramming of project funds. This sloppiness gave 
the appearance that construction contractors were dictating 
program execution. As the Committee has discussed in prior 
years, this perception was due to a number of factors some of 
them initiated by the Congress and other by the Corps' 
interpretation of congressional directives. Unfortunately 
restrictions placed on the Corps in the fiscal year 2006 
budget, that are still in effect, have severely limited, if not 
prohibited the Corps from entering into new continuing 
contracts as well as virtually prohibited reprogramming of 
project funds.
    These factors have led to a dramatic increase in carryover 
of project funds which can only mean that projects are still 
being delayed even with the new guidance from fiscal year 2006. 
Carryover from fiscal year 2005 into fiscal year 2006 was about 
$300,000,000. With the new guidance from the fiscal year 2006 
act, carryover ballooned to $1,400,000,000 from fiscal year 
2006 into fiscal year 2007. Preliminary indications are that 
carryover from fiscal year 2007 into fiscal year 2008 will 
exceed $1,000,000,000 and may be as high as $1,200,000,000. 
While the Committee accepts that some level of carryover is 
unavoidable and desirable, carrying over nearly 20 percent of 
the Corps' annual appropriations is unacceptable. Changes must 
be made by Congress and the Corps to efficiently and 
effectively utilize annual appropriations and reduce carryover 
balances to more reasonable levels. Noting these exceptionally 
large carryover balances, the Committee has continued to 
include small percentages of savings and slippage on all 
accounts to maximize resources. The fiscal year 2006 guidance 
has also had a significant impact on continuing contracts in 
effect prior to the guidance being implemented as contracts 
cannot be unilaterally modified by the Corps to adopt these 
changes to the law.
    The Committee expects the Chief of Engineers to execute the 
Civil Works program generally in accordance with congressional 
direction. This includes moving individual projects forward in 
accordance with the funds annually appropriated. However, the 
Committee realizes that many factors outside the Corps' control 
may dictate the progress of any given project or study. 
Therefore, the Committee believes that it is imperative to give 
the Chief of Engineers ample flexibility to manage the program 
and to utilize excess funds as they become available on a 
particular project in order to move the entire program forward, 
effectively advancing projects to completion and accruing the 
benefits and services for which they were authorized, as soon 
as practicable. However, the Committee notes that granting this 
flexibility also requires responsibility to insure that 
appropriated funds are available for projects for which they 
were appropriated, when needed.
    The Committee believes that properly utilized continuing 
contracts serve a vital purpose in executing civil works 
projects. The Committee also believes that judicious use of 
reprogramming authority also contributes to an efficient and 
effectively run program. Therefore the Committee is repealing 
section 108 of Public Law 109-103 pertaining to limitation on 
funding to continuing contracts. The Committee is leaving in 
place the provisions of section 106 as they restore the 
traditional uses of continuing contracts. The Committee directs 
that in utilizing continuing contracts that they should be for 
long term, large scale projects. The Committee's expectation is 
that for a continuing contract to be utilized, the contract 
value should exceed $5,000,000 and have a minimum contract 
duration of 24 months. Anything less than these amounts should 
be considered for full funding. However, this should not be 
considered an endorsement by the Committee that only continuing 
contracts should be awarded above these thresholds. The 
Committee expects the Corps to use the proper contracting 
vehicle for each situation. For continuing contracts this 
should include the reasonable expectation of future funding. 
Authority for awarding continuing contracts should be at the 
lowest practical level. Exceptions to these limits should be 
forwarded to the Chief of Engineers for review and approval.
    The Committee further notes that current reprogramming 
recommendations have come to be elevated to the highest levels 
of the Corps, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) 
and OMB. The Committee believes that reprogrammings are 
operational decisions which should be delegated. The Committee 
believes that the Chief should delegate recommendation of 
reprogramming decisions to as low of a level as possible in 
order to expedite reprogramming actions in order to efficiently 
and effectively utilize scarce funds.
    The Committee is also revamping reprogramming guidance for 
the Corps. The Committee believes that the reprogramming 
guidance that is currently being utilized is too restrictive 
and does not address the inherent differences in the various 
accounts of the Corps of Engineers. For fiscal year 2008, 
reprogramming limitations will be tied to the base funding 
amounts available for the project, study, or activity for which 
funding is available. In other words, the base for each 
project, study or activity amounts to the new budget authority 
made available, excluding supplemental funds, coupled with 
previously provided unexpended funding for the project, study 
or activity. For reprogramming actions that must come to the 
Committee for approval, the Committee expects the Corps to 
fully coordinate the actions with the affected Members of 
Congress before the action is formally submitted to the 
Committees. In no case should a reprogramming action for less 
than $50,000 be submitted to the Committees for approval. The 
authority for each account is as follows:
    General Investigations.--For a base funding level less than 
$100,000, the reprogramming limit is $25,000. For a base level 
over $100,000, 25 percent up to a limit of $150,000 per study 
or activity. Amounts over this limit will require approval of 
the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, except that the 
Committee does not object to reprogramming up to $25,000 to any 
continuing study or activity that did not receive an 
appropriation in the current year.
    Construction, General.--For a base less than $2,000,000, 
the reprogramming limit is $300,000. For a base level over 
$2,000,000, 15 percent up to a limit of $3,000,000 per project 
or activity. The Committee will allow reprogramming up to 
$3,000,000 for settled contractor claims, accelerated earnings 
or real estate deficiency judgments. Amounts over this limit 
require approval of the House and Senate Appropriations 
Committees. Reprogramming within each section of the Continuing 
Authorities is unlimited however, the percentages between 
studies and implementation must be maintained as directed in 
this report. Further, no reprogramming is allowed between 
sections nor into or out of the overall CG account. The 
Committee does not object to reprogramming of up to $300,000 to 
any continuing project or program that did not receive an 
appropriation in the current year.
    Operations and Maintenance.--Unlimited reprogramming 
authority is granted in order for the Corps to be able to 
respond to emergency situations. The Chief of Engineers must 
notify the House and Senate Appropriations Committees of these 
emergency actions as soon thereafter as practicable. For all 
other situations, for a base less than $1,000,000, the 
reprogramming limit is $150,000. For a base over $1,000,000, 15 
percent up to a limit of $5,000,000 per project or activity. 
Amounts over this limit require approval of the House and 
Senate Appropriations Committees. The Committee does not object 
reprogramming up to $150,000 to any continuing project or 
program that did not receive an appropriation in the current 
year.
    Mississippi River and Tributaries.--The Corps should follow 
the same reprogramming guidelines for the General 
Investigations, Construction, General and Operation and 
Maintenance portions of the Mississippi River and Tributaries 
account as listed above.
    Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.--The Corps 
may reprogram up to 15 percent of the base of the receiving 
project.
    This revised continuing contract and reprogramming guidance 
should help the Corps effectively manage their program while 
honoring the intent of Congress. These items reinvigorate the 
idea that once the Congress funds a study, that it intends for 
the study phase to be completed to determine if Federal 
investment is warranted. By the same token, once the Congress 
commits to initiation of construction of a project that it 
intends for the project to be completed and the national 
economy to accrue the project benefits.

Five Year Comprehensive Budget Planning

    While the Committee appreciates the Corps' attempts to 
provide a meaningful 5-year budget plan, it recognizes the 
inherent difficulties between the legislative and executive 
branches in preparing a useful plan. The executive branch is 
unwilling to project a 5-year horizon for projects for which 
they do not budget leaving a sizeable percentage of the Corps 
annual appropriations with a year to year event horizon for 
planning purposes. The fact that a sizeable portion of the 
annual appropriations are dedicated to congressional priorities 
is not a new phenomenon. Many major public works projects over 
the last two centuries have been funded on an annual basis 
without a clear budget strategy. The Committee would welcome 
the ideas and the opportunity to work with the executive branch 
to determine a mutually agreeable way to develop an integrated 
5-year comprehensive budget that displays true funding needs 
for congressional as well as administration priorities. 
Anything less will only give a partial view of the investments 
needed in water resources infrastructure.

Study and Project Reviews

    The Committee notes that review times have markedly 
improved for Corps of Engineers documents at the Headquarters, 
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) and 
the Office of Management and Budget since statutory timeframes 
and notifications were imposed on these reviews. This is shown 
in the table below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Project                       Date to OMB         Date review completed       Date to Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smith Island, MD....................  22 Oct 02...............  18 Apr 05\1\...........  02 Aug 06
Hamilton Airfield, CA...............  24 Jan 05...............  20 Apr 05..............  03 May 05
Silver Strand/Imperial Beach, CA....  03 Jan 05...............  22 Apr 05..............  06 May 05
Western Sarpy, NE...................  25 Feb 04...............  22 Apr 05..............  15 Jul 05
J.T. Myers/Greenup L&Ds KY, OH, IN..  23 Aug 03...............  03 May 05..............  04 Jan 06
Southwest Valley, NM................  06 Apr 05...............  14 Jun 05..............  29 Jun 05
Centralia, WA.......................  25 Apr 05...............  15 Jun 05..............  01 Jul 05
Jacksonville Harbor, FL.............  18 May 05...............  25 Jul 05..............  03 Aug 05
Denver County Streams, CO...........  21 Jun 05...............  02 Sep 05..............  13 Oct 05
Indian River Lagoon, FL.............  22 Jun 05...............  17 Oct 05..............  01 Feb 06
Louisiana Coastal Area, LA..........  26 Aug 05...............  01 Nov 05..............  21 Nov 05
Napa River Salt Marsh, CA...........  17 Aug 05...............  01 Nov 05..............  21 Nov 05
Duwamish-Green Rivers, WA...........  09 May 02...............  28 Nov 05..............  21 Dec 05
Stillaguamish River, WA.............  18 Apr 02...............  28 Nov 05..............  21 Dec 05
Dare County Beaches, NC.............  01 Nov 05...............  06 Jan 06..............  27 Jan 06
Chickamauga L&D, TN.................  16 Jun 04...............  11 Jan 06..............  25 Jan 06
Miami Harbor, FL....................  17 Feb 06...............  24 Apr 06..............  25 May 06
Rilito River, Pima County, AZ.......  17 Feb 06...............  01 May 06..............  19 May 06
Great Lakes Fish & Ecosystem Rest...  07 Apr 06...............  15 Jun 06..............  Complete\2\
Missouri & Middle Mississippi River.  30 Aug 05...............  15 Jun 06..............  Complete\2\
Ohio River Restoration, OH..........  04 Mar 02...............  15 Jun 06..............  Complete\2\
Puget Sound, WA.....................  02 May 05...............  15 Jun 06..............  Complete\2\
Bayou Sorrel, LA....................  10 Jul 06...............  15 Sep 06..............  04 Oct 06
Poplar Island, MD...................  03 Aug 06...............  03 Oct 06..............  11 Oct 06
Matilija Dam, CA....................  25 Sep 06...............  27 Nov 06..............  09 Apr 07
Hamilton City, CA...................  25 Sep 06...............  22 Nov 06..............  21 Dec 06
Bloomsburg, PA......................  11 Oct 06...............  20 Dec 06..............  11 Jan 07
Matagorda Bay Re-Route, TX..........  08 Sep 03...............  06 Feb 07..............  05 Mar 07
GIWW, High Island to Brazos, TX.....  08 Oct 04...............  06 Feb 07..............  09 Mar 07
Deep Creek Bridge, VA...............  27 Aug 03...............  23 Feb 07..............  23 Mar 07
Jackson Hole, Snake River, WY.......  04 Mar 02...............   08 Mar 07.............  12 Mar 07
Picayune Strand, FL.................  17 Jan 07...............  19 Mar 07..............  19 Apr 07
Montauk Point, NY...................  05 Feb 07...............  19 Apr 07..............  03 May 07
MS Coastal Improvements Program.....  20 Feb 07...............  23 Apr 07..............  04 May 07
Breckinridge, MN....................  15 Jul 04...............  20 Mar 07..............  07 May 07
Chesterfield, MO....................  13 Jun 06...............  01 May 07..............  30 May 07
Lido Key, Lee County Shore, FL......  04 Aug 06...............  25 May 07..............  .......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Received June 27, 2006.
\2\Returned to DCW as complete by letter dated 17 Jul 06. Programmatic documents not to be reviewed by OMB.

    However, the Committee is not pleased that this improved 
review time only applies to new documents that have been 
forwarded for review. Many documents have been languishing for 
3 to 4 years. This is unacceptable to the Committee and should 
be to OMB as well. The following table shows the name of the 
document, when it was forwarded to OMB and the current status.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Project                              Date to OMB                           Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delaware Coastline, Port Mahon, DE......  07 Jun 99 & 08 Jan 02.............  Pending
Whitewater River Basin, CA..............  09 May 02.........................  Pending
Port Monmouth, NJ.......................  19 May 03.........................  Pending
Rio de Flag, AZ.........................  18 Sep 03.........................  Pending
Port Sutton, FL.........................  01 Oct 03.........................  Pending
Peoria Riverfront Development, IL.......  28 Feb 04.........................  Pending\1\
Park River at Grafton, ND...............  28 May 04.........................  Pending
Tanque Verde, AZ........................  02 Jun 04.........................  Pending
Dallas Floodway Extension, TX...........  23 Aug 04.........................  Pending
Corpus Christi Ship Channel, TX.........  16 Sep 04.........................  Active Review
Swope Park Industrial Area, MO..........  28 Oct 04.........................  Pending
South River, Raritan River Basin, NJ....  05 Nov 04.........................  Pending
St. Clair River/Lake St. Clair, MI......  22 Mar 06.........................  Pending
Manasquan to Barnegat Inlet, NJ.........  25 Sep 06.........................  On Hold\2\
CERP--Site 1 Impoundment................  25 Apr 07.........................  Pending
Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers, IA.......  25 Apr 07.........................  Pending
Craney Island Expansion, VA.............  07 Jun 07.........................  Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Project Scope reduced by partial implementation authorized by section 519 of WRDA 2000.
\2\District answering questions on cumulative effects and air quality.


    The Committee directs the Chief of Engineers to work with 
the ASA[CW] and OMB to develop a plan to complete these policy 
compliance reviews as expeditiously as possible and forward the 
recommendations of these reports to Congress. This plan should 
be presented to the appropriate House and Senate authorizing 
and Appropriations Committees no later than September 30, 2007. 
The Committee directs that reviews of all of these documents 
should be completed no later than December 31, 2008.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation includes a total of 
$5,448,092,000. This is $577,092,000 over the administration's 
budget request and $109,722,000 over the fiscal year 2007 
enacted amount. Funding is displayed in the following tables in 
the accounts where projects have been traditionally located and 
comparisons to the budget request are made as if the request 
was presented in the traditional manner. Funding by account is 
as follows:

                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Fiscal year 2007      Committee        Request vs.
                                                                 request        recommedation    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Investigations....................................            90,000           172,147           +82,147
Construction, General.....................................         1,818,811         2,059,474          +240,663
Mississippi River and Tributaries.........................           260,000           375,000          +115,000
Operation and Maintenance.................................         2,175,189         2,291,971          +116,782
Regulatory................................................           180,000           180,000  ................
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies.....................            40,000            50,000           +10,000
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program...........           130,000           140,000           +10,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil                   6,000             4,500            -1,500
 Works)...................................................
General Expenses..........................................           171,000           175,000            +4,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total...............................................         4,871,000         5,448,092          +577,092
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS

    The Committee received more than 2,500 requests for 
projects, programs, studies or activities for the Corps of 
Engineers for fiscal year 2008. These were items that were in 
addition to the budget request as well as those included in the 
budget request. The Committee obviously was unable to 
accommodate all of these requests.
    In the interest of providing full disclosure of funding 
provided in the Energy and Water bill, all disclosures are made 
in this report accompanying the Bill.
    All of the projects funded in this report have gone through 
the same rigorous public review and approval process as those 
proposed for funding by the President. The difference in these 
projects, of course, is that the congressionally directed 
projects are not subject to the artificial budgetary 
prioritization criteria that the administration utilizes to 
decide what not to fund.
    A new column has been added to the tables to show the 
requestors of the various projects. For those programs, 
projects, or studies that were included in the budgetary 
documents provided in the budget request, the word President 
has been added to denote this administration request. The level 
of funding provided for each of these programs projects or 
studies should not be construed as what was requested. Rather, 
the only intent is to disclose the requestor.
    It should be noted that many line items only have President 
listed as the requestor. It should not be inferred that the 
affected Members are not interested in these projects studies 
or activities. Rather this is due to Committee direction that 
the President's budget requests are assumed to be requested by 
the affected Members unless they notify the Committee to the 
contrary.
    The purposes for the funding provided in the various 
accounts is described in the paragraphs associated with each 
account. The location of the programs, projects or studies are 
denoted in the account tables.

                         GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

Appropriations, 2007....................................    $162,916,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................      90,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     172,147,000

\1\Excludes emergency appropriations of $8,165,000.

    This appropriation funds studies to determine the need, 
engineering feasibility, economic justification, and the 
environmental and social suitability of solutions to water and 
related land resource problems; and for preconstruction 
engineering and design work, data collection, and interagency 
coordination and research activities.
    The planning program is the entry point for Federal 
involvement in solutions to the Nation's water resource 
problems and needs. Unfortunately, the General Investigations 
[GI] account is eviscerated in the budget request. Nationwide 
studies and programs consume nearly two-thirds of the 
administration's GI request. This budget is saying that the 
Nation should concentrate scarce resources on completing 
studies but not carrying forward ongoing studies or allowing 
new starts. The Committee believes this argument is remarkably 
shortsighted. It assumes that the country will stop growing and 
that new investment opportunities will not be present.
    In truth, as the country grows, new investment 
opportunities will be presented and some previously authorized 
projects may no longer make sense or may be less competitive. 
The Corps should keep presenting the administration and 
Congress with new investment opportunities in order for the 
Nation to remain competitive in a global economy. The only 
conclusion one can draw from the administration's GI proposal 
is that they are determined to redirect the Corps towards 
construction, operation and maintenance by strangling their 
ability to evaluate water resource problems and needs.
    The Committee has provided for a robust and balanced 
planning program for fiscal year 2008. The Committee has used 
the traditional view within the Corps planning program that 
only considers new starts as those that have never received GI 
funds before. The Committee believes that to maintain a robust 
planning program, a mix of new reconnaissance studies must be 
included with the existing feasibility and PED studies. As such 
the Committee has included several new reconnaissance studies 
in this account. To provide additional transparency in the 
budget process, the Committee has segregated the budget into 
three columns in the following table.
    The first column represents the reconnaissance phase of the 
planning process. These studies determine if there is a Federal 
interest in a water resource problem or need and if there is a 
cost sharing sponsor willing to move forward with the study. 
The next column represents the feasibility phase of the study. 
These detailed cost shared studies determine the selected 
alternative to be recommended to the Congress for construction. 
The third column represents the Preconstruction engineering and 
design phase. These detailed cost shared designs are prepared 
while the project recommended to Congress is awaiting 
authorization for construction.
    The Committee believes that by segregating the table in 
this manner that more attention will be focused on the various 
study phases, and a more balanced planning program will be 
developed by the administration. As the last two columns are 
generally cost shared, they demonstrate the commitment by cost 
sharing sponsors to be a part of the Federal planning process. 
By the same token, it also shows the level of commitment of the 
Federal Government to these cost sharing sponsors. The 
Committee directs that the fiscal year 2009 planning budget be 
presented to the Committee in this fashion.
    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              ----------------------------------------------------------------                   Requested by
                                         Investigations   Planning      RECON       FEAS         PED
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 ALASKA

ANCHORAGE HARBOR DEEPENING, AK.........  ..............  ..........  ..........         500  ..........  STEVENS
ATKA BOAT HARBOR, AK...................  ..............  ..........         200  ..........  ..........  STEVENS
BARROW COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION,   ..............  ..........  ..........         400  ..........  STEVENS
 AK.
DELONG MOUNTAIN DOCK, AK...............  ..............  ..........  ..........         100         400  STEVENS
HAINES HARBOR, AK......................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         350  STEVENS
HOMER HARBOR MODIFICATION, AK..........  ..............  ..........  ..........         400  ..........  STEVENS
KENAI RIVER BLUFF EROSION, AK..........  ..............  ..........  ..........         500  ..........  STEVENS
LITTLE DIOMEDE HARBOR, AK..............  ..............  ..........  ..........         600  ..........  STEVENS
MATANUSKA RIVER WATERSHED, AK..........  ..............  ..........         300  ..........  ..........  STEVENS
MCGRATH, AK............................  ..............  ..........         600  ..........  ..........  STEVENS
WHITTIER BREAKWATER, AK................  ..............  ..........  ..........         400  ..........  STEVENS
YAKUTAT HARBOR, AK.....................           300    ..........  ..........         600  ..........  PRESIDENT, STEVENS

                ARIZONA

RILLITO RIVER, PIMA COUNTY, AZ.........  ..............         300  ..........  ..........         300  PRESIDENT
VA SHLY-AY AKIMEL SALT RIVER             ..............         658  ..........  ..........         658  PRESIDENT
 RESTORATION, AZ.

                ARKANSAS

LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESOURCE STUDY.  ..............  ..........         250  ..........  ..........  COCHRAN, LINCOLN, PRYOR
MAY BRANCH, FORT SMITH, AR.............  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         250  LINCOLN, PRYOR
PINE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR.................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         500  LINCOLN, PRYOR
RED RIVER NAVIGATION STUDY, SOUTHWEST    ..............  ..........  ..........         200         200  LANDRIEU, LINCOLN, PRYOR, INHOFE
 ARKANSAS, AR.
WHITE RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, AR &    ..............  ..........  ..........         325  ..........  BOND, LINCOLN, PRYOR
 MO.
WHITE RIVER MINIMUM FLOWS, AR..........  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         475  LINCOLN, PRYOR
WHITE RIVER NAVIGATION TO NEWPORT, AR..  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         200  LINCOLN, PRYOR

               CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA COASTAL SEDIMENT MASTER                300    ..........  ..........         450  ..........  PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
 PLAN, CA.
CARPINTERIA SHORELINE STUDY............  ..............  ..........  ..........         200  ..........  FEINSTEIN
COYOTE & BERRYESSA CREEKS, CA..........           700           250  ..........         700         250  PRESIDENT
COYOTE DAM, CA.........................  ..............  ..........  ..........         250  ..........  FEINSTEIN
ESTUDILLO CANAL, CA....................           425    ..........  ..........         425  ..........  PRESIDENT
HAMILTON CITY, CA......................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         800  FEINSTEIN
HEACOCK AND CACTUS CHANNELS, CA........  ..............  ..........  ..........         500  ..........  FEINSTEIN
HUMBOLT BAY LONG TERM SEDIMENT           ..............  ..........  ..........         250  ..........  FEINSTEIN
 MANAGEMENT, CA.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA,        ..............  ..........  ..........         750  ..........  FEINSTEIN
 CORNFIELDS, CA.
LOS ANGELES RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION  ..............  ..........  ..........         500  ..........  BOXER
LOS ANGELES RIVER WATERCOURSE            ..............  ..........  ..........         300  ..........  FEINSTEIN
 IMPROVEMENT--HEADWORKS).
LOWER CACHE CREEK, YOLO COUNTY,          ..............  ..........  ..........          40  ..........  FEINSTEIN
 WOODLAND AND VICINITY.
LOWER MISSION CREEK, CA................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         500  FEINSTEIN
MALIBU CREEK WATERSHED, CA.............  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         158  FEINSTEIN
MATILIJA DAM, CA.......................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........       1,000  FEINSTEIN, BOXER
MIDDLE CREEK, CA.......................  ..............  ..........  ..........          30         500  FEINSTEIN
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAMP, CA..............  ..............  ..........  ..........         227  ..........  FEINSTEIN
ROCK CREEK, KEEFER SLOUGH, CA..........  ..............  ..........  ..........         250  ..........  FEINSTEIN
SAC-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ISLANDS AND        ..............  ..........  ..........       2,000  ..........  FEINSTEIN
 LEVEES, CA.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY SAMP, CA..............  ..............  ..........  ..........         200  ..........  FEINSTEIN
SAN JOAQUIN RB, WEST STANISLAUS COUNTY,  ..............  ..........  ..........         300  ..........  FEINSTEIN
 ORESTIMBA CREE.
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN (SJRB), FRAZIER  ..............  ..........  ..........         250  ..........  FEINSTEIN
 CREEK/STRATHMO.
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN (SJRB), LOWER    ..............  ..........  ..........         300  ..........  FEINSTEIN
 SAN JOAQUIN RIVE.
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN (SJRB), WHITE    ..............  ..........  ..........         250  ..........  FEINSTEIN
 RIVER/DRY CREEK.
SOLANA-ENCINITAS SHORELINE, CA.........  ..............  ..........  ..........         171          50  FEINSTEIN
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SHORELINE, CA......  ..............  ..........  ..........       1,250  ..........  FEINSTEIN
SUTTER COUNTY, CA......................           339    ..........  ..........         339  ..........  PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
TAHOE BASIN, CA & NV...................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         300  REID
TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING, CA AND NV (SEC  ..............  ..........  ..........         250  ..........  REID, ENSIGN
 503).
UPPER PENITENCIA CREEK, CA.............           191    ..........  ..........         191  ..........  PRESIDENT

                COLORADO

CACHE LA POUDRE, CO....................           340    ..........  ..........         340  ..........  PRESIDENT
CHATFIELD, CHERRY CREEK AND BEAR CREEK   ..............  ..........  ..........         273  ..........  ALLARD, SALAZAR
 RESERVOIRS, CO.
FOUNTAIN CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, CO.....  ..............  ..........  ..........         149  ..........  ALLARD, SALAZAR
SOUTH BOULDER CREEK, CO................  ..............  ..........         100  ..........  ..........  SALAZAR

              CONNECTICUT

CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN WATERSHED        ..............  ..........  ..........         200  ..........  GREGG, DODD, LIEBERMAN
 STUDY, CT, MA, NH AN.

                DELAWARE

DELAWARE RVR COMP, NY, NJ, PA & DE       ..............  ..........  ..........         300  ..........  LAUTENBERG, SPECTER, MENENDEZ, SCHUMER
 (WATERSHED FLD MGT.
RED CLAY CREEK, CHRISTINA RIVER          ..............  ..........  ..........         250  ..........  BIDEN, CARPER
 WATERSHED, DE.

                FLORIDA

INDIAN RIVER LAGOON NORTH, FL..........  ..............  ..........  ..........         500  ..........  MARTINEZ
FLAGLER BEACH, FL......................  ..............  ..........  ..........         250  ..........  BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ
LAKE WORTH INLET, FL...................  ..............  ..........  ..........         250  ..........  BILL NELSON
PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL.............  ..............  ..........  ..........         300  ..........  BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ
WALTON COUNTY FL.......................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         375  BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ

                GEORGIA

AUGUSTA, GA............................  ..............         750  ..........  ..........         750  PRESIDENT
LONG ISLAND, MARSH AND JOHNS CREEKS, GA           531    ..........  ..........         531  ..........  PRESIDENT
SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA..........  ..............         700  ..........  ..........         700  PRESIDENT

                  GUAM

HAGATNA RIVER FLOOD CONTROL,...........           100    ..........  ..........         100  ..........  PRESIDENT

                 HAWAII

ALA WAI CANAL, OAHU, HI................           300    ..........  ..........         700  ..........  PRESIDENT, INOUYE
BARBERS POINT HARBOR MODIFICATION,                 50    ..........  ..........         141  ..........  PRESIDENT, INOUYE
 OAHU, HI.
KAHUKU, HI.............................            60    ..........  ..........  ..........         260  PRESIDENT, INOUYE
MAALAEA HARBOR, MAUI, HI...............  ..............         150  ..........  ..........         150  PRESIDENT
NAWILIWILI HARBOR MODIFICATION, KAUAI,   ..............  ..........  ..........         450  ..........  INOUYE, AKAKA
 HI.
WAILUPE STREAM, OAHU, HI...............  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         350  INOUYE, AKAKA
WEST MAUI WATERSHED , HI...............  ..............  ..........         300  ..........  ..........  INOUYE, AKAKA
KAHULUI HARBOR MODIFICATION STUDY, HI..  ..............  ..........         100  ..........  ..........  INOUYE, AKAKA

                 IDAHO

BOISE RIVER, ID........................  ..............  ..........  ..........         400  ..........  CRAIG

                ILLINOIS

DES PLAINES RIVER, IL (PHASE II).......  ..............  ..........  ..........         500  ..........  DURBIN
ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION, IL...           400    ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........  PRESIDENT, DURBIN
PEORIA RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, IL......  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         250  DURBIN
SOUTH FORK OF SOUTH BRANCH OF CHICAGO    ..............  ..........  ..........         500  ..........  DURBIN
 RIVER (BUBBLY CR.
UPPER MISS RIVER--ILLINOIS WW SYSTEM,    ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........      12,000  DURBIN, BOND, OBAMA, GRASSLEY, KLOBUCHAR
 IL, IA, MN, MO.
UPPER MISS RVR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IL,   ..............  ..........         386  ..........  ..........  DURBIN, BOND, GRASSLEY
 IA, MO, MN & WI.

                INDIANA

INDIANA HARBOR, IN.....................           300    ..........  ..........         300  ..........  PRESIDENT

                  IOWA

CEDAR RIVER (TIME CHECK AREA), CEDAR     ..............  ..........  ..........         150  ..........  HARKIN, GRASSLEY
 RAPIDS, IA.
DES MOINES AND RACCOON RIVERS, IA......  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         440  HARKIN, GRASSLEY

                 KANSAS

MANHATTAN, KS..........................  ..............  ..........  ..........         200  ..........  BROWNBACK
MISSOURRI RIVER DEGRADATION STUDY, KS..  ..............  ..........         300  ..........  ..........  BOND, ROBERTS
TOPEKA, KS.............................  ..............         100  ..........  ..........         100  PRESIDENT
UPPER TURKEY CREEK, KS.................  ..............  ..........  ..........         231  ..........  BROWNBACK

               LOUISIANA

BAYOU SORREL LOCK, LA..................  ..............       1,371  ..........  ..........       1,371  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
BOSSIER PARISH, LA.....................  ..............  ..........  ..........         300  ..........  LANDRIEU, VITTER
CALCASIEU RIVER AND SHIP CHANNEL         ..............  ..........  ..........         361  ..........  LANDRIEU, VITTER
 ENLARGEMENT, LA.
CALCASIEU RIVER BASIN, LA..............           395    ..........  ..........         395  ..........  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
CROSS LAKE, LA WATER SUPPLY              ..............  ..........  ..........         384  ..........  LANDRIEU, VITTER
 IMPROVEMENTS.
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM REST,          5,000    ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, VITTER
 LA (SCIENCE PRO.
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM                8,000    ..........  ..........      12,000  ..........  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, VITTER
 RESTORATION, LA.
LOUISIANA COASTAL PROTECTION AND         ..............  ..........  ..........       2,000  ..........  LANDRIEU
 RESTORATION, LA (LACP.
PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LA (FC)............  ..............  ..........  ..........         250  ..........  LANDRIEU
PORT OF IBERIA, LA.....................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........       1,000  LANDRIEU
SOUTHWEST COASTAL HURRICANE PROTECTION,  ..............  ..........  ..........         400  ..........  LANDRIEU, VITTER
 LA.
ST. CHARLES PARISH URBAN FLOOD CONTROL,  ..............  ..........  ..........         200  ..........  LANDRIEU
 LA.
WEST BATON ROUGE (RIVERFRONT             ..............  ..........  ..........         250  ..........  LANDRIEU
 DEVELOPMENT), LA.
WEST PEARL RIVER NAVIGATION, LA AND MS.  ..............  ..........         100  ..........  ..........  COCHRAN
WEST SHORE, LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN, LA.....  ..............  ..........  ..........         498         280  LANDRIEU, VITTER

                 MAINE

PENOBSCOT RIVER RESTORATION, ME........  ..............  ..........         100  ..........  ..........  SNOWE, COLLINS
SEARSPORT HARBOR, ME...................  ..............  ..........  ..........         125  ..........  SNOWE, COLLINS

                MARYLAND

ANACOSTIA RIVER & TRIBUTARIES            ..............  ..........  ..........         500  ..........  MIKULSKI, CARDIN
 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, MD.
BALTIMORE METRO WTR RES.--PATAPSCO AND   ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         600  MIKULSKI, CARDIN
 BACK RIVERS.
CHESAPEAKE BAY MARSHLANDS, MD..........  ..............  ..........         200  ..........  ..........  MIKULSKI, CARDIN
CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINE, MARYLAND       ..............  ..........  ..........         250  ..........  MIKULSKI, CARDIN
 COASTAL MANAGEMENT,.
EASTERN SHORE, MID CHESAPEAKE BAY        ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         600  MIKULSKI, CARDIN
 ISLAND, MD.
JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE REALLOCATION, MD  ..............  ..........          80          60  ..........  MIKULSKI, CARDIN
 AND WV.
LOWER POTOMAC ESTUARY WATERSHED, ST      ..............  ..........  ..........          50         125  MIKULSKI, CARDIN
 MARY'S WATERSHED,.
MIDDLE POTOMAC RIVER--GREATER SENECA/    ..............  ..........  ..........         300  ..........  MIKULSKI, CARDIN
 MUDDY BRANCH, MD.
MIDDLE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, MD, VA,  ..............  ..........  ..........          50         150  MIKULSKI, CARDIN
 PA, WV, AMD DC.

             MASSACHUSETTS

BLACKSTONE RIVER WATERSHED RESTORATION,  ..............  ..........         100  ..........  ..........  REED
 MA & RI.
BOSTON HARBOR (45-FOOT CHANNEL), MA....           377    ..........  ..........         377  ..........  PRESIDENT
COASTAL MASSACHUSETTS ECOSYSTEM                   100    ..........  ..........         100  ..........  PRESIDENT
 RESTORATION, MA.

                MICHIGAN

GREAT LAKES NAV SYST STUDY, MI, IL, IN,           800    ..........         800  ..........  ..........  PRESIDENT, CLINTON, VOINOVICH
 MN, NY, OH, PA.
GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS, MI..  ..............  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........  OBAMA, LUGAR, LEVIN, STABENOW, COLEMAN,
                                                                                                          SCHUMER, CLINTON, VOINOVICH, BROWN, KOHL

               MINNESOTA

BLUE EARTH RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION,  ..............  ..........  ..........         100  ..........  COLEMAN, KLOBUCHAR
 MN (MN RIVER A.
FARGO,ND-MOORHEAD,MN & UPSTREAM SUB-     ..............  ..........  ..........         250  ..........  DORGAN, COLEMAN
 BASIN (RRN BASIN A.
MARSH LAKE, MN (MN RIVER AUTHORITY)....  ..............  ..........  ..........         150  ..........  COLEMAN, KLOBUCHAR
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED, UMR LAKE      ..............  ..........  ..........         125  ..........  COLEMAN, KLOBUCHAR
 ITASCA TO L&D 2, M.
MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN, MN & SD.........  ..............  ..........  ..........         100  ..........  COLEMAN
WILD RICE RIVER, RED RIVER OF THE NORTH           270    ..........  ..........         135  ..........  PRESIDENT, COLEMAN
 BASIN, MN.

              MISSISSIPPI

MISSISSIPPI COASTAL HURRICANE STUDY, MS  ..............  ..........  ..........       1,153  ..........  COCHRAN

                MISSOURI

BRUSH CREEK BASIN, KS & MO.............  ..............  ..........  ..........         200  ..........  BOND, BROWNBACK,
KANSAS CITYS, MO & KS..................           589           100  ..........         589         100  PRESIDENT, ROBERTS, BOND
SPRINGFIELD, MO........................           354    ..........  ..........         354  ..........  PRESIDENT
MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, UNITS L455  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         350  BOND
 & R460-471, MO.
RIVER DES PERES, MO....................  ..............  ..........  ..........         180  ..........  BOND
ST LOUIS FLOOD PROTECTION, MO..........  ..............         281  ..........  ..........         281  PRESIDENT
ST LOUIS MISSISSIPPI RIVERFRONT, MO &    ..............  ..........  ..........         148  ..........  BOND
 IL.
SWOPE PARK INDUSTRIAL AREA, KANSAS       ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         150  BOND
 CITY, MO.

                MONTANA

YELLOWSTONE RIVER CORRIDOR, MT.........           200    ..........  ..........         500  ..........  PRESIDENT, BAUCUS, TESTER

                NEBRASKA

LOWER PLATTE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NE.           130    ..........  ..........         130  ..........  PRESIDENT, HAGEL

                 NEVADA

TRUCKEE MEADOWS, NV....................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........       5,000  REID, ENSIGN

             NEW HAMPSHIRE

MERRIMACK RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, NH &             200    ..........  ..........         200  ..........  PRESIDENT, KENNEDY, KERRY
 MA.

               NEW JERSEY

DELAWARE RIVER COMPREHENSIVE, NJ.......  ..............  ..........  ..........         175  ..........  LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, HACKENSACK               200    ..........  ..........         350  ..........  PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
 MEADOWLANDS, NJ.
HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, LOWER PASSAIC            200    ..........  ..........         500  ..........  PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
 RIVER, NJ.
LOWER SADDLE RIVER, BERGEN COUNTY, NJ..  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         125  LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, ENV    ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         125  LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
 RESTORATION, NJ.
NEW JERSEY SHORE PROTECTION, HEREFORD             256    ..........  ..........         256  ..........  PRESIDENT
 TO CAPE MAY INLE.
NEW JERSEY SHORELINE ALTERNATIVE LONG-   ..............  ..........  ..........         250  ..........  LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
 TERM NOURISHMENT.
PASSAIC RIVER MAIN STEM, NJ............  ..............  ..........  ..........         125  ..........  LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
PASSAIC RIVER, HARRISON, NJ............  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         200  LAUTENBERG
PECKMAN RIVER BASIN, NJ................  ..............  ..........  ..........         375  ..........  LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
RAHWAY RIVER BASIN, NJ.................  ..............  ..........  ..........         175  ..........  LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY,          ..............  ..........  ..........         200  ..........  LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
 HIGHLANDS, NJ.
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY,          ..............  ..........  ..........         200  ..........  LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
 KEYPORT, NJ.
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY,          ..............  ..........  ..........         125  ..........  LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
 LEONARDO, NJ.
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, UNION    ..............  ..........  ..........         100  ..........  LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
 BEACH, NJ.
SHREWSBURY RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NJ...  ..............  ..........  ..........         125  ..........  LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
SOUTH RIVER, RARITAN RIVER BASIN, NJ...  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         375  LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
STONY BROOK, MILLSTONE RIVER BASIN, NJ.  ..............  ..........  ..........         150  ..........  LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ

               NEW MEXICO

BERNALILLO, NM.........................  ..............  ..........         100  ..........  ..........  DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
EAST MESA LAS CRUCES,NM................  ..............  ..........  ..........         200  ..........  DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
ESPANOLA VALLEY RIO GRANDE AND TRIBS,    ..............  ..........  ..........         500  ..........  DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
 NM.
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE BOSQUE, NM...........           311    ..........  ..........         311  ..........  PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
RIO GRANDE BASIN, NM, CO & TX..........  ..............  ..........  ..........         250  ..........  DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
SANTA FE, NM...........................  ..............  ..........  ..........         175  ..........  DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
SOCORRO COUNTY, NM.....................  ..............  ..........         100  ..........  ..........  DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
SW VALLEY FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION,        ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         200  DOMENICI
 ALBUQUERQUE, NM.

                NEW YORK

BRONX RIVER BASIN, NY..................  ..............  ..........  ..........         375  ..........  SCHUMER, CLINTON
BUFFALO RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING,             100    ..........  ..........         100  ..........  PRESIDENT
 NY.
FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY.............  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         100  SCHUMER, CLINTON
HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, GOWANUS CANAL,  ..............  ..........  ..........         375  ..........  SCHUMER, CLINTON
 NY.
HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, NY & NJ.......           200    ..........  ..........         500  ..........  PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ,
                                                                                                          SCHUMER, CLINTON
LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR, NY................  ..............  ..........  ..........         175  ..........  SCHUMER, CLINTON
MONTAUK POINT, NY......................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         250  SCHUMER, CLINTON
NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, ASHAROKEN,   ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         125  SCHUMER, CLINTON
 NY.
NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, BAYVILLE,    ..............  ..........  ..........         200  ..........  SCHUMER, CLINTON
 NY.
SAW MILL RIVER AT ELSFORD/GREENBURGH,    ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         250  SCHUMER, CLINTON
 NY.
SOUTH SHORE OF STATEN ISLAND, NY.......  ..............  ..........  ..........         150  ..........  SCHUMER, CLINTON
SUSQUEHANNA RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL          ..............  ..........         100  ..........  ..........  SCHUMER, CLINTON
 RESTORATION AND LOW FL.
UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN ENVIRON    ..............         102  ..........  ..........         102  PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON
 REST, COOPERSTOW.

             NORTH CAROLINA

BOGUE BANKS, NC........................  ..............  ..........  ..........         125  ..........  DOLE, BURR
CURRITUCK SOUND, NC....................           150    ..........  ..........         150  ..........  PRESIDENT
NEUSE RIVER BASIN, NC..................           554    ..........  ..........         554  ..........  PRESIDENT
NORTH CAROLINA INTERNATIONAL PORT, NC..  ..............  ..........         100  ..........  ..........  DOLE, BURR
SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH, NC..  ..............  ..........  ..........         200  ..........  DOLE, BURR

              NORTH DAKOTA

RED RIVER OF THE NORTH BASIN, MN, ND,    ..............  ..........  ..........       3,550  ..........  DORGAN
 SD & MANITOBA, C.

                  OHIO

BELPRE, OH.............................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         200  VOINOVICH
CUYAHOGA RIVER BULKHEAD STUDY, OH......  ..............  ..........  ..........         150  ..........  VOINOVICH
HOCKING RIVER BASIN, MONDAY CREEK, OH..  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         200  VOINOVICH
MAHONING RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING,   ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         250  VOINOVICH
 OH.
OHIO RIVERFRONT STUDY, CINCINNATI, OH..  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         500  VOINOVICH
WESTERN LAKE ERIE BASIN, OH, IN, & MI..  ..............  ..........  ..........         492  ..........  VOINOVICH

                OKLAHOMA

GRAND (NEOSHO) RIVER BASIN WATERSHED,    ..............  ..........  ..........         225  ..........  ROBERTS
 OK, KS, MO & AR.
SOUTHEAST OKLAHOMA WATER RESOURCE        ..............  ..........  ..........         150  ..........  INHOFE
 STUDY, OK.
WASHITA RIVER BASIN, OK................  ..............  ..........  ..........         268  ..........  INHOFE

                 OREGON

LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM                    100    ..........  ..........         100  ..........  PRESIDENT
 RESTORATION, OR & WA.
WALLA WALLA RIVER WATERSHED, OR & WA...  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         100  MURRAY, WYDEN, SMITH, CANTWELL
WILLAMETTE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL           ..............  ..........  ..........         375  ..........  WYDEN, SMITH
 DREDGING, OR.
WILLAMETTE RIVER FLOODPLAIN              ..............  ..........  ..........          84  ..........  WYDEN, SMITH
 RESTORATION, OR.

              PENNSYLVANIA

BLOOMSBURG, PA.........................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         400  SPECTER, CASEY
UPPER OHIO NAVIGATION STUDY, PA........  ..............  ..........  ..........       3,000  ..........  SPECTER, CASEY

             SOUTH CAROLINA

EDISTO ISLAND, SC......................           218    ..........  ..........         218  ..........  PRESIDENT

              SOUTH DAKOTA

CANYON LAKE DAM, RAPID CITY, SD........  ..............  ..........         100  ..........  ..........  JOHNSON
JAMES RIVER, SD & ND...................  ..............  ..........  ..........         500  ..........  JOHNSON, THUNE
WATERTOWN, SD..........................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         450  JOHNSON, THUNE

               TENNESSEE

MILL CREEK WATERSHED, DAVIDSON COUNTY,            257    ..........  ..........         257  ..........  PRESIDENT
 TN.

                 TEXAS

ABILENE, TX (BRAZOS RIVER BASIN-ELM      ..............  ..........  ..........         150  ..........  CORNYN
 CREEK).
BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, BROWNSVILLE                 400    ..........  ..........         400  ..........  PRESIDENT, CORNYN
 CHANNEL, TX.
DALLAS FLOODWAY, UPPER TRINITY RIVER     ..............         100  ..........  ..........         100  PRESIDENT
 BASIN, TX.
FREEPORT HARBOR, TX....................           721    ..........  ..........         721  ..........  PRESIDENT
GREENS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX..............  ..............         488  ..........  ..........         488  PRESIDENT
GUADALUPE AND SAN ANTONIO RIVER BASINS,           300    ..........  ..........         300  ..........  PRESIDENT
 TX.
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN, TX.........           300    ..........  ..........         450  ..........  PRESIDENT, HUTCHISON, CORNYN
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN, WHARTON/     ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         600  CORNYN
 ONION, TX.
NUECES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, TX.......           250    ..........  ..........         500  ..........  PRESIDENT, HUTCHISON
RAYMONDVILLE DRAIN, TX.................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         750  HUTCHISON, CORNYN
RIO GRANDE BASIN, TX...................           223    ..........  ..........         223  ..........  PRESIDENT
SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX.............  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         625  HUTCHISON
SABINE PASS TO GALVESTON BAY, TX.......  ..............  ..........  ..........         175  ..........  CORNYN
SPARKS ARROYO COLONIA, EL PASO COUNTY,   ..............  ..........  ..........         125  ..........  HUTCHISON, CORNYN
 TX.
TEXAS CITY CHANNEL (50-FOOT PROJECT),    ..............         300  ..........  ..........         300  PRESIDENT, CORNYN
 TX.
UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TX..........  ..............  ..........  ..........       1,500  ..........  HUTCHISON

                  UTAH

PARK CITY REGIONAL WATER TRANSPORT       ..............  ..........  ..........         250  ..........  BENNETT, HATCH
 PROJECT, UT.

                VIRGINIA

AIWW, BRIDGES AT DEEP CREEK, VA........  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........          46  WARNER, WEBB
DISMAL SWAMP AND DISMAL SWAMP CANAL, VA            62    ..........  ..........          62  ..........  PRESIDENT, WARNER, WEBB
EASTWARD EXPANSION CRANEY ISLAND, VA...  ..............       3,000  ..........  ..........       3,000  PRESIDENT, WARNER, WEBB
ELIZABETH RIVER BASIN, ENV RESTORATION,  ..............  ..........  ..........          90  ..........  WARNER, WEBB
 VA (PHASE II).
ELIZABETH RIVER, HAMPTON ROADS, VA.....  ..............          97  ..........  ..........          97  PRESIDENT, WARNER, WEBB
FOURMILE RUN, VA.......................  ..............  ..........  ..........         350  ..........  WARNER, WEBB
JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA & NC            300    ..........  ..........         300  ..........  PRESIDENT
 (SECTION 216).
LYNNHAVEN RIVER BASIN, VA..............           300    ..........  ..........         300  ..........  PRESIDENT, WARNER, WEBB
NEW RIVER, CLAYTOR LAKE, VA............  ..............  ..........  ..........          49          51  WARNER, WEBB
NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, CRANEY      ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  WARNER, WEBB
 ISLAND, VA.
UPPER RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER, VA (PHASE II)  ..............  ..........  ..........         200  ..........  WARNER, WEBB
VICINITY AND WILOUGHBY SPIT, VA........  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         150  WARNER, WEBB

               WASHINGTON

CENTRALIA, WA..........................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         150  MURRAY
ELLIOTT BAY SEAWALL....................  ..............  ..........  ..........         750  ..........  MURRAY, CANTWELL
LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA.........  ..............  ..........  ..........         400  ..........  MURRAY, CANTWELL
LOWER PUYALLUP RIVER ALTERNATIVES        ..............  ..........  ..........         100  ..........  CANTWELL
 STUDY, WA.
PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE MARINE HABITAT              400    ..........  ..........       1,500  ..........  PRESIDENT, MURRAY, CANTWELL
 RESTORATION, WA.
SKAGIT RIVER, WA.......................  ..............  ..........  ..........         700  ..........  MURRAY, CANTWELL
SKOKOMISH RIVER BASIN, WA..............  ..............  ..........  ..........         375  ..........  CANTWELL

             WEST VIRGINIA

CHERRY RIVER BASIN, WV.................  ..............  ..........          50  ..........  ..........  BYRD
LITTLE KANAWHA RIVER, WV...............  ..............  ..........  ..........          88  ..........  BYRD
OHIO RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE STUDY,    ..............  ..........         400  ..........  ..........  BYRD
 WV, KY, OH, PA,.
UPPER GUYANDOTTE RIVER BASIN, WV.......  ..............  ..........         150  ..........  ..........  BYRD

                WYOMING

BEAR RIVER STUDY, WY...................        26,553         8,747         100  ..........  ..........  THOMAS, ENZI
                                        ----------------------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL FOR PROJECTS............  ..............  ..........       5,116      73,450      42,582

AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT             350    ..........  ..........         350  ..........  PRESIDENT
 TRI-CADD.
CHIEF'S 12 ACTIONS.....................         3,100    ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  PRESIDENT
COASTAL FIELD DATA COLLECTION..........         1,400    ..........  ..........       4,900  ..........  PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, INOUYE, CANTWELL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STUDIES.............            75    ..........  ..........          75  ..........  PRESIDENT
FEME/MAP MOD COORDINATION..............         1,500    ..........  ..........       1,500  ..........  PRESIDENT
FLOOD DAMAGE DATA PROGRAM..............           220    ..........  ..........         220  ..........  PRESIDENT
FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES........         5,625    ..........  ..........      10,196  ..........  PRESIDENT, INOUYE, LANDRIEU, BEN NELSON, REED,
                                                                                                          BIDEN, CARPER, CHAMBLISS, GRASSLEY, VITTER,
                                                                                                          HAGEL, WYDEN, SMITH, WHITEHOUSE
FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT STUDY...........         1,000    ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........  PRESIDENT
HYDROLOGIC STUDIES.....................           250    ..........  ..........         250  ..........  PRESIDENT
INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES............           200    ..........  ..........         200  ..........  PRESIDENT
NATIONAL FLOOD INVENTORY...............        10,000    ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  PRESIDENT
NATIONAL SHORELINE STUDY...............           375    ..........  ..........         875  ..........  PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG
OTHER COORDINATION PROGRAMS............         3,880    ..........  ..........       5,130  ..........  PRESIDENT, REID, DOMENICI
PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES..........         4,550    ..........  ..........       5,742  ..........  PRESIDENT, INOUYE, BROWNBACK, MIKULSKI,
                                                                                                          LAUTENBERG, SPECTER, LIEBERMAN, BIDEN, CARPER,
                                                                                                          CARDIN, LUGAR, BAYH, GRASSLEY, MENENDEZ,
                                                                                                          CLINTON, DOLE, INHOFE
PLANNING SUPPORT PROGRAM...............         2,500    ..........  ..........       2,500  ..........  PRESIDENT
PRECIPITATION STUDIES (NATIONAL WEATHER           225    ..........  ..........         225  ..........  PRESIDENT
 SERVICE).
REMOTE SENSING/GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION           150    ..........  ..........         150  ..........  PRESIDENT
 SYSTEM SUPPORT.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT...............        17,300    ..........  ..........      31,050  ..........  PRESIDENT, REID, COCHRAN, DOMENICI, MIKULSKI,
                                                                                                          CARDIN, CASEY, WARNER, WEBB
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION               50    ..........  ..........          50  ..........  PRESIDENT
 CENTERS.
STREAM GAGING (U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY).           600    ..........  ..........         600  ..........  PRESIDENT
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM..................           350    ..........  ..........         350  ..........  PRESIDENT
TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.............         1,000    ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........  PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE...................  ..............  ..........  ..........     -15,364  ..........
                                        ----------------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................        81,253         8,747       5,116     124,449      42,582
                                        ----------------------------------------------------------------
      GRAND TOTAL......................       190,000    ..........  ..........     172,147  ..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Atka Harbor, Alaska.--The Committee recommended $200,000 to 
initiate this reconnaissance study.
    DeLong Mountain Harbor, Alaska.--The Committee provided 
$100,000 to complete feasibility studies and $400,000 to 
initiate preconstruction engineering and design.
    Kenai River Bluff Erosion, Alaska.--The Committee 
recommended $500,000 to continue technical studies of the 
erosion problems.
    Lower Mississippi River Resource Assessment, Arkansas, 
Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and 
Tennessee.--The Committee recommends $250,000 to initiate an 
expanded reconnaissance study. The study will include three 
assessments: (1) a list which identifies data gaps in 
information needed for river-related management; (2) an 
assessment of natural resource habitat needs; and (3) a needs 
assessment for river-related recreation access.
    May Branch, Fort Smith, Arkansas.--$250,000 is provided to 
execute a design agreement and initiate preconstruction 
engineering and design.
    Red River Navigation, Southwest Arkansas, Arkansas and 
Louisiana.--The Committee recommends $200,000 to complete 
feasibility studies and $200,000 to initiate preconstruction 
engineering and design.
    Heacock and Cactus Channels, California.--The Committee 
includes $100,000 to continue feasibility studies. Feasibility 
studies were initiated under the Continuing Authorities 
Program.
    Los Angeles River Watercourse Improvement, Headworks, 
California.--$300,000 is provided to continue the feasibility 
studies.
    Malibu Creek Watershed, California.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $158,000 to complete the feasibility 
study.
    Rock Creek and Keefer Slough, California.--$250,000 is 
provided to execute the Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement and 
initiate the feasibility phase of the study. The study was 
initiated under the Continuing Authorities Program.
    Sacramento, San Joaquin Delta Islands and Levees, 
California.--The Committee included $2,000,000 to complete the 
feasibility study.
    Chatfield, Cheery Creek and Bear Creek, Reservoirs.--The 
recommendation includes $273,000 to complete feasibility 
studies.
    Fountain Creek and Tributaries, Colorado.--The Committee 
provides $149,000 to complete the feasibility study.
    Boulder Creek, Colorado.--The Committee included $100,000 
to initiate this reconnaissance study. The Committee notes that 
studies were initiated under the Continuing Authorities 
Program.
    Flagler County, Florida.--$250,000 is provided to continue 
feasibility studies for shore damage reduction. The Committee 
notes that recent storms have begun to threaten the county's 
major evacuation route to State Road A1A.
    Walton County, Florida.--$375,000 is provided to continue 
the preconstruction, engineering and design phase. This study 
is a test bed for the Institute of Water Resources Hurricane 
and Storm Damage Reduction model.
    West Maui Watershed, Hawaii.--The Committee provided 
$300,000 to initiate the reconnaissance study to investigate 
the comprehensive scope and extensive water resource problems 
in the watershed.
    Boise River, Idaho.--The Committee provided $400,000 to 
continue the feasibility study.
    Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway Navigation 
System, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin.--
The Committee recommendation includes $12,000,000 for 
continuation of preconstruction engineering and design studies. 
The Committee recognizes the need to modernize this more than 
60-year-old navigation system and has provided continued 
funding for both structural design and environmental 
restoration work.
    Cedar Rapids, Iowa.--The Committee provided $150,000 to 
initiate a cost-shared feasibility study. Reconnaissance level 
studies were completed under the Continuing Authorities 
Program, however, the scope of the proposed project exceeds the 
limits of the Continuing Authorities Program.
    Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration, Louisiana.--
The Committee provides $12,000,000 for these important studies. 
The Committee has elected not to fund a separate Science and 
Technology line item under this study and directs the Corps not 
to include this line item in the fiscal year 2009 budget. This 
line item appears to be an attempt to fund other Federal 
agencies to undertake science activities that are not being 
funded within those agencies. If the administration believes 
this is worthwhile science, then they should budget for this 
work under the appropriate agency. Any funds from the fiscal 
year 2007 allocation that remain unexpended in the Science and 
Technology line should be utilized on advancing the study not 
science activities.
    West Pearl Navigation, Louisiana and Mississippi.--$100,000 
is provided to initiate reconnaissance studies to deauthorize 
this antiquated navigation project. The project has been in 
caretaker status for more than 10 years.
    Eastern Shore-Chesapeake Bay Marshlands, Maryland 
(Blackwater Wildlife Refuge).--The Committee recommendation 
includes $200,000 for this study that was initiated under the 
Continuing Authorities Program in fiscal year 2006.
    Great Lakes Navigational System, Michigan, Illinois, 
Indiana, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and 
Wisconsin.--The funds provided are to be used to complete the 
supplement to the reconnaissance report of Great Lakes St. 
Lawrence Seaway Navigation Study, which, based on previous 
agreement between the secretary, the ministry of transportation 
Canada, and the Secretary of the U.S. Department of 
Transportation, is to be limited in scope to evaluating the 
economic, engineering and environmental impacts of maintaining 
the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway at current size draft and 
length of locks. The Secretary is directed to complete the 
supplemental report by September 2008, after which Congress, 
interested State and Federal agencies, and the public shall 
review the report for 1 year to determine whether additional 
study is warranted.
    Kansas Citys, Missouri and Kansas.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $689,000 for this effort. $589,000 is 
included for completion of the feasibility phase and $100,000 
is for initiation of preconstruction engineering and design.
    Missouri River Degradation, Mile 340 to 400, Missouri and 
Kansas.--The Committee included $300,000 to initiate an 
expanded Reconnaissance Study. The Missouri River in this reach 
has experienced significant degradation or downcutting of the 
river bed. There is a strong indication that this degradation 
could impact navigation, flood control and other infrastructure 
in the area.
    Yellowstone River Corridor, Montana.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $500,000 to continue feasibility 
studies.
    Delaware Basin Comprehensive, New Jersey.--The Committee 
included $175,000 to continue evaluation of alternative 
solutions to the region's problems regarding flooding and 
environmental restoration along the New Jersey portion of the 
Delaware River and tributaries.
    Western Lake Erie Basin Study, Ohio, Indiana and 
Michigan.--$492,000 is included to complete feasibility 
studies.
    Walla Walla River Basin, Oregon and Washington.--$100,000 
is provided to execute a design agreement and initiate 
preconstruction, engineering and design studies.
    Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas.--$625,000 is provided to 
negotiate and execute a design agreement and initiate 
preconstruction engineering and design.
    Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Bridge Replacement at Deep 
Creek, Chesapeake, Virginia.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $46,000 to complete the preconstruction engineering 
and design phase.
    Eastward Expansion--Craney Island, Virginia.--$3,000,000 is 
provided to continue the preconstruction engineering and design 
phase.
    Vicinity of Willoughby Spit, Norfolk, Virginia.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $150,000 to continue the 
general reevaluation study.
    Bear River, Wyoming.--$100,000 is provided for 
reconnaissance studies for flood control and environmental 
restoration in the Bear River Basin above Bear Lake.
    Chief's 12 Actions.--The Committee did not include funding 
for this item. The Committee believes that the activities 
proposed in the budget request for this line item should be 
incorporated into the various funded planning activities that 
the Corps has underway.
    National Inventory of Flood/Storm Damage Reduction 
Projects.--No funds have been provided for this effort under 
this account. The Committee has chosen to fund this item under 
the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account where all 
previous funds have been provided.
    National Shoreline Study.--Additional funds have been 
provided above the budget request for the National Planning 
Center of Expertise for Coastal Storm Damage Reduction to 
develop a process for managing shore protection projects as 
part of a systems approach to coastal protection for the 
purpose of achieving improved project performance, increased 
cost effectiveness, and enhanced benefits.
    Other Coordination Programs.--An additional $250,000 is 
provided along with budgeted funds for Lake Tahoe coordination 
activities. Also additional funds are provided above the budget 
request for the Center for Computer Assisted Dispute Resolution 
[CADRE] within the Institute for Water Resources to undertake 
research, development, training and application activities 
consistent with the mission stated by the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy, Subcommittee on Water Availability and 
Quality for collaborative tools and processes for U.S. water 
solutions in partnership with the Bureau of Reclamation, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy and 
its research laboratories, and other Federal and non-Federal 
parties to develop solutions to water availability and quality 
problems through public participation and collaboration 
processes, decision-support computer technologies, and 
techniques for integrating these within various water contexts 
using tools that include portable, physical and social 
simulation modules, software to link existing water management 
software, as well as interfaces for both collaborative model 
development and displaying modeling results and tradeoffs.
    Planning Assistance to States.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $5,742,000 for this nationwide cost-
shared program, $1,192,000 over the budget request. The 
Committee recognizes that there are hundreds of these studies 
on-going at any given time. Within the funds provided the 
following studies are to be given priority if cost sharing 
funds are available from the local sponsors: Southington Water 
Supply Project, Connecticut; Honolulu, Hawaii; Wabash River 
Enhancement Project, Indiana; Sac and Fox Tribe, Iowa; Kansas 
River Basin Technical Assistance, Kansas; Delaware Estuary 
Salinity Monitoring Study; Port of Rochester Environmental 
Remediation Planning, New York; Bartlesville Water Supply, 
Bartlesville, Oklahoma; Lehigh Releases at FE Walter Dam, 
Pennsylvania; Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan, Oklahoma.
    Coastal Field Data Collection.--The Committee has provided 
$4,900,000 for this nationwide program. An additional 
$3,500,000 has been provided to continue the Coastal Data 
Information Program; the Southern California Beach Processes 
Study; Surge and Wave Island Modeling Studies, Hawaii; and the 
Pacific Island Land Ocean Typhoon Experiment Program. These are 
all studies that have been underway for a number of years and 
the Committee supports their continuation.
    Flood Plain Management Services Program.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $10,196,000. This is $4,571,000 above 
the budget request. Within this amount the Corps attention is 
directed to the following studies: White Clay Creek, New 
Castle, Delaware; Albany, Georgia [GIS]; Hurricane Evacuation 
Studies, Hawaii; Wapello, Iowa; Iowa Levee Certification; 
Maquoketa River Flood Warning, Iowa; Iowa Multi-site dam safety 
analyses; City of Gretna, Louisiana GIS; East Baton Rouge 
Parish Metropolitan GIS, Livingston Parish, Louisiana; 
Livingston Parish, Louisiana GIS; Papillion Creek Watershed, 
Flood Plain Mapping, Nebraska; Halfway Sediment Transport 
Assessment, Oregon; Rhode Island Ecosystem Restoration Study, 
Rhode Island.
    Research and Development.--The Committee has included 
$31,050,000 for the Corps nationwide research and development 
programs. The Committee believes that this is an important area 
of the Corps' program that should be supported and has provided 
$15,050,000 above the budget request. Within the funds 
provided, the Corps should continue submerged aquatic 
vegetation research in the Chesapeake Bay; the Southwest Flood 
Damage Development and Demonstration program to be conducted in 
close coordination and cooperation with the New Mexico District 
Office, the University of New Mexico and Sandia National 
Laboratories; innovative technology demonstrations for urban 
flooding and channel restoration in Nevada to be conducted in 
close coordination and cooperation with the Urban Water 
Research Program of the Desert Research Institute and the 
University of New Mexico.

                         CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL

Appropriations, 2007....................................  $2,336,368,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................   1,523,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,059,474,000

\1\Excludes emergency appropriations of $36,500.

    This appropriation includes funds for construction, major 
rehabilitation and related activities for water resources 
development projects having navigation, flood and storm damage 
reduction, water supply, hydroelectric, environmental 
restoration, and other attendant benefits to the Nation. The 
construction and major rehabilitation 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 Committee has previously stated its rejection of the 
administration's proposal to move projects from this account to 
the Operations and Maintenance account.
    Consequently, the Committee has elected to display the 
President's budget request as if these projects had been 
requested in the CG account rather than the O&M account. This 
makes the actual budget request for CG, $1,818,811,000 rather 
than $1,523,000,000 as requested in the budget. The projects 
moved from the O&M request include:

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Caragory                   Project Name           Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESA............................  Columbia River Basin             92,560
                                  Restoration OR & WA.
ESA............................  Missouri R Fish and              85,000
                                  Wildlife Recovery, IA,
                                  KS, MO, MT, NE, ND, SD.
ESA............................  Chief Joseph Dam Gas              3,000
                                  Abatment.
ESA............................  Howard Hanson Dam                16,000
                                  Ecosystem Restoration,
                                  WA.
ESA............................  Williamette River                 7,632
                                  Temperature Control,
                                  OR.
ESA............................  Lower Snake River......             400
Nav. Mitigation................  Assategue, MD..........           1,900
Nav. Mitigation................  Lower Cape May Meadows,           5,111
                                  Cape May Point, NJ.
Nav. Mitigation................  Folly Beach, SC........              35
Nav. Mitigation................  Broward County, FL                  250
                                  (Canaveral Hbr).
Nav. Mitigation................  Cape May Inlet to Lower             270
                                  Township, NJ.
Nav. Mitigation................  Delaware Bay Coastline,             105
                                  Roosevelt Inlet to
                                  Lewes Beach, DE.
Nav. Mitigation................  Nassau County, FL......           6,000
Nav. Mitigation................  Surfside-Sunset-Newport           9,000
                                  Beach, C A.
Nav. Mitigation................  Lake Worth Sand                   2,000
                                  Transfer Plant, FL.
Nav. Mitigation................  St. John's County, FL..             200
Nav. Mitigation................  Section 111 Program....           4,874
O&M Material...................  Poplar Island, MD......           9,825
O&M Material...................  Dredged Material                  8,241
                                  Disposal Facilities.
O&M Material...................  Indiana Harbor                   18,065
                                  (Confined Disposal
                                  Facility), IN.
O&M Material...................  Section 204/145........           2,663
Rehab..........................  Lock and Dam 19,                    698
                                  Mississippi River, IA.
Rehab..........................  Lock and Dam 24, IL &MO             340
Rehab..........................  Markland Locks & Dam,             7,800
                                  KY & IL.
Rehab..........................  Locks No. 27,                     7,542
                                  Mississippi River, IL.
Rehab..........................  Lock and Dam 11,                  6,300
                                  Mississippi River, IA.
                                                         ---------------
      TOTAL....................  Projects Migrating from         295,811
                                  Construction to O&M.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The projects that included in the line item above for 
Dredged Material Disposal Facilities are:

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALCASIEU RIVER & PASS..................................           2,000
CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC...................................           1,200
DILLINGHAM HARBOR (O&M).................................             300
GEORGETOWN HARBOR, SC...................................           1,100
GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI..................................             125
GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI....................................             125
HOMER HARBOR............................................             550
SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA.....................................           2,716
ST CLAIR RIVER, MI......................................             125
                                                         ---------------
      TOTAL, DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES                  8,241
       PROGRAM [DMDF]...................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to constrained funding, the Committee reduced the 
requested amounts for some administration projects. This should 
not be perceived as a lack of support for any of these 
projects, rather it is an attempt by the Committee to balance 
out the program across the Nation and fund most of the projects 
or studies that were funded in the work plan produced by the 
administration for the fiscal year 2007 joint funding 
resolution but were not addressed by the administration 
proposal.
    Even with a $577,000,000 increase to the Corps' accounts, 
the Committee is unable to address all of the needs. By the 
Committee's estimate, only about 60 percent of the needed 
funding is available for this account. Construction schedules 
will slip due to this constrained funding. This will result in 
deferred benefits to the national economy. The Committee does 
not believe that there is any way to prioritize our way out of 
this problem without serious unintended consequences. Adequate 
resources have been denied for too long. Only providing 
adequate resources for these national investments will resolve 
this situation.
    The Committee has included a limited number of new 
construction starts as well as provided completion funding for 
a number of projects. As in the General Investigations account, 
the Committee has embraced the traditional view of new starts. 
New starts are generally defined as those projects that have 
not received Construction, General funding in the past. The 
Committee has included all of the administration's proposed new 
construction starts, including the major rehabilitation 
projects that were proposed for funding in the Operations and 
Maintenance account.
    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                  Requested by
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              ALABAMA

TUSCALOOSA, AL.....................  ..............           5,000  SHELBY
MOBILE HARBOR TURNING BASIN, AL....  ..............           2,000  SHELBY, SESSIONS

               ALASKA

ALASKA COASTAL EROSION, AK.........  ..............           5,000  STEVENS, MURKOWSKI
CHIGNIK HARBOR, AK.................  ..............           1,000  STEVENS
NOME HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS, AK.......  ..............           1,500  STEVENS
ST PAUL HARBOR, AK.................  ..............           3,000  STEVENS
SITKA HARBOR BREAKWATER UPGRADE, AK  ..............             800  STEVENS
AKUTAN HARBOR, AK..................  ..............           2,500  STEVENS
UNALASKA, AK.......................  ..............           7,000  STEVENS

              ARIZONA

NOGALES WASH, AZ...................  ..............           4,461  KYL
RIO DE FLAG FLAGSTAFF, AZ..........  ..............           3,000  KYL
TUSCON DRAINAGE AREA...............  ..............           3,000  KYL

              ARKANSAS

OZARK-JETA TAYLOR POWERHOUSE, AR             17,300          17,300  PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR
 (MAJOR REHAB).
RED RIVER BELOW DENISON DAM, LA, AR  ..............           2,500  LANDRIEU, LINCOLN, PRYOR
 & TX.
RED RIVER EMERGENCY BANK             ..............           4,000  LANDRIEU, LINCOLN, PRYOR
 PROTECTION, AR & LA.

             CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (COMMON             12,000          12,000  PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER
 FEATURES), CA.
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM              6,000           6,000  PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER
 DAM MODIFICATIONS), C.
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM             18,500          18,500  PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER
 DAM RAISE), CA.
CALFED LEVEE STABILITY PROGRAM.....  ..............           5,000  FEINSTEIN
CORONADO TRANSBAY WASTEWATER         ..............             500  FEINSTEIN
 PIPELINE REIMBURSEMENT.
GUADALUPE RIVER, CA................  ..............           3,000  FEINSTEIN
HAMILTON AIRFIELD WETLANDS                    4,900           4,900  PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER
 RESTORATION, CA.
HARBOR/SOUTH BAY WATER RECYCLING     ..............           3,000  FEINSTEIN
 STUDY, LOS ANGELES, C.
LOS ANGELES HARBOR MAIN CHANNEL      ..............           1,000  FEINSTEIN, BOXER
 DEEPENING, CA.
MID-VALLEY AREA LEVEE                ..............             500  FEINSTEIN
 RECONSTRUCTION.
MURRIETA CREEK, CA.................  ..............           2,000  FEINSTEIN
NAPA RIVER, CA.....................           7,500          11,000  PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER
OAKLAND HARBOR (50 FOOT PROJECT),            42,000          40,000  PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER
 CA.
PORT OF LONG BEACH (DEEPENING), CA.  ..............           2,000  FEINSTEIN
SACRAMENTO DEEPWATER SHIP CHANNEL,              900             900  PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
 CA.
SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION             21,528          21,528  PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
 PROJECT, CA.
SACRAMENTO RIVER, GLENN-COLUSA                  500             500  PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
 IRRIGATION DISTRICT, CA.
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TO STOCKTON, CA..  ..............             600  FEINSTEIN
SAN LUIS REY RIVER, CA.............  ..............           1,000  FEINSTEIN
SAN RAMON VALLEY RECYCLED WATER, CA  ..............           3,000  FEINSTEIN
SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA.......          17,000          17,000  PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
SANTA MARIA RIVER, CA..............  ..............             300  FEINSTEIN (BOXER)
SOUTH SACRAMENTO COUNTY STREAMS, CA           8,000           8,000  PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER
SUCCESS DAM, TULE RIVER, CA (DAM             18,000          18,000  PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER
 SAFETY).
SURFSIDE-SUNSET-NEWPORT BEACH, CA..           9,000           8,000  PRESIDENT
TAHOE BASIN RESTORATION 108........  ..............           4,500  REID, ENSIGN
UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER, CA..........  ..............           1,000  FEINSTEIN
UPPER NEWPORT BAY, CA..............  ..............           4,000  FEINSTEIN
WEST SACRAMENTO, CA................  ..............             900  FEINSTEIN, BOXER
YUBA RIVER BASIN, CA...............  ..............           1,100  FEINSTEIN

            CONNECTICUT

BRIDGEPORT ENVIRONMENTAL             ..............             200  LIEBERMAN
 INFRASTRUCTURE, CT.

              DELAWARE

DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, BROADKILL    ..............             250  BIDEN, CARPER
 BEACH, DE.
DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, ROOSEVELT               105             105  PRESIDENT, BIDEN, CARPER
 INLET TO LEWES BEACH.
DELAWARE COAST FROM CAPE HELOPEN TO  ..............             105  BIDEN, CARPER
 FENWICK ISLAND, Fenwick Island, DE.
DELAWARE COAST FROM CAPE HELOPEN TO  ..............           2,700  PRESIDENT, BIDEN, CARPER
 FENWICK ISLAND, Rehobeth Beach to
 Dewey Beach, DE.
DELAWARE COAST PROTECTION, DE......  ..............             390  BIDEN, CARPER

              FLORIDA

BREVARD COUNTY, FL (MID REACH).....  ..............             200  BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ
BROWARD COUNTY, FL (SEGMENT III      ..............           1,000  BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ
 REIMBURSEMENT).
CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL...............             250             250  PRESIDENT
CEDAR HAMMOCK, WARES CREEK, FL.....           5,000           5,000  PRESIDENT, MARTINEZ
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL...          90,588          80,588  PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ
ESTERO AND GASPARILLA SEGMENTS, FL   ..............           1,000  BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ
 (LEE COUNTY).
EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA                  4,310           4,310  PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON
 COSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL.
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY           ..............           3,000  MARTINEZ
 IMPROVEMENTS, FL.
HERBERT HOOVER DIKE, FL (SEEPAGE             55,776          55,776  PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ
 CONTROL).
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL............  ..............           3,000  BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ
KISSIMMEE RIVER, FL................          32,502          32,502  PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ
LAKE WORTH SAND TRANSFER PLANT, FL.           2,000           2,000  PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON
MODIFIED WATER DELIVERIES TO ENP...          35,000  ..............  PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ
NASSAU COUNTY, FL..................           6,000           6,000  PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ
PONCE DE LEON INLET, FL............  ..............           1,500  MARTINEZ
ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FL...............             200             200  PRESIDENT
TAMPA HARBOR, FL...................  ..............             304  MARTINEZ

              GEORGIA

ATLANTA, GA EI.....................  ..............           2,000  CHAMBLISS, ISAKSON
BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA...............           6,400           6,400  PRESIDENT
RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA            6,900           6,900  PRESIDENT
 & SC.
TYBEE ISLAND, GA...................  ..............           2,000  CHAMBLISS, ISAKSON

               HAWAII

IAO STREAMS, HI....................  ..............             500  INOUYE, AKAKA
HAWAII WATER MANAGEMENT, HI........  ..............           2,000  INOUYE

               IDAHO

RURAL IDAHO, ID....................  ..............           5,000  CRAIG, CRAPO

              ILLINOIS

CHAIN OF ROCKS CANAL, MISSISSIPPI             4,500           4,500  PRESIDENT
 RIVER, IL (DEF CORR).
CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL,                750           3,250  PRESIDENT, DURBIN, OBAMA, LUGAR, LEVIN,
 SECOND BARRIER, IL.                                                  STABENOW, COLEMAN, SCHUMER, CLINTON,
                                                                      VOINOVICH, BROWN, KOHL
CHICAGO SHORELINE, IL..............           9,000           9,000  PRESIDENT, DURBIN
DES PLAINES RIVER, IL..............           6,620           6,620  PRESIDENT, DURBIN
EAST ST LOUIS, IL..................           2,500           2,500  PRESIDENT
ILLINOIS WATERWAY, LOCKPORT LOCK             20,445          20,445  PRESIDENT
 AND DAM, IL (REPLACEM.
LOCK AND DAM 24, MISSISSIPPI RIVER,             340             340  PRESIDENT, BOND
 IL & MO (MAJOR REH.
LOCK & DAM 27, MISSISSIPPI RIVER,             7,542           7,542  PRESIDENT, DURBIN, BOND
 IL (REHABILITATION).
MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS, IL.          33,500          31,500  PRESIDENT, DURBIN
NUTWOOD DRAINAGE AND LEVEE           ..............             300  DURBIN
 DISTRICT, IL.
OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER,          104,000          94,000  PRESIDENT, MCCONNELL
 IL & KY.
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER                      23,464          18,000  PRESIDENT, DURBIN, GRASSLEY, COLEMAN,
 RESTORATION, IL, IA, MN, MO &.                                       FEINGOLD

              INDIANA

INDIANA HARBOR (CONFINED DISPOSAL            18,065          18,065  PRESIDENT
 FACILITY), IN.
LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, IN...........          13,000          13,000  PRESIDENT

                IOWA

DAVENPORT, IA......................  ..............           1,000  HARKIN, GRASSLEY
DES MOINES RECREATION RIVER AND      ..............           3,000  HARKIN, GRASSLEY
 GREENBELT, IA.
LOCK AND DAM 11, MISSISSIPPI RIVER,           6,300           5,000  PRESIDENT, HARKIN, BOND, GRASSLEY
 IA (MAJOR REHAB).
LOCK AND DAM 19, MISSISSIPPI RIVER,             698             698  PRESIDENT, HARKIN, BOND, GRASSLEY
 IA (MAJOR REHAB).
MISSOURI R FISH AND WILDLIFE                 85,000          50,000  PRESIDENT, GRASSLEY
 RECOVERY, IA,KS,MO,MT,NE,.

               KANSAS

TURKEY CREEK BASIN, KS & MO........           9,000           9,000  PRESIDENT, BOND, BROWNBACK, ROBERTS
TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS (DAM SAFETY).          28,500          28,500  PRESIDENT, BROWNBACK, ROBERTS

              KENTUCKY

KENTUCKY LOCK AND DAM, TENNESSEE             52,000          47,000  PRESIDENT, MCCONNELL, SHELBY
 RIVER, KY.
MARKLAND LOCKS & DAM, KY & IL......           7,800           7,000  PRESIDENT
MCALPINE LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER,          45,000          41,000  PRESIDENT, MCCONNELL
 KY & IN.
WOLF CREEK, KY (SEEPAGE CONTROL)...          54,100          54,100  PRESIDENT, MCCONNELL, ALEXANDER, CORKER

             LOUISIANA

COMITE RIVER, LA...................  ..............           7,000  LANDRIEU, VITTER
EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LA........  ..............           1,000  LANDRIEU
INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL LOCK,  ..............           2,000  LANDRIEU, VITTER
 LA.
J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA....           1,500           7,000  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, VITTER
LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LA........  ..............           2,200  LANDRIEU
OUACHITA RIVER LEVEES, LA..........  ..............           1,400  LANDRIEU, VITTER
SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA, LA............  ..............          18,500  LANDRIEU, VITTER

              MARYLAND

ANACOSTIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, MD  ..............             308  CARDIN
 AND DC, PHASE I.
ASSATEAGUE ISLAND, MD..............           1,900           1,900  PRESIDENT, MIKULSKI, CARDIN
ATLANTIC COAST OF MARYLAND, MD.....  ..............             200  MIKULSKI, CARDIN
BALTIMORE METROPOLITAN WATER         ..............           1,000  MIKULSKI, CARDIN
 RESOURCES, GWYNNS FALLS,.
CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL         ..............           2,031  MIKULSKI, CARDIN, CASEY, WARNER, WEBB
 RESTORATION AND PROTECTIO.
CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD   ..............           2,000  MIKULSKI, CARDIN, CASEY, WARNER, WEBB
 & VA.
CUMBERLAND, MD.....................  ..............             700  MIKULSKI, CARDIN
POPLAR ISLAND, MD..................           9,825          10,374  PRESIDENT, MIKULSKI, CARDIN

           MASSACHUSETTS

MUDDY RIVER, MA....................          10,000          10,000  PRESIDENT, KENNEDY, KERRY

              MICHIGAN

GENESEE COUNTY, MI.................  ..............             600  LEVIN, STABENOW
NEGAUNEE, MI.......................  ..............             385  LEVIN, STABENOW

             MINNESOTA

BRECKENRIDGE, MN...................  ..............           4,000  COLEMAN, KLOBUCHAR
LOCK AND DAM 3, MISSISSIPPI RIVER,   ..............           2,250  COLEMAN, KLOBUCHAR
 MN (MAJOR REHAB).
MARSHALL, MN.......................  ..............              80  COLEMAN, KLOBUCHAR

            MISSISSIPPI

MISSISSIPPI ENVIRONMENTAL            ..............          19,000  COCHRAN, LOTT
 INFRASTRUCTURE, MS.
DESOTO COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER    ..............          10,000  COCHRAN, LOTT
 SYSTEM, MS.
JACKSON COUNTY WATER SUPPLY          ..............           5,519  COCHRAN, LOTT
 PROJECT, MS.

              MISSOURI

BLUE RIVER BASIN, KANSAS CITY, MO..  ..............           4,117  BOND
BLUE RIVER CHANNEL, KANSAS CITY, MO           3,500           3,500  PRESIDENT, BOND
BOIS BRULE DRAINAGE AND LEVEE        ..............           5,000  BOND
 DISTRICT, MISSOURI.
CAPE GIRARDEAU (FLOODWALL), MO.....  ..............           2,000  BOND
CHESTERFIELD, MO...................  ..............           2,500  BOND
CLEARWATER LAKE, MO (SEEPAGE                 25,000          25,000  PRESIDENT
 CONTROL).
MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO               2,100           3,000  PRESIDENT, BOND
 RIVERS (REG WORKS), MO.
MISSOURI & MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI        ..............             500  BOND,GRASSLEY
 RIVERS ENHANCEMENT, MO.
MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, IA,     ..............             100  BOND
 NE, KS & MO.
ST LOUIS FLOOD PROTECTION, MO......  ..............           2,000  BOND
STE GENEVIEVE, MO..................  ..............             438  BOND

              MONTANA

RURAL MONTANA, MT..................  ..............           5,000  BAUCUS, TESTER
FT. PECK CABIN CONVEYANCE, MT......  ..............             500  TESTER

              NEBRASKA

ANTELOPE CREEK, LINCOLN, NE........           9,000           9,000  PRESIDENT, BEN NELSON, HAGEL
MISSOURI NATIONAL RECREATIONAL       ..............           1,000  HAGEL
 RIVER, NE & SD.
SAND CREEK WATERSHED, SAUNDERS       ..............           1,000  BEN NELSON, HAGEL
 COUNTY, NEBRASKA.
WESTERN SARPY COUNTY AND CLEAR       ..............           3,000  BEN NELSON, HAGEL
 CREEK.

               NEVADA

RURAL NEVADA.......................  ..............          19,000  REID, ENSIGN
TROPICANA AND FLAMINGO WASHES, NV..  ..............          13,000  REID, ENSIGN

             NEW JERSEY

BARNEGAT INLET TO LITTLE EGG         ..............           5,000  LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
 HARBOR, NJ (NJ SHORE PROT.
CAPE MAY INLET TO LOWER TOWNSHIP,               270             270  PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
 NJ.
DELAWARE RIVER MAIN CHANNEL          ..............           2,500  SPECTOR, CASEY
 DEEPENING, NJ, PA & DE.
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS, NJ.........  ..............             397  LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
JOSEPH G MINISH HISTORIC WATERFRONT  ..............           3,000  LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
 PARK, NJ.
LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAY              5,111           5,111  PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
 POINT, NJ.
PASSAIC RIVER PRESERVATION OF        ..............           2,000  LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
 NATURAL STORAGE AREAS, N.
RAMAPO AND MAHWAH RIVERS, MAHWAH,    ..............             250  LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ, SCHUMER, CLINTON
 NJ AND SUFFERN, NY.
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, NJ.  ..............             250  LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK             10,000          10,000  PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
 SUB-BASIN, NJ.
SANDY HOOK TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ...  ..............           3,000  LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
TOWNSENDS INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET,   ..............           3,000  LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
 NJ.
GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET TO PECK       ..............           3,000  LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
 BEACH (OCEAN CITY), NJ.
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY,      ..............           2,000  LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
 PORT MONMOUTH, NJ.
BRIGANTINE INLET TO GREAT EGG        ..............           2,000  LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
 HARBOR INLET (ABSECON),.
BRIGANTINE INLET TO GREAT EGG        ..............              80  LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
 HARBOR INLET, BRIGANTINE.

             NEW MEXICO

ACEQUIAS IRRIGATION SYSTEM, NM.....  ..............           2,400  DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
ALAMOGORDO, NM.....................           4,200           4,200  PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
CENTRAL NEW MEXICO, NM.............  ..............           7,500  DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
COCHITI LAKE (DAM SAFETY), NM......  ..............             200  DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
JEMEZ CANYON (DAM SAFETY), NM......  ..............             150  DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE FLOOD PROTECTION,  ..............             300  DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
 BERNALILLO TO BELE.
NEW MEXICO, EI, NM.................  ..............          10,000  DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
RIO GRANDE FLOODWAY, SAN ACACIA TO              800             800  PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
 BOSQUE DEL APACHE,.

              NEW YORK

ATLANTIC COAST OF NYC, ROCKAWAY               8,500           8,500  PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON
 INLET TO NORTON POINT,.
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT,           4,150           4,400  PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON
 NY.
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY           91,000          85,000  PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ, SCHUMER,
 & NJ.                                                                CLINTON

           NORTH CAROLINA

BRUNSWICK COUNTY BEACHES, NC.......  ..............             400  DOLE, BURR
DARE COUNTY BEACHES, NC............  ..............           2,000  DOLE, BURR
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC..............  ..............           3,000  DOLE, BURR
WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NC.............  ..............             300  BURR

            NORTH DAKOTA

GARRISON DAM AND POWER PLANT, ND              6,200           6,200  PRESIDENT
 (REPLACEMENT).
HOMME DAM, ND (DAM SAFETY).........  ..............             235  DORGAN
LAKE SAKAKAWEA PROJECT, ND.........  ..............           3,000  DORGAN
MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, ND.....  ..............             300  DORGAN
NORTH DAKOTA ENVIRONMENTAL           ..............           6,000  DORGAN
 INFRASTRUCTURE, ND.

                OHIO

METROPOLITAN REGION OF CINCINNATI,           11,847          11,847  PRESIDENT
 DUCK CREEK, OH.

              OKLAHOMA

CANTON LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY).......          17,300          17,300  PRESIDENT
TAR CREEK CLEANUP, OK..............  ..............           3,500  INHOFE

               OREGON

COLUMBIA RIVER CHANNEL                       15,000          15,000  PRESIDENT, MURRAY, CRAPO, BAUCUS, TESTER,
 IMPROVEMENTS, OR & WA.                                               WYDEN, SMITH, CANTWELL
COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY FISHING        ..............           3,800  WYDEN, SMITH, CANTWELL
 ACCESS SITES, OR & WA.
ELK CREEK LAKE, OR.................          11,030          11,030  PRESIDENT
LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM                1,000           1,500  PRESIDENT, MURRAY
 RESTORATION, OR & WA.
WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE                  7,632           7,632  PRESIDENT
 CONTROL, OR.

            PENNSYLVANIA

EMSWORTH L&D, OHIO RIVER, PA                 43,000          43,000  PRESIDENT, SPECTER, CASEY
 (STATIC INSTABILITY CORRE.
LOCKS AND DAMS 2, 3 AND 4,                   70,300          65,300  PRESIDENT, SPECTER, CASEY
 MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA.
PRESQUE ISLE PENINSULA, PA           ..............           1,000  SPECTER, CASEY
 (PERMANENT).
WYOMING VALLEY, PA (LEVEE RAISING).  ..............           2,500  SPECTER, CASEY
LACKAWANNA RIVER, SCRANTON, PA.....  ..............           2,000  SPECTER, CASEY

            PUERTO RICO

PORTUGUES AND BUCANA RIVERS, PR....          35,000          35,000  PRESIDENT
RIO PUERTO NUEVO, PR...............          11,500          11,500  PRESIDENT

           SOUTH CAROLINA

FOLLY BEACH, SC....................              35              35  PRESIDENT

            SOUTH DAKOTA

BIG SIOUX RIVER, SIOUX FALLS, SD...  ..............           3,000  JOHNSON, THUNE
CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER    ..............           4,000  JOHNSON, THUNE
 BRULE SIOUX, SD.
MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, SD.....  ..............             100  JOHNSON

             TENNESSEE

CENTER HILL DAM, TN (SEEPAGE                 25,000          25,000  PRESIDENT, ALEXANDER, CORKER
 CONTROL).
CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TENNESSEE RIVER,           35,200          35,200  PRESIDENT, SHELBY, ALEXANDER, CORKER
 TN.

               TEXAS

BRAYS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX...........          14,841          14,841  PRESIDENT, CORNYN
CENTRAL CITY, FORT WORTH, UPPER      ..............             500  HUTCHISON, CORNYN
 TRINITY RIVER BASIN, T.
CLEAR CREEK, TX....................  ..............           1,000  CORNYN
DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, TRINITY   ..............          13,000  HUTCHISON, CORNYN
 RIVER PROJECT, TX.
HOUSTON-GALVESTON NAVIGATION                 16,320          16,320  PRESIDENT, HUTCHISON
 CHANNELS, TX.
JOHNSON CREEK, UPPER TRINITY BASIN,  ..............           1,000  HUTCHISON
 ARLINGTON, TX.
RED RIVER BASIN CHLORIDE CONTROL,    ..............           1,000  INHOFE
 TX & OK.
SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, TX  ..............          10,000  HUTCHISON, CORNYN
SIMS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX............          24,154          20,000  PRESIDENT, CORNYN
TEXAS CITY CHANNEL, TX.............  ..............           2,500  HUTCHISON

                UTAH

RURAL UTAH, UT (EI)................  ..............          10,000  BENNETT, HATCH

              VERMONT

BURLINGTON HARBOR, VT..............  ..............             500  LEAHY
LAKE CHAMPLAIN WATERSHED INITIATE,   ..............           2,500  LEAHY
 VT.

              VIRGINIA

JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA &          13,000          13,000  PRESIDENT
 NC (REPLACEMENT).
LYNCHBURG CSO, VA..................  ..............             300  WARNER, WEBB
NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VA      ..............           1,700  WARNER, WEBB
 (DEEPENING).
RICHMOND CSO, VA...................  ..............             300  WARNER, WEBB
ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN,                   10,150          10,150  PRESIDENT, WARNER, WEBB
 HEADWATERS AREA, VA.
SANDBRIDGE BEACH, VA...............  ..............           2,000  WARNER, WEBB
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (HURRICANE        ..............           3,000  WARNER, WEBB
 PROTECTION).

             WASHINGTON

CHIEF JOSEPH DAM GAS ABATEMENT, WA.           3,000           6,000  PRESIDENT, MURRAY
COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA,          92,560          83,500  PRESIDENT, MURRAY
 OR & ID.
DUWAMISH AND GREEN RIVER BASIN, WA.  ..............           2,000  MURRAY, CANTWELL
HOWARD HANSON DAM ECOSYSTEM                  16,000          16,000  PRESIDENT
 RESTORATION, WA.
LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH & WILDLIFE               400             400  PRESIDENT
 COMPENSATION, WA, OR.
MT ST HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA..          10,200          10,200  PRESIDENT, MURRAY
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA (FISH PASSAGE)          11,500          11,500  PRESIDENT, MURRAY, CANTWELL
PUGET SOUND AND ADJACENT WATERS      ..............           3,000  MURRAY, CANTWELL
 RESTORATION, WA.
SHOALWATER BAY, WA (SEC 545 OF WRDA  ..............           1,500  MURRAY
 2000).

           WEST VIRGINIA

BLUESTONE LAKE, WV (DAM SAFETY               12,000          12,000  PRESIDENT, BYRD
 ASSURANCE).
GREENBRIER RIVER BASIN, WV.........  ..............           1,500  BYRD
ISLAND CREEK BASIN IN AND AROUND     ..............             200  BYRD
 LOGAN, WEST VIRGINIA.
LEVISA AND TUG FORKS AND UPPER       ..............          26,500  BYRD, WARNER, WEBB
 CUMBERLAND RIVER, WV, V.
LOWER MUD RIVER, MILTON, WV........  ..............           1,050  BYRD
MARMET LOCK, KANAWHA RIVER, WV.....          25,000          30,000  PRESIDENT, BYRD
ROBERT C BYRD LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO             1,000           1,000  PRESIDENT
 RIVER, WV & OH.

              WYOMING

JACKSON HOLE ENVIRONMENTAL           ..............             475  THOMAS
 RESTORATION, JACKSON, WY.
                                    --------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, FOR PROJECTS.......       1,687,308       1,987,854

ABANDONED MINE RESTORATION.........  ..............             656  REID, FEINSTEIN, BAUCUS
AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION                11,278          25,000  PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, FEINSTEIN, ALLARD,
 (SECTION 206).                                                       INOUYE, CRAIG, DURBIN, HARKIN, LANDRIEU,
                                                                      MIKULSKI, LAUTENBERG, REED, ALEXANDER,
                                                                      LEAHY, SALAZAR, DODD, LIBERMAN, BILL
                                                                      NELSON, CHAMBLISS, ISAKSON, CRAPO,
                                                                      GRASSLEY, CARDIN, KENNEDY, KERRY, COLEMAN,
                                                                      MENENDEZ, BINGAMAN, SCHUMER, CLINTON,
                                                                      WYDEN, SMITH, CASEY, WHITEHOUSE, CORNYN,
                                                                      WARNER, WEBB, CANTWELL, FEINGOLD
AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL..............           3,000           4,000  PRESIDENT
BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL           2,663           5,000  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, KOHL, GRASSLEY,
 (SECTION 204, 207, 933).                                             FEINGOLD
CHIEF'S 12 ACTIONS.................           4,600  ..............  PRESIDENT
DAM SAFETY AND SEEPAGE/STABILITY             39,000          39,000  PRESIDENT
 CORRECTION PROGRAM.
DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL                     8,241           8,241  PRESIDENT
 FACILITIES PROGRAM (DMDF).
EMERGENCY STREAMBANK AND SHORELINE              907          12,000  PRESIDENT, BYRD, COCHRAN, DORGAN, LANDRIEU,
 PROTECTION (SECTION 14).                                             GREGG, LAUTENBERG, KOHL, CHAMBLISS,
                                                                      GRASSLEY, SNOWE, COLLINS, MENENDEZ,
                                                                      VOINOVICH
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION FUND........          21,000          21,000  PRESIDENT
ESTUARY RESTORATION PROGRAM (PUBLIC           5,000           1,000  PRESIDENT
 LAW 106-457).
FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION              11,716          45,000  PRESIDENT, BYRD, COCHRAN, DOMENICI,
 205).                                                                FEINSTEIN, INOUYE, BROWNBACK, LANDRIEU,
                                                                      MIKULSKI, BOND, BEN NELSON, LAUTENBERG,
                                                                      ALEXANDER, HUTCHISON, LINCOLN, PRYOR,
                                                                      BIDEN, CARPER, AKAKA, LUGAR, BAYH,
                                                                      GRASSLEY, ROBERTS, BUNNING, CARDIN,
                                                                      KENNEDY, KERRY, COLEMAN, HAGEL, MENENDEZ,
                                                                      BINGAMAN, SCHUMER, CLINTON
INLAND WATERWAY USER BOARD (COE                 185             185  PRESIDENT
 EXP).
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD (BOARD              40              40  PRESIDENT
 EXPENSES).
MITIGATION OF SHORE DAMAGES                   4,874           2,500  PRESIDENT, SNOWE, COLLINS, SCHUMER, CLINTON
 (SECTION 111).
NAVIGATION PROJECTS (SECTION 107)..             477          10,000  PRESIDENT, COCHRAN, INOUYE, LANDRIEU,
                                                                      MIKULSKI, REED, PRYOR, AKAKA, SNOWE,
                                                                      COLLINS, CARDIN, KENNEDY, KERRY, LEVIN,
                                                                      STABENOW, VOINOVICH
PROJECT MODS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE          11,190          25,000  PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, FEINSTEIN, INOUYE,
 ENVIRONMENT (SECTION 1135).                                          HARKIN, LANDRIEU, MIKULSKI, BOND,
                                                                      LAUTENBERG, LEAHY, MURRAY, LINCOLN, PRYOR,
                                                                      BIDEN, CARPER, AKAKA, GRASSLEY, CARDIN,
                                                                      KENNEDY, KERRY, WARNER, WEBB, CANTWELL,
                                                                      FEINGOLD
SHORE PROTECTION (SECTION 103).....             422           5,000  PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, MIKULSKI, CARDIN,
                                                                      CASEY
SNAGGING AND CLEARING (SECTION 208)              10             500  PRESIDENT
                                    --------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, FOR PROJECTS NOT            124,603         204,122
       LISTED UNDER STATES.

REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS    ..............        -126,030
 AND SLIPPAGE.
USE OF PRIOR BALANCES..............  ..............          -6,472
                                    --------------------------------
      TOTAL CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL..       1,818,811       2,059,474
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tuscaloosa, Alabama.--The Committee recommends $5,000,000 
for the relocation project at Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
    Akutan Harbor, Alaska.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $2,500,000 to initiate construction of this project.
    Alaska Coastal Erosion, Alaska.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $5,000,000 for Alaska Coastal Erosion. 
The following communities are eligible recipients of these 
funds: Kivalina, Newtok, Shishmaref, Koyukuk, Barrow, Kaktovik, 
Point Hope, Unalakleet, and Bethel.
    Nogales Wash, Arizona.--The Committee provides $4,461,000 
for completion of this project.
    Red River Below Denison Dam, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma 
and Texas.--The Committee provides $2,500,000 to continue levee 
rehabilitation work in Arkansas and Louisiana.
    Red River Emergency Bank Protection, Arkansas and 
Louisiana.--The Committee provides $4,000,000 for bank 
stabilization along the Red River below Index, Arkansas.
    American River Watershed, California.--The Committee has 
chosen not to combine the various, separately authorized, 
components of the project into a single line item as was 
proposed in the budget. The Committee believes that it is 
prudent to maintain visibility of the various project elements 
in the budget process.
    American River Watershed (Folsom Dam Miniraise), 
California.--The Committee provides $18,500,000. Within the 
funds provided, $14,000,000 is for completion of the bridge.
    CALFED Levee Stability Program, California.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $5,000,000 to initiate this program. 
Within the funds provided, the Committee has provided $500,000 
for the Corps to coordinate and complete within 6 months a 
review of Delta levees emergency preparedness and response 
planning with appropriate Federal and State agencies. The 
review will address preparation and response to protect (1) 
life and property within the Delta and (2) statewide interests 
reliant on water and other resources of the Delta, including 
measures to prevent salt water contamination of fresh water 
supplies consistent with the Delta Levee Stability Program High 
Priority, Priority Group A projects.
    Mid Valley Area Levee Reconstruction, California.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for a limited 
reevaluation report as well as other necessary studies in 
advance of reconstruction.
    Oakland Harbor, California.--The Committee recommends 
$40,000,000 to continue construction of this project. The 
reduction made to this project should not be viewed as any 
diminution of support for this project, rather an attempt to 
balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide program among the 
various missions of the Corps.
    Santa Ana River, California.--The Committee provides 
$17,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
    West Sacramento, California.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $900,000 for a general reevaluation of the project and 
other project needs.
    Delaware Coast, Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island, Rehobeth 
Beach to Dewey Beach, Delaware.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $2,700,000 to complete the second nourishment cycle.
    Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration, 
Florida.--The Committee has chosen not to combine the various, 
separately authorized components of the project into a single 
line item as was proposed in the budget. The Committee believes 
that it is prudent to maintain visibility of the various 
project elements in the budget process. The reduction made to 
the various component projects under this heading should not be 
viewed as any diminution of support for this project, rather an 
attempt to balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide 
program among the various missions of the Corps.
    The Committee has chosen not to fund the $35,000,000 
request for the Modified Waters Delivery Plan as proposed in 
the budget. The Committee does not believe that it is 
appropriate for the Corps to fund this work. This is not a 
traditional authorization of work for the Corps. It is 
direction for the Corps to be involved in the implementation of 
the project. As the work involved primarily benefits Everglades 
National Park, budgeting for this work should be continued by 
the Interior Department as was the practice prior to fiscal 
year 2006. The Committee has included legislative language that 
limits the Corps of Engineers share of this project to the 
amount previously appropriated.
    The Committee directs the administration to include the 
Modified Waters Delivery Plan funding in the Interior budget in 
future budget submissions.
    Central and South Florida, Florida.--Within the funds 
provided, the Corps shall continue work on the Upper St. Johns 
River project.
    Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements, Florida.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 for continued 
implementation of this project. The Committee urges the 
administration to budget for this project due to the 
interrelationship of this work to the Everglades Restoration 
project, Biscayne Bay and southern Florida's nearshore waters.
    Jacksonville Harbor, Florida.--The Committee has provided 
$3,000,000 to continue work on the project as well as for a 
second general reevaluation report.
    Tampa Harbor, Florida.--$304,000 is provided to complete 
the General Reevaluation Report.
    Atlanta, Georgia.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$2,000,000 to continue this project.
    Tybee Island, Georgia.--The Committee recommendation 
provides $2,000,000 for the next scheduled renourishment.
    Rural Idaho Environmental Infrastructure, Idaho.--The 
Committee provides $5,000,000 for this project. Within the 
funds provided the Corps should give consideration to projects 
at Emmett, Burley, Deary, Rupert, Donnelly, East Idaho Regional 
Water Authority, and Smelterville. Other communities that meet 
the program criteria should be considered as funding allows.
    Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Illinois.--The Committee 
has provided $3,250,000 for construction on Barriers I and II. 
Legislative language has been included for these projects as 
requested in the budget.
    McCook and Thornton Reservoirs, Illinois.--The Committee 
includes $31,500,000 for continued construction of this 
project. The reduction made to this project should not be 
viewed as any diminution of support for this project, rather an 
attempt to balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide 
program among the various missions of the Corps.
    Olmsted Locks and Dam, Ohio River, Illinois and Kentucky.--
The Committee provides $94,000,000 to continue construction of 
this project. The reduction made to this project should not be 
viewed as any diminution of support for this project, rather an 
attempt to balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide 
program among the various missions of the Corps. None of the 
funds provided for the Olmsted Locks and Dam Project are to be 
used to reimburse the Claims and Judgment Fund.
    Indiana Harbor (Confined Disposal Facility), Indiana.--The 
Committee has retained funding for this project in the 
Construction, General account rather than moving it to the 
Operations and Maintenance account as proposed in the budget.
    Missouri Fish and Wildlife Recovery, Iowa, Kansas, 
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota.--
The Committee provides $50,000,000 for this project. 
Legislative language is included in the bill that accompanies 
this report to make modifications to the Intake Dam, as 
requested by the administration, to provide additional habitat 
for the pallid sturgeon. Funding for the modifications to 
Intake Dam are provided in this account rather than as a 
separate line as proposed in the budget.
    Turkey Creek, Kansas and Missouri.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $9,000,000 to continue construction of 
this project.
    Kentucky Lock and Dam, Tennessee River, Kentucky.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $47,000,000 to continue 
construction of this project. The reduction made to this 
project should not be viewed as any diminution of support for 
this project, rather an attempt to balance out the Corps of 
Engineers nationwide program among the various missions of the 
Corps.
    Markland Locks and Dam, Kentucky and Illinois.--The 
Committee has provided $7,000,000 to initiate construction on 
this major rehabilitation requested by the administration. The 
Committee has provided these funds here rather than in O&M as 
proposed in the budget request.
    McAlpine Locks and Dam, Ohio River, Kentucky and Indiana.--
The Committee has provided $57,000,000 to continue construction 
of this project and legislative language, as requested in the 
budget request, to raise the cost ceiling for the project so 
the funds can be utilized in fiscal year 2008. The reduction 
made to this project should not be viewed as any diminution of 
support for this project, rather an attempt to balance out the 
Corps of Engineers nationwide program among the various 
missions of the Corps.
    J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Louisiana.--The Committee has 
provided $7,000,000 for navigation channel refinement features, 
land purchases and development for mitigation of project 
impacts, and construction of project recreation and appurtenant 
features.
    Southeast Louisiana project, Louisiana.--The Committee has 
provided $18,500,000 to continue construction of this vital 
interior drainage project. Additionally, the Committee has 
included legislative language directing the Secretary of the 
Army to include the Southeast Louisiana Flood Control project 
authorized in section 533 of Public Law 104-303, as amended, 
and other related internal pumping requirements as integral 
components of the comprehensive protection plan required to 
achieve certification for participation in the National Flood 
Insurance Program directed by Public Law 109-234. As the recent 
inundation study for the city of New Orleans and vicinity by 
the Corps of Engineers concluded, the improvements to the 
pumping capacity and levee system in the area have contributed 
to an improved mitigation of risk of catastrophic flooding in 
the region. However, a peripheral line of protection alone does 
not provide a truly comprehensive protection system without 
adding the ability to efficiently collect and evacuate the 
significant amounts of flood water that accumulate inside of 
this line of protection. The southeast Louisiana project and 
related interior pumping capacity projects are essential 
component pieces to such a comprehensive system and to the 
National Flood Insurance Program and, accordingly, must be 
designed and constructed concurrently with other projects in 
the area.
    Chesapeake Bay Environmental Program, Maryland, 
Pennsylvania and Virginia.--The Committee has included 
$1,000,000 for continuation of this project. Within the funds 
provided, $450,000 is included to complete the environmental 
studies concerning non-native oysters.
    Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery, Maryland and Virginia.--The 
Committee includes $2,000,000 to continue construction of this 
project.
    Fort Peck Dam and Lake, Montana.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $500,000 for continuation of Fort Peck 
cabin sales.
    Rural Montana, Montana.--The Committee provides $5,000,000 
for this project. Within the funds provided the Corps should 
give consideration to the following projects: Crow Tribe Water 
and Wastewater System; Cabinet Heights Wastewater Collection 
Systems; Ranch Water District, Bigfork; Town of Medicine Lake; 
County Water District of Billings Heights; Power Water System 
improvements; Seely Lake, Greater Woods Bay Wastewater System; 
Basin Creek Reservoir, Butte; Dayton Wastewater Collection and 
Treatment Facility; Phillipsburg Wastewater Improvements; 
Glasgow Wastewater; Whitehall Wastewater; Cut Bank Water; 
Hamiliton Wastewater; Conrad Wastewater; Billings, West Wicks 
Lane Water and Sewer; and Port of Montana Water. Other 
communities that meet the program criteria should be considered 
as funding allows.
    Sand Creek, Nebraska.--The Committee includes $1,000,000 to 
continue construction of this project.
    Rural Nevada, Nevada.--The Committee recommendation 
provides $19,000,000 for this project. Within the funds 
provided the Corps should give consideration to projects at 
North Lemmon Valley; Spanish Springs Valley Phase II; Huffaker 
Hills Water Conservation; Lawton-Verdi; Boulder City; Lyon 
County; Gerlach; Searchlight; Incline Village; Esmeralda 
County; Cold Springs; Fallon; Goldfield; Churchill County; West 
Wendover; Yearington; Virgin Valley Water District; Lovelock; 
Truckee Meadows Water Authority; McGill-Ruth Consolidated Sewer 
and Water District; Carlin; Moapa; Indian Springs; Eldorado 
Valley; Ely and Carson City. Other communities that meet the 
program criteria should be considered as funding allows.
    Tropicana and Flamingo Washes, Nevada.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $13,000,000 to continue construction of 
this flood control project. Within the funds provided 
$9,600,000 is provided for work performed in accordance with 
section 211 of Public Law 104-303.
    Raritan River Basin, Green Brook Sub-basin, New Jersey.--
The Committee includes $10,000,000 to continue construction of 
this project.
    Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, New Jersey.--The 
Committee provides $5,111,000 for this periodic renourishment 
here rather than in O&M as proposed by the administration's 
budget request.
    Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey.--The Committee 
provides $3,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
    Acequias Irrigation System, New Mexico.--The Committee 
provides $2,400,000 to continue restoration of these historic 
irrigation distribution systems.
    Central New Mexico [EI], New Mexico.--The Committee 
includes $7,500,000 to continue construction of this project.
    New Mexico [EI], New Mexico.--The Committee includes 
$10,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
    Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota.--The original health care 
facility for the Three Affiliated Tribes tribe was permanently 
inundated due to the impoundment of Lake Sakakawea. A 
replacement healthcare facility was promised but never 
constructed. Legislative text has been included in the Bill 
this report accompanies that directs the Corps to construct 
this replacement facility. The Committee recommendation 
includes $3,000,000 for design of the replacement health care 
facility. The Corps should work closely with the Indian Health 
Service and the Three Affiliated Tribes on the design and 
construction of this facility. The Committee suggests that the 
Corps utilize the expertise in their military programs office 
for this project.
    North Dakota [EI], North Dakota.--The Committee has 
provided up to $6,000,000 for work related to the replacement 
of the Devils Lake Water supply pipeline. The Committee has 
included legislative text that reallocates the unexpended 
balance of $4,972,000 from the Devils Lake outlet to this 
project.
    Locks and Dams 2, 3, and 4, Monongahela River, 
Pennsylvania.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$65,300,000 to continue construction of this project. The 
reduction made to this project should not be viewed as any 
dimunition of support for this project, rather an attempt to 
balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide program among the 
various missions of the Corps.
    Presque Isle, Pennsylvania.--The Committee provides 
$1,000,000 to continue this project.
    Big Sioux River, South Dakota.--The Committee includes 
$3,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
    Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux, South 
Dakota.--The Committee notes that title IV of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1999, Public Law 106-53 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. The Committee 
includes $4,000,000 for this effort. 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 the remaining funds as directed by title IV to the 
State of South Dakota, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the 
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe.
    Chickamauga Lock, Tennessee.--The Committee provides 
$35,200,000 to continue construction of this project.
    Central City, Fort Worth, Upper Trinity River Basin, 
Texas.--The Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for the 
Central City, Fort Worth, Texas, project. The Committee 
continues to be interested in the merits of combining the 
authorized Central City project with the proposed Riverside 
Oxbow project. The Committee understands that the Corps has an 
ongoing evaluation of the combined project and encourage that 
it be completed expeditiously and the results furnished to the 
Committee.
    Red River Basin Chloride Control, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas 
and Louisiana.--The Committee includes $1,000,000 to continue 
construction.
    San Antonio Channel Improvement, Texas.--The Committee 
recommendation include $10,000,000 to continue this flood 
control project.
    Sims Bayou, Houston, Texas.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $20,000,000 for this project. The reduction made to 
this project should not be viewed as any dimunition of support 
for this project, rather an attempt to balance out the Corps of 
Engineers nationwide program among the various missions of the 
Corps.
    Rural Utah, [EI], Utah.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $10,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
    Burlington Harbor, Vermont.--The Committee includes 
$500,000 to initiate removal of oil bollards in the harbor.
    Lake Champlain Watershed Initiative.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $2,500,000 for continuation of this 
project. The Committee has included legislative text that 
reallocates the unexpended balance of $1,500,000 from the 
completed Waterbury Dam Seepage Correction repairs to this 
project.
    Columbia River Fish Mitigation, Washington, Oregon, and 
Idaho.--The Committee has chosen not to follow the budget 
proposal to include this work within the various O&M items in 
the system. The Committee believes that it is prudent to 
maintain visibility of the costs of environmental compliance 
activities for this project and have included funding in this 
account in the traditional items. $83,500,000 is provided for 
this project.
    Mud Mountain, Washington.--The Corps has provided 
$11,500,000 for fish passage at this project.
    Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Cumberland 
River, West Virginia, Kentucky and Virginia.--The Committee 
provides $26,500,000 for the continuation of the project. 
Within the funds provided, the Committee recommendation 
includes $7,500,000 for the Buchanan County, Dickenson County, 
and Grundy, Virginia elements. Further, the recommendation 
includes $18,000,000 for Kermit, Lower Mingo County, McDowell 
County, Upper Mingo and Wayne County, West Virginia.
    Aquatic Plant Control Program.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $4,000,000 for this program. Funds 
above the budget requests are included for cost-shared programs 
for Lake Gaston, North Carolina; Lake Champlain, Vermont; and 
Lake Chautauqua, New York.
    Chief's 12 Actions.--The Committee did not include funding 
for this item. The Committee believes that the activities 
proposed in the budget request for this line item should be 
incorporated into the various funded construction activities 
that the Corps has underway.
    Dredged Material Disposal Facilities Program.--The 
Committee has retained this program in the Construction, 
General account rather than the Operations and Maintenance 
account as proposed by the budget.
    Shore Line Erosion Control Development and Demonstration 
Program.)--The Committee understands that this program will be 
considerably expanded and modified in the pending Water 
Resources Development Act. Therefore the Committee has included 
legislative text to extend the duration of this program so that 
the COE can continue monitoring of complete projects and finish 
work on projects, where possible with previousl appropriated 
funds. No new funds are provided.
    Collection and Study of Basic Data.--The recommendation 
includes $1,400,000 for these efforts. Funds provided above the 
budget request are for LIDAR mapping to be undertaken in the 
Delta portion of Mississippi.
    Ability to Pay.--Section 103(m) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 Public Law 99-662, 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.

                     CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM

    When Congress authorized the initial Continuing Authorities 
in the 1940s and 1950s, they were envisioned to provide a small 
pool of money available to the Corps of Engineers to solve very 
small localized problems without being encumbered by the longer 
study and project authorization process. As more programs were 
added to the Continuing Authorities Program [CAP] they became 
increasingly popular with congressional Members and the public. 
More and more congressionally directed projects began to appear 
in the annual appropriations bills. At first these 
congressionally directed projects were added to the base 
program. As more and more of these congressionally directed 
projects came into the program it became difficult for these 
congressionally directed projects to be added to the base, and 
as such, the base program began to shrink. Congressionally 
directed projects now dominate all sections of the CAP Program. 
Congressionally directed projects have proliferated to such an 
extent that several of the sections are over-subscribed.
    The table below shows the unfunded costs in each of the 
various sections of the CAP program along with the Statutory 
Limit of each section and the Mean Annual Allocation from 2001-
2007 for each section. At current levels of funding it will 
take nearly 16 years to clear out this backlog.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Mean annual
                             Section                                 Statutory      allocation    Total unfunded
                                                                       limit         2001-2007     Federal cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14..............................................................         $15,000         $13,730         $43,193
103.............................................................          30,000           4,179          45,435
107.............................................................          35,000           8,389         148,262
111.............................................................           (\1\)           1,417          38,279
145.............................................................           (\1\)             904           2,700
204.............................................................          15,000           1,876          26,754
205.............................................................          50,000          31,664         547,862
206.............................................................          25,000          29,658         734,545
208.............................................................           7,500             233           1,151
1135............................................................          25,000          28,951         323,226
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Totals....................................................        +202,500         121,001       1,911,409
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\None.

    The Committee tried to address the oversubscribed nature of 
some of the CAP sections by instituting a moratorium on new 
cost sharing agreements in fiscal year 2006. Due to the Joint 
funding resolution for fiscal year 2007, the moratorium was 
continued through the current year. The Committee does not 
recommend that the moratorium be continued into fiscal year 
2008.
    Prioritization of these projects by the Corps is still 
essential. The Committee directs the Corps to prioritize 
projects in the following manner to try to get the backlog of 
these projects reduced. The first priority for funding should 
be for construction projects that are ready to execute Project 
Cooperation Agreements. The next priority should be for 
projects that are ready to execute design agreements. Third 
priority would be for those that are ready to execute 
feasibility agreements. The fourth priority would be for those 
projects progressing from design to construction. The last 
priority should be new starts. Priority should be given to 
those projects that have demonstrated capability to move 
forward. This would include having non-Federal financing in 
place and ready to be utilized. The Committee has provided no 
new starts in any of the sections.
    Starting with fiscal year 2008 the Committee will no longer 
provide any congressional earmarks for the section 14, 
Emergency Bank Stabilization authority. By definition these are 
projects that are estimated to fail within 9-12 months. As an 
``emergency situation'' the Chief of Engineers should have the 
responsibility for determining how these funds are expended in 
the most efficient and effective manner. Budget justifications 
for this section should display the anticipated projects and 
associated costs to be undertaken in the budget year as well as 
the anticipated resources necessary to address emergencies that 
arise in the budget year.
    The Committee will not provide dollar amounts for the 
projects that are named in the report. The Committee directs 
that the Chief should have 100 percent reprogramming 
flexibility within the various sections of the CAP program in 
order to address the backlog. This reprogramming guidance has 
been addressed in section 101 of the bill accompanying this 
report. The Chief of Engineers should provide a report to the 
House and Senate Appropriations Committees within 30 days of 
enactment of this bill detailing how funds will be distributed 
to the individual items in the various CAP sections for the 
fiscal year. The Chief should also provide an annual report at 
the end of each fiscal year detailing the progress made on the 
backlog of projects. The report should include the completions 
and terminations as well as progress of on going work. The 
Committee would be willing to work with the Corps on any 
reforms that they might suggest to improve this program.
    The Committee is concerned that if the Corps adhered 
strictly to the priorities above, that all funding would be 
exhausted for construction. Therefore, in order to provide a 
mix of studies, design and construction within each CAP section 
the Committee directs that funding be generally divided in the 
following manner for each of the CAP sections. These 
percentages should be considered upper limits in each section, 
not absolutes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Percent
              CAP Section                  Available      Available for
                                            Funding        Construction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 103...........................       $5,000,000               75
Section 107...........................       10,000,000               75
Section 1135..........................       25,000,000               70
Section 14............................       12,000,000               80
Sections 204, 207, 933................        5,000,000               75
Section 205...........................       45,000,000               65
Section 206...........................       25,000,000               70
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even though the Committee is providing a listing of 
projects that are of interest, the Corps should develop the 
program based on all of the projects in each section whether 
named or not. Priorities should be based on the factors 
outlined above and should not consider prior year earmarks or a 
listing in this report. The Corps is directed not to initiate 
any new continuing authorities projects without explicit 
congressional direction. Only projects that have been named in 
prior appropriation bills or received prior year funds or are 
listed in this bill should be considered for funding.
    A listing of CAP projects follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Project                            Requested by
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 103 Shoreline Protection:
    Goleta Beach, CA...................  Feinstein
    Pismo Beach, CA....................  Feinstein
    Conquest Preserve, MD..............  Mikulski, Cardin
    Franklin Point Park, MD............  Mikulski, Cardin
    Mayo Beach Park, MD................  Mikulski, Cardin
    Pleasure Island, Baltimore County,   Mikulski, Cardin
     MD.
    Philadelphia Shipyard Sea Wall,      Casey
     Philadelphia, PA.
Section 107 Small Navigation Projects:
    Blytheville Harbor, AR.............  Pryor
    Kahoolawe Harbor, Kahoolawe, HI....  Inouye, Akaka
    Port Fourchon Extension, Lafourche   Landrieu
     Parish, LA.
    Bucks Harbor, ME...................  Snowe, Collins
    Naticoke Harbor, Wicomico, MD......  Mikulski, Cardin
    Rhodes Point, MD...................  Mikulski, Cardin
    St. Jerome's Creek, St. Mary's       Mikulski, Cardin
     County, MD.
    Woods Hole, Great Harbor, Woods      Kennedy, Kerry
     Hole, MA.
    Northwestern Michigan College,       Levin, Stabenow
     Great Lakes Maritime Academy,
     Harbor Renovation, Traverse City,
     MI:.
    Ontonagon Channel Extension, MI....  Levin, Stabenow
    Yazoo Diversion Canal, MS..........  Cochran
    Ottawa River Recreational Dredging,  Voinovich
     NC.
    Charlestown Breachway, RI..........  Reed
Section 111 Mitigation of Shore Damages
 Attributable to Navigation Projects:
    Camp Ellis Restoration Project, ME.  Snowe, Collins
    Mattituck Harbor, NY...............  Schumer, Clinton
Sections 204, 207, 933 Beneficial Uses
 of Dredged Material:
    Blackhawk Bottoms, IA..............  Grassley
    Barataria Bay Waterway, LA.........  Landrieu
    Calcasieu River, Cameron Parish, LA  Landrieu
    Restoration of the Cat Islands       Kohl
     Chain, Green Bay, WI.
Section 205 Small Flood Control
 Projects:
    Wynne, AR..........................  Lincoln, Pryor
    Las Gallinas Creek/Santa Venetia     Feinstein
     Levee, CA.
    Little Mill Creek, Elsemere, DE....  Biden, Carper
    Kuliouou Stream, Oahu, HI..........  Inouye
    Palai Stream, Hawaii, HI...........  Inouye, Akaka
    Waiakea Stream, Hawaii, HI.........  Inouye, Akaka
    White River, Anderson, IN..........  Lugar, Bayh
    Indian Creek, Cedar Rapids, IA.....  Grassley
    Mad Creek, Muscatine, IA...........  Grassley
    Red Oak Creek, Red Oak, IA.........  Grassley
    Winnebago River, Mason City, IA....  Grassley
    Eureka Creek, Manhattan, KS........  Roberts, Brownback
    Red Duck Creek, Mayfield, KY.......  Bunning
    Bayou Choupique, St Mary Parish, LA  Landrieu
    Bayou Queue de Tortue, Vermillion    Landrieu
     Parish, LA.
    Coushatta Indian Reservation, LA     Landrieu
     [FC].
    Jean Lafitte, Fisher School Basin,   Landrieu
     LA.
    Pailet Basin, Barataria, LA........  Landrieu
    Rosethorn Basin, LA................  Landrieu
    Town of Carencro, Lafayette Parish,  Landrieu
     LA.
    Elkton, MD.........................  Mikulski, Cardin
    North River, Peabody, MA...........  Kennedy, Kerry
    Ada, MN............................  Coleman
    Montevideo, MN.....................  Coleman
    McKinney Bayou, Tunica County, MS..  Cochran
    Blacksnake Creek, St. Joseph, MO...  Bond
    Festus-Crystal City, MO............  Bond
    Little River Diversion, Dutchtown,   Bond
     MO.
    Fremont South,NE...................  Hagel, Ben Nelson
    Schuyler, NE.......................  Hagel, Ben Nelson
    Jackson Brook, Morris County, NJ...  Lautenberg, Menendez
    Mill Brook, Highland Park, NJ......  Lautenberg, Menendez
    Upper Passaic River and              Lautenberg, Menendez
     Tributaries, Long Hill Township,
     NJ.
    Hatch, NM..........................  Domenici, Bingaman
    Steel Creek, NY....................  Schumer, Clinton
    Poplar Brook, Deal and Ocean         Lautenberg, Menendez
     Township, NJ.
    Beaver Creek, TN...................  Alexander
    Pecan Creek, Gainesville, TX.......  Hutchison
    WV Statewide Flood Warning System..  Byrd
Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem
 Restoration:
    Upper York Creek, Dam Removal, CA..  Feinstein
    Arkansas River Habitat Restoration   Allard, Salazar
     Project, CO.
    Goose Creek, Boulder, CO...........  Salazar
    Lower Boulder Creek, CO............  Salazar
    Tamarisk Eradication, CO...........  Salazar
    Stamford Mill River Restoration, CT  Dodd, Lieberman
    Rose Bay, FL.......................  Nelson
    Chattahoochee Fall-Line Ecosystem    Chambliss, Isakson
     Estoration, GA.
    Mokuhinia/Mokuula Restoration, HI..  Inouye
    Paradise Creek Ecosystem             Craig, Crapo
     Restoration, Moscow, Idaho.
    Salmon River, Challis, ID..........  Craig, Crapo
    Emiquon Preserve, Fulton County, IL  Durbin
    Squaw Creek Restoration, IL........  Durbin
    Chariton River/Rathbun Lake, Iowa..  Grassley
    Duck Creek, Davenport, IA..........  Grassley
    Iowa River/Clear Creek, Iowa City,   Grassley
     IA.
    Storm Lake, IA.....................  Grassley
    Ventura Marsh Habitat Restoration,   Harkin, Grassley
     IA.
    Whitebreast Creek Watershed, IA....  Grassley
    Bayou Grosse Tete Restoration,       Landrieu
     Iberville Parish, LA.
    Lake Fausse Pointe, Iberia Parish,   Landrieu
     LA.
    Lake Killarney, Louisiana State      Landrieu
     Penitentiary, LA.
    Lake Verret Assumption Parish, LA..  Landrieu
    Mandeville Ecosystem Restoration,    Landrieu
     LA.
    University Lakes, Baton Rouge, LA..  Landrieu
    Vermillion River Ecosystem           Landrieu
     Restoration, LA.
    Zemurray Park Lake Restoration,      Landrieu
     Tangipahoa Parish, LA.
    Deep Run/Tiber Hudson, Howard        Mikulski, Cardin
     County, MD.
    Dog Island Shoals, MD..............  Mikulski, Cardin
    Greenbury Point, Anne Arundel        Mikulski, Cardin
     County, MD.
    Hanover Street Wetlands, Baltimore   Mikulski, Cardin
     City, MD.
    North Beach Wetland Restoration, MD  Mikulski, Cardin
    Northwest Branch Anacostia River,    Mikulski, Cardin
     MD.
    Paint Branch Fish Passage, MD......  Mikulski, Cardin
    Tidal Middle Branch, MD............  Mikulski, Cardin
    Urieville Lake, Kent Conrad, MD....  Mikulski, Cardin
    Wright's Creek, Dorchester Creek,    Mikulski, Cardin
     MD.
    Milford Pond, Milford, MA..........  Kennedy, Kerry
    Painters Creek, Minnehaha Creek,     Coleman
     Watershed, MN.
    Rancocas Creek Fish Passage          Lautenberg, Menendez
     Restoration Project, NJ.
    Blue Hole Lake State Park, NM......  Domenici, Bingaman
    Bottomless Lakes State Park, NM....  Domenici, Bingaman
    Janes-Wallace Memorial Dam, Santa    Domenici, Bingaman
     Rosa, NM.
    Chenango Lake, NY..................  Schumer, Clinton
    Gerritsen Creek, Booklyn, NY.......  Schumer, Clinton
    Lower Hempstead Harbor, NY.........  Schumer, Clinton
    Manhasset Bay, NY..................  Schumer, Clinton
    Mud Creek, Great South Bay, NY.....  Schumer, Clinton
    Northport Harbor, Huntington, NY...  Schumer, Clinton
    Soundview Park, Bronx, NY..........  Schumer, Clinton
    Pennsville, Salem County, NJ.......  Lautenberg, Menendez
    Christine and Hickson Dams, ND.....  Dorgan
    Drayton Dam, ND....................  Dorgan
    Arrowhead Creek, OR................  Wyden, Smith
    Camp Creek-Zumwalt Prairie, OR.....  Wyden, Smith
    Springfield Mill Race Stabilization  Wyden, Smith
     and Protection, OR.
    Dents Run, Elk County, PA..........  Casey
    North Park Lake Restoration, PA....  Casey
    Brush Neck Cove, RI................  Reed, Whitehouse
    Narrow River Restoration, RI.......  Reed
    Ten Mile River restoration, RI.....  Reed, Whitehouse
    Winneapaug Pond Restoration, RI....  Reed, Whitehouse
    Pistol Creek, Maryville, TN........  Alexander
    San Marco River Ecosystem            Cornyn
     Restoration, TX.
    West Branch of Little River, VT....  Leahy
    Wild Branch of Lamoille River, VT..  Leahy
    Elizabeth River, Scuffletown Creek,  Warner, Webb
     Chesapeake, VA.
    Tangier Island, Accomack County, VA  Warner, Webb
    Swift Creek Asbestos Sediment        Cantwell
     Management, WA.
Section 1135 Project Modifications for
 the Improvement of the Environment:
    Lower Cache Restoration, AR........  Lincoln, Pryor
    Millwood Lake, Grassy Lake, AR.....  Lincoln, Pryor
    Tujunga Wash Environmental           Feinstein
     Restoration, CA.
    Oyster Revitalization in the         Biden, Carper
     Delaware Bay, DE.
    Kanaha Pond Wildlife Sanctuary       Inouye
     Restoration, HI.
    Kaunakakai Stream Environmental      Inouye, Akaka
     Restoration, HI.
    Kawainui Marsh Restoration, HI.....  Inouye
    Charitan River, Rathbun Lake         Harkin
     Watershed, IN.
    Rathbun Lake, South Fork             Grassley
     Restoration, IA.
    Amite River Diversion Canal Bank     Landrieu
     Gapping, LA.
    Frazier/Whitehouse Oxbow Lake Weir,  Landrieu
     LA.
    Lake St. Joseph, Tensas Parish, LA.  Landrieu
    Hart-Miller Island, MD.............  Mikulski, Cardin
    Broad Meadows Marsh, Quincy, MA....  Kennedy, Kerry
    Duck Creek Conservation Area,        Bond
     Stoddard County, MO.
    Assunpink Creek, NJ................  Lautenberg, Menendez
    Delaware Bay Oyster Restoration, NJ  Lautenberg, Menendez
    Lincoln Park West, Ecosystem         Lautenberg, Menendez
     Restoration Study, NJ.
    Lower Assunpink Creek, NJ..........  Lautenberg, Menendez
    Mordecai Island Coastal Wetland      Lautenberg, Menendez
     Restoration, NJ.
    Pine Mount Creek, NJ...............  Lautenberg, Menendez
    Pond Creek Salt Marsh Restoration,   Lautenberg, Menendez
     Cape May County, NJ.
    Rahway River, Rahway, NJ...........  Lautenberg, Menendez
    Las Cruces Dam environmental         Domenici, Bingaman
     Restoration, Dona Ana County, NM.
    Pueblo of Santa Ana Aquatic          Domenici, Bingaman
     Restoration, NM.
    Route 66 Environmental Restoration,  Domenici, Bingaman
     Albuquerque, NM.
    Smokes Creek, NY...................  Schumer, Clinton
    Spring Creek, NY...................  Schumer, Clinton
    Whitney Point Lake, NY.............  Schumer, Clinton
    Joe Creek restoration, OK..........  Inhofe
    Lake Champlain Lamprey Barriers, VT  Leahy
    Village of Oyster, Northampton       Warner, Webb
     County, VA.
    Mapes Creek Restoration, WA........  Murray, Cantwell
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee has included a rescission of $6,472,000 in 
unobligated funds from the Construction account of the fiscal 
year 2006 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act 
(Public Law 109-103).

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

Appropriations, 2007....................................    $396,565,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................     260,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     375,000,000

    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 
Committee wishes to reiterate that MR&T project is a good model 
for the Corps to examine for moving towards a watershed 
approach.
    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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Budget         Committee
           Project title                estimate     recommendation                  Requested by
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

           INVESTIGATIONS

BAYOU METO BASIN, AR...............  ..............           1,400  LINCOLN, PRYOR
SOUTHEAST ARKANSAS, AR.............  ..............             400  LINCOLN, PRYOR
ALEXANDRIA TO THE GULF, LA.........             200             200  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM               200             200  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
 LAND STUDY, LA.
MORGANZA TO THE GULF, LA...........  ..............           4,000  LANDRIEU, VITTER
SPRING BAYOU, LA...................  ..............             100  LANDRIEU
COLDWATER RIVER BASIN BELOW                     300             300  PRESIDENT, COCHRAN
 ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS.
MEMPHIS METRO AREA, STORM WATER      ..............             148  COCHRAN
 MGMT STUDY, T.
COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA.             400           1,400  PRESIDENT, COCHRAN

            CONSTRUCTION

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY,             53,395          55,414  PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR
 LA, MS, MO & TN.
GRAND PRAIRIE REGION, AR...........  ..............          10,000  LINCOLN, PRYOR
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL,            28,767          51,767  PRESIDENT, COCHRAN, LANDRIEU, BOND,
 KY, LA, MS, MO & TN.                                                 LINCOLN, PRYOR, VITTER
ST FRANCIS RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES,    ..............           7,000  LINCOLN, PRYOR
 AR & MO.
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM,           1,800           1,800  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
 LA.
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA..............          23,800          23,800  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA.......  ..............           1,000  LANDRIEU
YAZOO BASIN--BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER,    ..............             200  COCHRAN
 MS.
YAZOO BASIN--DELTA HEADWATERS        ..............          20,000  COCHRAN
 PROJECT, MS.
YAZOO BASIN--MAIN STEM, MS.........  ..............              25  COCHRAN
YAZOO BASIN--REFORMULATION UNIT, MS  ..............           1,500  COCHRAN
YAZOO BASIN--UPPER YAZOO PROJECTS,   ..............          13,000  COCHRAN
 MS.
YAZOO BASIN--YAZOO BACKWATER F&WL    ..............              50  COCHRAN
 MITIGATION LANDS, M.
YAZOO BASIN--YAZOO BACKWATER, MS...  ..............          10,000  COCHRAN
ST JOHNS BAYOU AND NEW MADRID        ..............           4,000  BOND
 FLOODWAY, MO.
WEST TENNESSEE TRIBUTARIES, TN.....  ..............             200  ALEXANDER, CORKER

     OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY,             59,977          64,951  PRESIDENT, COCHRAN, LANDRIEU
 LA, MS, MO & TN.
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR.              63             400  PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR..             249             249  PRESIDENT
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK,               100             300  PRESIDENT
 AR.
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK,               115             115  PRESIDENT
 AR.
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL,            10,726          11,800  PRESIDENT, COCHRAN, LANDRIEU, BOND,
 KY, LA, MS, MO & TN.                                                 LINCOLN, PRYOR,
ST FRANCIS BASIN, AR & MO..........           4,725          10,000  PRESIDENT, BOND, LINCOLN, PRYOR
TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS                2,667           2,667  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, LINCOLN, PRYOR
 RIVERS, AR & LA.
WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR..........             900           1,000  PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL..             170             170  PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY..              93              93  PRESIDENT
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM,           2,291           2,700  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
 LA.
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA..............          11,019          12,500  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA              17             400  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA.              41              41  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
BONNET CARRE, LA...................           2,367           3,000  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA..           1,037           1,237  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES,              45              80  PRESIDENT
 LA.
MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA.......             125             125  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
OLD RIVER, LA......................           9,045          10,000  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER,            2,500           4,000  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
 LA.
GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS..............              30             300  PRESIDENT, COCHRAN
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS..             143             143  PRESIDENT
VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS...............              71             300  PRESIDENT
YAZOO BASIN, ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS....           5,995           6,000  PRESIDENT, COCHRAN
YAZOO BASIN, BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER,               196             196  PRESIDENT, COCHRAN
 MS.
YAZOO BASIN, ENID LAKE, MS.........           7,011          10,000  PRESIDENT, COCHRAN
YAZOO BASIN, GREENWOOD, MS.........           1,558           1,500  PRESIDENT, COCHRAN
YAZOO BASIN, GRENADA LAKE, MS......           6,664           8,000  PRESIDENT, COCHRAN
YAZOO BASIN, MAIN STEM, MS.........           2,075           3,000  PRESIDENT, COCHRAN
YAZOO BASIN, SARDIS LAKE, MS.......           7,476          11,000  PRESIDENT, COCHRAN
YAZOO BASIN, TRIBUTARIES, MS.......             818           1,000  PRESIDENT, COCHRAN
YAZOO BASIN, WILL M WHITTINGTON AUX             191             191  PRESIDENT
 CHAN, MS.
YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO BACKWATER AREA,              613             613  PRESIDENT, COCHRAN
 MS.
YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO CITY, MS........             578             578  PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO..             185             185  PRESIDENT
WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO................           4,819           4,819  PRESIDENT, BOND
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN..              81              81  PRESIDENT
MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, TN..           2,866           2,866  PRESIDENT, ALEXANDER, CORKER
MAPPING............................           1,496           1,496  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
ANTICIPATED REDUCTION FOR SAVINGS    ..............         -11,000
 AND SLIPPAGE.
                                    --------------------------------
      TOTAL........................         260,000         375,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 natural 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.

General Investigations

    Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System Land Study, Louisiana.--
The Committee has provided $100,000 to initiate this study as 
recommended in the budget request.
    Morganza to the Gulf, Louisiana.--The Committee has 
provided $4,000,000 to continue Preconstruction Engineering and 
Design for this study.
    Memphis Metro, Storm Water Management Study, Tennessee and 
Mississippi.--The Committee has provided $148,000 to complete 
the reconnaissance phase and initiate feasibility studies.

Construction

    Grand Prairie, Arkansas.--The Committee has provided 
$10,000,000 for continued construction of the project.
    Mississippi River Levees, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, 
Louisisna, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee.--Additional 
funds above the budget request could be used to continue Item 
2, New Madrid levee closure and box culvert and mitigation land 
acquisition for New Madrid levee closure and box culvert; award 
contracts for Reid-Bedford-King, Item 424-L; Magna Vista-
Brunswick, Item 468-L; Bayou Vidal-Elkridge, Item 421-R; 
Carrollton Levee Enlargement; continue Floodway assessments; 
Trotters, Mississippi relief wells; Wilson, Arkansas relief 
wells; Cairo, Illinois Grade Raise and complete LMRMRIS.
    Yazoo Basin, Backwater Pumping Plant, Mississippi.--The 
Committee has provided $10,000,000 to fully fund pump and motor 
contracts and initiate purchase of conservation easements. 
Funds are also provided for the center associated with the 
Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge.
    Yazoo Basin, Delta Headwaters Project, Mississippi.--The 
Committee has provided $20,000,000 to continue construction of 
this project.
    Yazoo Basin, Upper Yazoo Project, Mississippi.--The 
Committee has provided $13,000,000 which could be used to fully 
fund a contract for Item 6B structures; fund a contract for one 
bridge relocation; fund a contract for Item 7 channel; continue 
design of Item 7 and Item 8 channel; purchase project and 
mitigation lands; and reforestation.

Maintenance

    Mississippi River Levees, Arkasnas, Illinois, Kentucky, 
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee.--Funds provided 
above the budget request are to provide gravel surfacing to 
selected locations along roads on top of levees in Arkansas, 
Mississippi, and Louisiana to ensure all weather access for 
flood fights and for other backlog maintenance.
    The Committee has provided additional funding to address 
the maintenance backlog at Arkabutla, Sardis, Enid and Grenada 
Lakes in Mississippi.

                   OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL

Appropriations, 2007....................................  $1,973,347,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................   2,471,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,291,971,000

\1\Excludes emergency appropriation of $3,000,000.

    This appropriation funds operation, maintenance, and 
related activities at the water resources projects that the 
Corps operates and maintains. Work to be accomplished consists 
of dredging, repair, and operation of structures and other 
facilities, as authorized in the various River and Harbor, 
Flood Control, and Water Resources Development Acts. Related 
activities include aquatic plant control, monitoring of 
completed projects where appropriate, removal of sunken 
vessels, and the collection of domestic waterborne commerce 
statistics.
    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. In order to cope with the current fiscal situation, 
the Corps has had to defer or delay scheduled maintenance 
activities.
    The O&M budget request appears to have been increased by 
nearly $500,000,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted amount. 
However this is very misleading. Shifting of projects from the 
CG account to the O&M account totals almost $300,000,000 of the 
$500,000,000 increase to O&M. That still leaves an increase of 
$200,000,000 for traditional O&M projects. The Committee is 
pleased that the administration has provided this increase to 
O&M for fiscal year 2008. This is the first real increase in 
many years. Unfortunately, the Committee notes that the Corps 
maintenance backlog is more than $1,000,000,000 and increases 
by about $100,000,000 annually as the inventory of projects 
ages.
    The Committee has chosen to display the budget request as 
the discreet projects that are the tradition as opposed to the 
regional budget proposed by the administration. Also the 
Committee has chosen to migrate the projects that the 
administration proposed in O&M back to their traditional 
location in the CG account. This makes the actual budget 
request for O&M $2,175,189,000 rather than $2,471,000,000 as 
presented in the budget. A list of these migrated projects is 
displayed under the CG heading earlier in this report.
    Maintenance of our aging water infrastructure inventory 
gets more expensive every year, however, it is consistently 
underfunded. If this trend continues, the Corps will not be 
able to maintain expected levels of service at all of its 
projects. The Committee has maintained its tradition of 
supporting what the budget request terms as ``low use harbors 
and waterways''. The Committee recognizes the importance of 
these facilities and will continue to provide funding for them.

                       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 has provided legislative language 
which changes the current dredge policy.
    The Committee is concerned that lead and asbestos abatement 
measures have been deferred aboard the McFarland due to 
guidance in prior Energy and Water Appropriation Acts and 
uncertainties about its future based on the Corps' report 
recommending its retirement. The Committee is understandably 
skeptical of the findings of this report, particularly in light 
of the GAO study mentioned above. As the McFarland is likely to 
be in continued use for the foreseeable future, the Committee 
believes that addressing these health and safety concerns are 
critical and have provided legislative direction that the 
Revolving Fund be utilized to expeditiously fund lead and 
asbestos abatment.

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

              ALABAMA

ALABAMA--COOSA COMPREHENSIVE WATER              500              500  PRESIDENT
 STUDY, AL.
ALABAMA--COOSA RIVER, AL..........            3,686            3,686  PRESIDENT, SHELBY, SESSIONS
BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE                  20,948           20,948  PRESIDENT, SHELBY
 RIVERS, AL.
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL....            5,102            5,102  PRESIDENT
MILLERS FERRY LOCK AND DAM,                   5,564            5,564  PRESIDENT, SHELBY, SESSIONS
 WILLIAM ``BILL'' DANNELLY LA.
MOBILE HARBOR, AL.................           20,000           20,000  PRESIDENT, SHELBY
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AL.....              125              125  PRESIDENT
ROBERT F HENRY LOCK AND DAM, AL...            5,767            5,767  PRESIDENT, SHELBY
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS,                 99               99  PRESIDENT
 AL.
TENNESSEE--TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY                 1,967            2,000  PRESIDENT, COCHRAN, SHELBY
 WILDLIFE MITIGATION, AL.
TENNESSEE--TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL            21,848           26,848  PRESIDENT, COCHRAN, SHELBY
 & MS.
WALTER F GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL &            7,039            7,039  PRESIDENT
 GA.
WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION,               35               35  PRESIDENT
 AL.

              ALASKA

ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK..............           16,115           16,115  PRESIDENT, STEVENS
CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK.............            2,601            2,601  PRESIDENT, STEVENS
CORDOVA HARBOR, AK................              500              500  PRESIDENT, STEVENS
DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK.............              800              800  PRESIDENT, STEVENS
HOMER HARBOR, AK..................              350              350  PRESIDENT, STEVENS
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK.               55               55  PRESIDENT, STEVENS
KETCHIKAN HARBOR, BAR POINT, AK...              600              600  PRESIDENT, STEVENS
NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK..............              350              350  PRESIDENT, STEVENS
NOME HARBOR, AK...................            1,650            1,650  PRESIDENT, STEVENS
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK.....              525              525  PRESIDENT, STEVENS

              ARIZONA

ALAMO LAKE, AZ....................            1,783            1,783  PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ.               95               95  PRESIDENT
PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ..............            1,217            1,217  PRESIDENT
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS,                 37               37  PRESIDENT
 AZ.
WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ.............              183              183  PRESIDENT

             ARKANSAS

BEAVER LAKE, AR...................            5,204            5,204  PRESIDENT
BLAKELY MT DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR.            8,043            8,043  PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR
BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR............            2,068            2,068  PRESIDENT
BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR..............            6,864            6,864  PRESIDENT, BOND, LINCOLN, PRYOR
DARDANELLE LOCK AND DAM, AR.......            7,006            7,006  PRESIDENT
DEGRAY LAKE, AR...................            9,333            9,333  PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR
DEQUEEN LAKE, AR..................            1,545            1,545  PRESIDENT
DIERKS LAKE, AR...................            1,653            1,653  PRESIDENT
GILLHAM LAKE, AR..................            1,078            1,078  PRESIDENT
GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR.............            6,945            6,945  PRESIDENT
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR              438              438  PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR.              228              228  PRESIDENT
MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER                26,144           29,144  PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR
 NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR.
MILLWOOD LAKE, AR.................            2,360            2,360  PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR
NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR.....            4,179            4,179  PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR
NIMROD LAKE, AR...................            2,484            2,484  PRESIDENT
NORFORK LAKE, AR..................            5,794            5,794  PRESIDENT
OSCEOLA HARBOR, AR................               12              700  PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR
OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR & LA            9,865            9,865  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, LINCOLN, PRYOR,
                                                                       VITTER
OZARK--JETA TAYLOR LOCK AND DAM,              4,855            4,855  PRESIDENT
 AR.
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AR.....                8                8  PRESIDENT
WHITE RIVER, AR...................               30            1,000  PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR
YELLOW BEND PORT, AR..............  ...............              176  LINCOLN, PRYOR

            CALIFORNIA

BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA..............            2,462            2,462  PRESIDENT
BUCHANAN DAM, HV EASTMAN LAKE, CA.            2,257            2,257  PRESIDENT
COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO,            7,165            7,165  PRESIDENT
 CA.
CRESCENT CITY HARBOR, CA..........  ...............              500  FEINSTEIN, BOXER
DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND             6,893            6,893  PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
 CHANNEL, CA.
FARMINGTON DAM, CA................              453              453  PRESIDENT
HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA......            2,415            2,415  PRESIDENT
HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA.......            5,600            5,600  PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA.            1,796            1,796  PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
ISABELLA LAKE, CA.................            1,414            1,414  PRESIDENT
LOS ANGELES--LONG BEACH HARBORS,              2,560            4,560  PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER
 CA.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA,             4,582            4,582  PRESIDENT
 CA.
MARINA DEL REY, CA................            2,550            2,550  PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA.........              351              351  PRESIDENT
MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA..............              290              290  PRESIDENT
MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA..............            1,426            1,426  PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
NAPA RIVER, CA....................  ...............              500  FEINSTEIN
NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA................            2,249            2,249  PRESIDENT
NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM                  1,764            1,764  PRESIDENT
 CHANNEL, CA.
OAKLAND HARBOR, CA................            7,510            7,510  PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA..............            1,115            1,115  PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
PETALUMA RIVER, CA................  ...............              500  FEINSTEIN
PINE FLAT LAKE, CA................            3,395            3,395  PRESIDENT
PINOLE SHOAL MANAGEMENT STUDY, CA.  ...............              500  FEINSTEIN
PORT HUENEME, CA..................            1,309            1,309  PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA.....            2,422            2,422  PRESIDENT
RICHMOND HARBOR, CA...............            7,775            7,775  PRESIDENT
SACRAMENTO RIVER (30 FOOT                     3,078            3,078  PRESIDENT
 PROJECT), CA.
SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES              1,432            1,432  PRESIDENT
 (DEBRIS CONTROL), CA.
SACRAMENTO RIVER SHALLOW DRAFT                  173              173  PRESIDENT
 CHANNEL, CA.
SAN DIEGO HARBOR, CA..............            2,471            2,471  PRESIDENT
SAN FRANCISCO BAY LONG TERM         ...............            1,000  FEINSTEIN
 MANAGEMENT STRATEGY, CA.
SAN FRANCISCO BAY, DELTA MODEL                1,121            1,121  PRESIDENT
 STRUCTURE, CA.
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY, CA              2,805            2,805  PRESIDENT
 (DRIFT REMOVAL).
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA..........            2,793            2,793  PRESIDENT
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, CA.............            3,094            3,094  PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER
SAN PABLO BAY AND MARE ISLAND       ...............            1,000  FEINSTEIN
 STRAIT, CA.
SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA.........            3,455            3,455  PRESIDENT
SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA..........            1,940            1,940  PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS,              1,681            1,681  PRESIDENT
 CA.
SUCCESS LAKE, CA..................            2,156            2,156  PRESIDENT
SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA............            2,825            2,825  PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA.....            2,247            2,247  PRESIDENT
VENTURA HARBOR, CA................            3,695            3,695  PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
YUBA RIVER, CA....................              117              117  PRESIDENT

             COLORADO

BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO...............              283              283  PRESIDENT
CHATFIELD LAKE, CO................            1,013            1,679  PRESIDENT, ALLARD, SALAZAR
CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO.............              612            1,280  PRESIDENT, ALLARD, SALAZAR
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO.              165              165  PRESIDENT
JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO.........            5,723            5,723  PRESIDENT
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS,                713              713  PRESIDENT
 CO.
TRINIDAD LAKE, CO.................            1,158            1,824  PRESIDENT, ALLARD, SALAZAR

            CONNECTICUT

BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT...............              600              600  PRESIDENT
BRIDGEPORT HARBOR DREDGING, CT....  ...............              500  DODD, LIEBERMAN
COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT..........              858              858  PRESIDENT
HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT............              391              391  PRESIDENT
HOP BROOK LAKE, CT................              991              991  PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CT.               90               90  PRESIDENT
LONG ISLAND SOUND DMMP, CT........            2,800            2,800  PRESIDENT
MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT.........              684              684  PRESIDENT
NORTH COVE HARBOR, CT.............  ...............            2,000  LIEBERMAN
NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT.........              490              490  PRESIDENT
NORWALK HARBOR DREDGING             ...............            3,000  DODD, LIEBERMAN
 INITIATIVE, CT.
PATCHOGUE RIVER, WESTBROOK, CT....  ...............              100  DODD, LIEBERMAN
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CT.....            1,000            1,000  PRESIDENT
STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT....              649              649  PRESIDENT
THOMASTON DAM, CT.................              826              826  PRESIDENT
WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT............              681              681  PRESIDENT

             DELAWARE

HARBOR OF REFUGE, LEWES, DE.......  ...............              750  BIDEN, CARPER
INDIAN RIVER INLET AND BAY, SUSSEX  ...............            1,500  BIDEN, CARPER
 COUNTY, DE.
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE R            11,295           13,295  PRESIDENT, MIKULSKI, BIDEN, CARPER, CARDIN
 TO CHESAPEAKE BAY, D.
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, REHOBOTH                  20               20  PRESIDENT
 BAY TO DELAWARE BAY, D.
MISPILLION RIVER, DE..............               20              850  PRESIDENT, BIDEN, CARPER
MURDERKILL RIVER, DE..............               20               20  PRESIDENT
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DE.....              131              131  PRESIDENT
WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE.............            2,683            3,683  PRESIDENT, BIDEN, CARPER

       DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DC.               25               25  PRESIDENT
POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVERS, DC                850              850  PRESIDENT
 (DRIFT REMOVAL).
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DC.....               25               25  PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON HARBOR, DC.............               20               20  PRESIDENT

              FLORIDA

AIWW, NORFOLK, VA TO ST JOHNS                   100              100  PRESIDENT
 RIVER, FL, GA, SC, NC &.
CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL..............            4,880            4,880  PRESIDENT, MARTINEZ
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL..           13,971           13,971  PRESIDENT
EAST PASS CHANNEL, FL.............  ...............              500  BILL NELSON
ESCAMBIA AND CONECUH RIVERS, FL...              930              930  PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON
EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA, SBC               300              300  PRESIDENT
 RESERVATION PLAN, FL.
FERNANDINA HARBOR, FL.............            1,800            1,800  PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL.              300              300  PRESIDENT
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY,                          150            1,000  PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ
 CALOOSAHATCHEE R TO ANCLOTE R,.
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY,                          325            4,000  PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ
 JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI, FL.
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL...........            4,750            4,750  PRESIDENT
JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE               7,553            7,553  PRESIDENT, SHELBY
 SEMINOLE, FL, AL & GA.
MANATEE HARBOR, FL................            2,400            2,400  PRESIDENT, MARTINEZ
MIAMI HARBOR, FL..................               75               75  PRESIDENT
MIAMI RIVER, FL...................            4,500            7,500  PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ
OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL...........            2,017            2,017  PRESIDENT
PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL.............            2,170            2,170  PRESIDENT, MARTINEZ
PANAMA CITY HARBOR, FL............              953              953  PRESIDENT
PENSACOLA HARBOR, FL..............              935              935  PRESIDENT
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL.....            1,075            1,075  PRESIDENT
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL.....            3,650            3,650  PRESIDENT
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS,                 30               30  PRESIDENT
 FL.
TAMPA HARBOR, FL..................            4,250            4,250  PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ
WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION,              300              300  PRESIDENT
 FL.

              GEORGIA

ALLATOONA LAKE, GA................            5,452            5,452  PRESIDENT
APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND               4,045            2,000  PRESIDENT, SHELBY
 FLINT RIVERS, GA, AL &.
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GA              257            1,000  PRESIDENT, CHAMBLISS, ISAKSON
BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA..............            4,993            4,993  PRESIDENT
BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER,            7,960            7,960  PRESIDENT
 GA.
CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA..........            7,445            7,445  PRESIDENT
HARTWELL LAKE, GA & SC............           10,774           10,774  PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED                          50               50  PRESIDENT
 ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, GA.
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA.               48               48  PRESIDENT
J STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA & SC....           10,201           10,201  PRESIDENT
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, GA.....              325              325  PRESIDENT
RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA            7,384            7,384  PRESIDENT
 & SC.
SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA...............           12,906           12,906  PRESIDENT
SAVANNAH RIVER BELOW AUGUSTA, GA..              243              243  PRESIDENT
WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA & AL..           12,147           12,147  PRESIDENT

              HAWAII

BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI..........              218              218  PRESIDENT
HALEIWA HARBOR, OAHU, HI..........  ...............              220  INOUYE
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI.              216              326  PRESIDENT, INOUYE
PORT ALLEN, BREAKWATER REPAIR, HI.  ...............            1,700  INOUYE
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI.....              360              360  PRESIDENT, INOUYE
WAIANAE HARBOR, HI................  ...............              220  INOUYE

               IDAHO

ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID..............            1,614            1,614  PRESIDENT
DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID....            4,073            4,073  PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID.               82               82  PRESIDENT
LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID...............            1,741            1,741  PRESIDENT
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS,                456              456  PRESIDENT
 ID.

             ILLINOIS

CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL & IN.            3,852            3,852  PRESIDENT
CARLYLE LAKE, IL..................            4,443            4,443  PRESIDENT
CHICAGO HARBOR, IL................            1,875            1,875  PRESIDENT
CHICAGO RIVER, IL.................              450              450  PRESIDENT
CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL...  ...............              500  DURBIN
FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL.........              396              396  PRESIDENT
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVR PORTION),             31,379           31,379  PRESIDENT
 IL & IN.
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVS PORTION),              1,929            1,929  PRESIDENT
 IL & IN.
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL.              857              857  PRESIDENT
KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL....            3,175            3,175  PRESIDENT
LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL.......              624              624  PRESIDENT
LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL..............            5,072            5,072  PRESIDENT, DURBIN
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND                 48,425           49,970  PRESIDENT, BOND, GRASSLEY
 MINNEAPOLIS (MVR PORTION).
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND                 26,657           26,657  PRESIDENT, GRASSLEY
 MINNEAPOLIS (MVS PORTION).
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL.....               99               99  PRESIDENT
REND LAKE, IL.....................            4,424            4,424  PRESIDENT
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY               123              123  PRESIDENT
 WATERS, IL.
WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL...............              718              718  PRESIDENT

              INDIANA

BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN...............              945              945  PRESIDENT
BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN.........            3,680            3,680  PRESIDENT
CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN..............              830              830  PRESIDENT
CECIL M HARDEN LAKE, IN...........              916              916  PRESIDENT
INDIANA HARBOR, IN................              760              760  PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN.              300              300  PRESIDENT
J EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN...........            2,022            2,022  PRESIDENT
MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN.............              970              970  PRESIDENT
MONROE LAKE, IN...................              971              971  PRESIDENT
PATOKA LAKE, IN...................              952              952  PRESIDENT
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN.....              177              177  PRESIDENT
SALAMONIE LAKE, IN................              831              831  PRESIDENT
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY               117              117  PRESIDENT
 WATERS, IN.

               IOWA

CORALVILLE LAKE, IA...............            3,169            3,169  PRESIDENT, GRASSLEY
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA.              227              227  PRESIDENT
MISSOURI RIVER--KENSLERS BEND, NE               161              161  PRESIDENT
 TO SIOUX CITY, IA.
MISSOURI RIVER--RULO TO MOUTH, IA,            4,615            6,000  PRESIDENT, BOND, GRASSLEY
 NE, KS & MO.
MISSOURI RIVER--SIOUX CITY TO                 1,889            1,889  PRESIDENT
 RULO, IA & NE.
RATHBUN LAKE, IA..................            3,067            3,067  PRESIDENT, GRASSLEY
RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA            3,650            3,650  PRESIDENT, GRASSLEY
SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA..............            4,308            4,308  PRESIDENT, GRASSLEY

              KANSAS

CLINTON LAKE, KS..................            2,112            2,112  PRESIDENT
COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS............            1,594            1,594  PRESIDENT
EL DORADO LAKE, KS................              402              402  PRESIDENT
ELK CITY LAKE, KS.................            1,063            1,063  PRESIDENT
FALL RIVER LAKE, KS...............            2,489            2,489  PRESIDENT
HILLSDALE LAKE, KS................              871              871  PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KS.              222              222  PRESIDENT
JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS            2,689            2,689  PRESIDENT
KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS................            1,366            1,366  PRESIDENT
MARION LAKE, KS...................            1,671            1,671  PRESIDENT
MELVERN LAKE, KS..................            2,099            2,099  PRESIDENT
MILFORD LAKE, KS..................            2,569            2,569  PRESIDENT
PEARSON--SKUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS            1,047            1,047  PRESIDENT
PERRY LAKE, KS....................            2,252            2,252  PRESIDENT
POMONA LAKE, KS...................            2,174            2,174  PRESIDENT
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS,                 39               39  PRESIDENT
 KS.
TORONTO LAKE, KS..................            1,551            1,551  PRESIDENT
TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS.............            2,406            2,406  PRESIDENT
WILSON LAKE, KS...................            1,667            1,667  PRESIDENT, ROBERTS

             KENTUCKY

BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY &           10,975           10,975  PRESIDENT
 TN.
BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY.............            2,007            2,007  PRESIDENT
BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY..............            1,393            1,393  PRESIDENT
BUCKHORN LAKE, KY.................            1,734            1,734  PRESIDENT
CARR CREEK LAKE, KY...............            1,644            1,644  PRESIDENT
CAVE RUN LAKE, KY.................            1,039            1,039  PRESIDENT
DEWEY LAKE, KY....................            1,704            1,704  PRESIDENT
ELVIS STAHR (HICKMAN) HARBOR, KY..                9                9  PRESIDENT
FISHTRAP LAKE, KY.................            2,162            2,162  PRESIDENT
GRAYSON LAKE, KY..................            1,316            1,316  PRESIDENT
GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY.......            2,294            2,294  PRESIDENT
GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY..............            1,838            1,838  PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY.              237              237  PRESIDENT
KENTUCKY RIVER, KY................               20               20  PRESIDENT
LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY.............            1,587            1,587  PRESIDENT
MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY.............              986              986  PRESIDENT
MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER                    897              897  PRESIDENT
 BASIN, KY.
NOLIN LAKE, KY....................            2,229            2,229  PRESIDENT
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL,           38,861           38,861  PRESIDENT
 IN & OH.
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY,             4,330            4,330  PRESIDENT
 IL, IN & OH.
PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY..............              857              857  PRESIDENT
ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY..............            2,289            2,289  PRESIDENT
TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, FALLS, OF OHIO,               16               16  PRESIDENT
 KY.
TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY.............              955              955  PRESIDENT
WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND,              8,804            9,804  PRESIDENT, MCCONNELL
 KY.
YATESVILLE LAKE, KY...............            1,028            1,028  PRESIDENT

             LOUISIANA

ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS                  6,717           14,000  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, VITTER
 CHENE, BOEUF AND BLACK, L.
BARATARIA BAY WATERWAY, LA........  ...............            1,000  LANDRIEU
BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA........              766              766  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
BAYOU LACOMBE, LA.................  ...............              450  LANDRIEU
BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP            1,273            1,273  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
 WATERWAY, LA.
BAYOU PIERRE, LA..................               35               35  PRESIDENT
BAYOU SEGNETTE WATERWAY, LA.......  ...............              750  LANDRIEU
BAYOU TECHE AND VERMILION RIVER,                 60              270  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
 LA.
BAYOU TECHE, LA...................              209              209  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
CADDO LAKE, LA....................              196              196  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA......           16,108           20,000  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, VITTER
FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA..............            5,570            5,570  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA....           21,851           21,851  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, VITTER
HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA........              135            2,000  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, VITTER
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA.            1,025            1,025  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA...           10,431           12,431  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, VITTER
LAKE PROVIDENCE HARBOR, LA........               25              546  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, VITTER
MADISON PARISH PORT, LA...........                4               81  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
MERMENTAU RIVER, LA...............            1,685            1,685  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT                    290            2,000  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
 VENICE, LA.
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO            59,424           59,424  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
 THE GULF OF MEXICO.
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, LA.....               60               60  PRESIDENT
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA.....            2,000            2,000  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
TANGIPAHOA RIVER, LA..............  ...............              700  LANDRIEU
TCHEFUNCTE RIVER & BOGUE FALIA, LA  ...............              400  LANDRIEU
WALLACE LAKE, LA..................              211              211  PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
WATERWAY FROM EMPIRE TO THE GULF,   ...............            1,500  LANDRIEU
 LA.
WATERWAY FROM INTRACOASTAL          ...............              125  LANDRIEU
 WATERWAY TO BAYOU DULAC, LA.

               MAINE

DISPOSAL AREA MONITORING, ME......            1,100            1,100  PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ME.               20               20  PRESIDENT
NARRAGUAGUS RIVER, ME.............  ...............            1,000  SNOWE, COLLINS
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME.....              760              760  PRESIDENT
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                17               17  PRESIDENT
 WATERS, ME.

             MARYLAND

BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50            16,655           18,655  PRESIDENT, MIKULSKI, CARDIN
 FOOT), MD.
BALTIMORE HARBOR, MD (DRIFT                     335              335  PRESIDENT, MIKULSKI, CARDIN
 REMOVAL).
CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV...              168              168  PRESIDENT
GOOSE CREEK, MD...................  ...............              120  MIKULSKI, CARDIN
HERRING BAY AND ROCKHOLD, MD......  ...............              700  MIKULSKI, CARDIN
HONGA RIVER AND TAR BAY, MD.......  ...............            1,000  MIKULSKI, CARDIN
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD.               40               40  PRESIDENT
JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD & WV...            1,722            1,722  PRESIDENT
OCEAN CITY HARBOR AND INLET AND                 150              150  PRESIDENT
 SINEPUXENT BAY, MD.
PARISH CREEK, MD..................  ...............               60  MIKULSKI, CARDIN
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD.....              380              380  PRESIDENT
RHODES POINT TO TYLERTON, MD......              140              140  PRESIDENT
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS,                 89               89  PRESIDENT
 MD.
TWITCH COVE AND BIG THOROFARE       ...............              140  MIKULSKI, CARDIN
 RIVER, MD.
WICOMICO RIVER, MD................              800              800  PRESIDENT, MIKULSKI, CARDIN

           MASSACHUSETTS

BARRE FALLS DAM, MA...............              922              922  PRESIDENT
BIRCH HILL DAM, MA................              795              795  PRESIDENT
BOSTON HARBOR, MA.................            7,000            7,000  PRESIDENT, KENNEDY, KERRY
BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA..............              637              637  PRESIDENT
CAPE COD CANAL, MA................            9,200            9,200  PRESIDENT
CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY                    358              358  PRESIDENT
 STORAGE AREA, MA.
CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA.............              280              280  PRESIDENT
EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA...........              525              525  PRESIDENT
HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA............              658              658  PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA.              129              129  PRESIDENT
KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA...............              728              728  PRESIDENT
LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA..............              734              734  PRESIDENT
NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET              385              385  PRESIDENT
 HURRICANE BARRIER.
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA.....            1,100            1,100  PRESIDENT
TULLY LAKE, MA....................              852              852  PRESIDENT
WEST HILL DAM, MA.................              767              767  PRESIDENT
WESTVILLE LAKE, MA................              691              691  PRESIDENT

             MICHIGAN

ARCADIA HARBOR, MI................  ...............              159  LEVIN, STABENOW
AU SABLE, MI......................  ...............              214  LEVIN, STABENOW
BAY PORT HARBOR, MI...............  ...............              550  LEVIN, STABENOW
BOLLES HARBOR, MI.................  ...............              388  LEVIN, STABENOW
CASEVILLE HARBOR, MI..............  ...............              114  LEVIN, STABENOW
CHANNELS IN LAKE ST CLAIR, MI.....               90               90  PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW
CHARLEVOIX HARBOR, MI.............              188              188  PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW
CLINTON RIVER, MI.................  ...............              330  LEVIN, STABENOW
CROOKED RIVER LOCK UPGRADES, MI...  ...............              375  LEVIN, STABENOW
DETROIT RIVER, MI.................            5,523            5,523  PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW
FRANKFORT HARBOR, MI..............  ...............              237  LEVIN, STABENOW
GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI............              656              656  PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW
GRAND MARAIS HARBOR, MI...........  ...............            1,500  LEVIN, STABENOW
GRAYS REEF PASSAGE, MI............  ...............              125  LEVIN, STABENOW
HOLLAND HARBOR, MI................              497              497  PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW
INLAND ROUTE, MI..................  ...............              400  LEVIN, STABENOW
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI.              149              149  PRESIDENT
KEWEENAW WATERWAY, MI.............               15              250  PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW
LELAND HARBOR, MI.................  ...............              190  LEVIN, STABENOW
LEXINGTON HARBOR, MI..............  ...............              175  LEVIN, STABENOW
LITTLE LAKE HARBOR, MI............  ...............              311  LEVIN, STABENOW
LUDINGTON HARBOR, MI..............  ...............              500  LEVIN, STABENOW
MANISTEE HARBOR, MI...............              677            1,196  PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW
MARQUETTE HARBOR, MI..............              387              387  PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW
MENOMINEE HARBOR, MI..............  ...............              300  LEVIN, STABENOW
MONROE HARBOR, MI.................  ...............              500  LEVIN, STABENOW
MUSKEGON HARBOR, MI...............              566              566  PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW
NEW BUFFALO HARBOR, MI............  ...............              130  LEVIN, STABENOW
ONTONAGON HARBOR, MI..............              643              643  PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW
PENTWATER HARBOR, MI..............  ...............              163  LEVIN, STABENOW
PETOSKEY HARBOR, MI...............  ...............            3,198  LEVIN, STABENOW
PORT SANILAC HARBOR, MI...........  ...............              150  LEVIN, STABENOW
PORTAGE HARBOR, MI................  ...............              245  LEVIN, STABENOW
PRESQUE ISLE HARBOR, MI...........  ...............              320  PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI.....              184              184  PRESIDENT
ROUGE RIVER, MI...................  ...............              900  LEVIN, STABENOW
SAGINAW RIVER, MI.................            2,148            2,148  PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW
SAUGATUCK HARBOR, MI..............  ...............              315  LEVIN, STABENOW
SEBEWAING RIVER, MI...............  ...............              337  LEVIN, STABENOW
SOUTH HAVEN HARBOR, MI............  ...............              302  LEVIN, STABENOW
ST CLAIR RIVER, MI................            1,515            1,515  PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW
ST JOSEPH HARBOR, MI..............              667              667  PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW
ST MARYS RIVER, MI................           21,999           21,999  PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY             2,806            2,806  PRESIDENT
 WATERS, MI.
WHITE LAKE HARBOR, MI.............  ...............              319  LEVIN, STABENOW

             MINNESOTA

BIGSTONE LAKE WHETSTONE RIVER, MN               242              242  PRESIDENT
 & SD.
DULUTH--SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN & WI..            3,794            3,794  PRESIDENT
HARRIET ISLAND LOWER HARBOR         ...............              100  COLEMAN, KLOBUCHAR
 DREDGING, MN.
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN.              129              129  PRESIDENT
INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES, MN...              105              105  PRESIDENT
LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA                  713              713  PRESIDENT
 RIVER, MN.
MINNESOTA RIVER, MN...............              194              194  PRESIDENT
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND                 53,025           53,025  PRESIDENT
 MINNEAPOLIS (MVP PORTION).
ORWELL LAKE, MN...................              341              341  PRESIDENT
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN.....               70               70  PRESIDENT
RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN............              133              133  PRESIDENT
RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF                   3,700            3,700  PRESIDENT, COLEMAN
 MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN.
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY               223              223  PRESIDENT
 WATERS, MN.
TWO HARBORS, MN...................              368              368  PRESIDENT

            MISSISSIPPI

BILOXI HARBOR, MS.................            1,250            1,250  PRESIDENT
CLAIBORNE COUNTY PORT, MS.........  ...............               63  COCHRAN
EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS....              135              135  PRESIDENT
GULFPORT HARBOR, MS...............            3,559            5,059  PRESIDENT, COCHRAN
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS.              153              153  PRESIDENT
MOUTH OF YAZOO RIVER, MS..........              110              134  PRESIDENT, COCHRAN
OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS................            1,455            1,895  PRESIDENT, COCHRAN
PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS.............            4,646           12,000  PRESIDENT, COCHRAN, LOTT
PEARL RIVER, MS & LA..............              212              212  PRESIDENT
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MS.....              100              100  PRESIDENT
ROSEDALE HARBOR, MS...............               20              600  PRESIDENT, COCHRAN
WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION,               25               25  PRESIDENT
 MS.
YAZOO RIVER, MS...................  ...............              140  COCHRAN

             MISSOURI

CARUTHERSVILLE HARBOR, MO.........               10              500  PRESIDENT, BOND
CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN            5,692            5,692  PRESIDENT, BOND
 LAKE, MO.
CLEARWATER LAKE, MO...............            3,899            3,899  PRESIDENT, BOND
HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR,             9,324            9,324  PRESIDENT, BOND
 MO.
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED                          62               62  PRESIDENT
 ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, MO.
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO.              799              799  PRESIDENT
LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO.......            1,065            1,065  PRESIDENT
LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO..............            1,036            1,036  PRESIDENT
MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO              25,813           25,813  PRESIDENT, BOND
 RIVERS (LOWER RIVER).
NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO.............              783              783  PRESIDENT, BOND
NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO (MILE 889)..  ...............              200  BOND
POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO...........            2,162            2,162  PRESIDENT
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS,                327              327  PRESIDENT
 MO.
SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO...............            1,376            1,376  PRESIDENT
SOUTHEAST MISSOURI PORT, MO.......  ...............              275  BOND
STOCKTON LAKE, MO.................            3,776            3,776  PRESIDENT
TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO...............            6,326            6,326  PRESIDENT, BOND
UNION LAKE, MO....................                6                6  PRESIDENT

              MONTANA

FT PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT..........            4,862            4,862  PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MT.               32               32  PRESIDENT
LIBBY DAM, LAKE KOOCANUSA, MT.....            1,891            1,891  PRESIDENT
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS,                 90               90  PRESIDENT
 MT.

             NEBRASKA

GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK             5,625            5,625  PRESIDENT
 LAKE, NE & SD.
HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE............            2,173            2,173  PRESIDENT, HAGEL
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NE.              117              117  PRESIDENT
PAPILLION CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES                 387              387  PRESIDENT
 LAKES, NE.
PAPIO CREEK, NE...................               40               40  PRESIDENT
SALT CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, NE....              585              585  PRESIDENT

              NEVADA

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV.               48               48  PRESIDENT
MARTIS CREEK LAKE, NV & CA........              812              812  PRESIDENT
PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV              247              247  PRESIDENT
           NEW HAMPSHIRE
BLACKWATER DAM, NH................              779              779  PRESIDENT
COCHECO RIVER, NH.................  ...............            3,000  GREGG
EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH.........              667              667  PRESIDENT
FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH............              749              749  PRESIDENT
HOPKINTON--EVERETT LAKES, NH......            1,281            1,281  PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NH.               28               28  PRESIDENT
OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH..............              802              802  PRESIDENT
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NH.....              233              233  PRESIDENT
SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH...........            1,238            1,238  PRESIDENT

            NEW JERSEY

ABSECON INLET, NJ.................  ...............              145  LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
BARNEGAT INLET, NJ................               54            1,000  PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
COLD SPRING INLET, NJ.............              250              650  PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ......                5                5  PRESIDENT
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO              20,005           20,005  PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, SPECTER, MENENDEZ
 THE SEA, NJ, PA & DE.
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA                870            2,375  PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, SPECTER, MENENDEZ
 TO TRENTON, NJ.
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NJ.              120              123  PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
MANASQUAN RIVER, NJ...............              200              200  PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY,                50            2,110  PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
 NJ.
NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC            3,410            3,410  PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
 RIVERS, NJ.
PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD WARNING                     575              575  PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
 SYSTEMS, NJ.
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NJ.....            1,312            1,312  PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
RARITAN RIVER, NJ.................            3,150            3,150  PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
SALEM RIVER, NJ...................               25               25  PRESIDENT
SHARK RIVER, NJ...................              300              300  PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
SHOAL HARBOR AND COMPTON CREEK, NJ              175              175  PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
SHREWSBURY RIVER, MAIN CHANNEL, NJ              150              150  PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ

            NEW MEXICO

ABIQUIU DAM, NM...................            2,693            3,097  PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
COCHITI LAKE, NM..................            4,493            7,815  PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
CONCHAS LAKE, NM..................            3,533            7,556  PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
GALISTEO DAM, NM..................              899            1,404  PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM.              166            1,060  PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM..............           13,868            2,177  PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
RIO GRANDE BOSQUE REHABILITATION,   ...............            4,000  DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
 NM.
SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM.......            1,711            2,210  PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS,                291              291  PRESIDENT
 NM.
TWO RIVERS DAM, NM................              689              781  PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS             2,270            2,670  PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
 MODEL STUDY, NM.

             NEW YORK

ALMOND LAKE, NY...................              583              583  PRESIDENT
ARKPORT DAM, NY...................              320              320  PRESIDENT
BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA              1,368            1,368  PRESIDENT
 HARBOR, NY.
BRONX RIVER, NY...................  ...............            1,000  SCHUMER, CLINTON
BUFFALO HARBOR, NY................            2,045            2,045  PRESIDENT
BUTTERMILK CHANNEL, NY............              300              300  PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON
EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY...........              480              480  PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON
EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY..............              671              671  PRESIDENT
EASTCHESTER CREEK, NY.............               80               80  PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET,               350            2,000  PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON
 NY.
FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY........              150              150  PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON
GLEN COVE CREEK, NY...............  ...............              350  SCHUMER, CLINTON
GREAT KILLS HARBOR, S.I., NY......  ...............               50  SCHUMER, CLINTON
GREAT SOUTH BAY, NY...............              150              150  PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON
HUDSON RIVER CHANNEL, NY..........               80               80  PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON
HUDSON RIVER, NY (MAINT)..........            3,190            3,190  PRESIDENT
HUDSON RIVER, NY (O&C)............            1,155            1,155  PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY.              809              809  PRESIDENT
JAMAICA BAY, NY...................            3,400            3,400  PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON
JONES INLET, NY...................              100            3,000  PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON
LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR, NY...........              120              120  PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON
LITTLE SODUS BAY HARBOR, NY.......               10               10  PRESIDENT
LONG ISLAND INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY,              280              280  PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON
 NY.
MORICHES INLET, NY................              180              900  PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON
MOUNT MORRIS DAM, NY..............            3,985            3,985  PRESIDENT
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS,             7,960            7,960  PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ, SCHUMER,
 NY.                                                                   CLINTON
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY...............            4,580            4,580  PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ, SCHUMER,
                                                                       CLINTON
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY & NJ (DRIFT               6,145            6,145  PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ, SCHUMER,
 REMOVAL).                                                             CLINTON
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY (PREVENTION OF              950              950  PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ, SCHUMER,
 OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSIT.                                                  CLINTON
PORTCHESTER HARBOR, NY............              100              100  PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY.....            1,516            1,516  PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON
ROCHESTER HARBOR, NY..............               10               10  PRESIDENT
SHINNECOCK INLET, NY..............              210            1,000  PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON
SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL               1,149            1,149  PRESIDENT
 PROJECTS, NY.
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY               496              496  PRESIDENT
 WATERS, NY.
WESTCHESTER CREEK, NY.............               80               80  PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON
WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY............              676              676  PRESIDENT

          NORTH CAROLINA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NC            4,900            7,000  PRESIDENT, DOLE, BURR
B EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC.            1,817            1,817  PRESIDENT
BOGUE INLET, NC...................  ...............              900  DOLE, BURR
CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON,               588              588  PRESIDENT
 NC.
CAROLINA BEACH INLET, NC..........  ...............              600  DOLE, BURR
FALLS LAKE, NC....................            2,013            2,013  PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC.               39               39  PRESIDENT
LOCKWOODS FOLLY RIVER, NC.........  ...............            1,000  DOLE, BURR
MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC.......            7,600           10,600  PRESIDENT, DOLE, BURR
MASONBORO INLET AND CONNECTING                   65              600  PRESIDENT, DOLE, BURR
 CHANNELS, NC.
MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC..........            5,500            5,500  PRESIDENT, DOLE, BURR
NEW RIVER INLET, NC...............              500              500  PRESIDENT, DOLE, BURR
NEW TOPSAIL INLET, NC.............  ...............              900  DOLE, BURR
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC.....              675              675  PRESIDENT
ROLLINSON CHANNEL, NC.............              650              650  PRESIDENT
SILVER LAKE HARBOR, NC............              900              900  PRESIDENT
W KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC            3,050            3,050  PRESIDENT
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC.............           11,200           11,200  PRESIDENT, DOLE, BURR

           NORTH DAKOTA

BOWMAN--HALEY LAKE, ND............              140              140  PRESIDENT
GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND..            9,261           10,411  PRESIDENT, DORGAN
HOMME LAKE, ND....................              176              176  PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND.               91               91  PRESIDENT
INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES, ND...               35               35  PRESIDENT
LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM,              1,289            1,289  PRESIDENT
 ND.
PIPESTEM LAKE, ND.................              185              185  PRESIDENT
PIPESTEM LAKE, ND.................              342              342  PRESIDENT
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS,                120              120  PRESIDENT
 ND.
SOURIS RIVER, ND..................              279              279  PRESIDENT

               OHIO

ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH...............            1,102            1,102  PRESIDENT
ASHTABULA HARBOR, OH..............              900              900  PRESIDENT, VOINOVICH
BERLIN LAKE, OH...................            3,340            3,340  PRESIDENT
CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH.............            2,010            2,010  PRESIDENT
CLARENCE J BROWN DAM, OH..........            2,439            2,439  PRESIDENT
CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH..............            8,310            8,310  PRESIDENT, VOINOVICH
CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH...............              840              840  PRESIDENT
DEER CREEK LAKE, OH...............            1,414            1,414  PRESIDENT
DELAWARE LAKE, OH.................            2,244            2,244  PRESIDENT
DILLON LAKE, OH...................            5,840            5,840  PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH.              338              338  PRESIDENT
LORAIN HARBOR, OH.................            1,040            1,040  PRESIDENT
MASSILLON, OH.....................              155              155  PRESIDENT
MICHAEL J KIRWAN DAM AND                      1,523            1,523  PRESIDENT
 RESERVOIR, OH.
MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH...........            1,729            1,729  PRESIDENT
MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH.........            7,505            7,505  PRESIDENT
NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE,               268              268  PRESIDENT
 OH.
PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH..............            1,746            1,746  PRESIDENT
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH.....              368              368  PRESIDENT
ROSEVILLE, OH.....................               35               35  PRESIDENT
SANDUSKY HARBOR, OH...............            1,050            1,050  PRESIDENT
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY               195              195  PRESIDENT
 WATERS, OH.
TOLEDO HARBOR, OH.................            3,975            3,975  PRESIDENT, VOINOVICH
TOM JENKINS DAM, OH...............              550              550  PRESIDENT
WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH..              701              701  PRESIDENT
WILLIAM H HARSHA LAKE, OH.........            1,341            1,341  PRESIDENT

             OKLAHOMA

ARCADIA LAKE, OK..................              837              837  PRESIDENT, INHOFE
BIRCH LAKE, OK....................              602              602  PRESIDENT, INHOFE
BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK...............            2,168            2,168  PRESIDENT, INHOFE
CANTON LAKE, OK...................            1,604            1,604  PRESIDENT, INHOFE
COPAN LAKE, OK....................            1,118            1,118  PRESIDENT, INHOFE
EUFAULA LAKE, OK..................            5,095            5,095  PRESIDENT, INHOFE
FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK..............            6,536            6,536  PRESIDENT, INHOFE
FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK..............              796              796  PRESIDENT, INHOFE
GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK........              254              254  PRESIDENT, INHOFE
HEYBURN LAKE, OK..................              855              855  PRESIDENT, INHOFE
HUGO LAKE, OK.....................            1,292            1,292  PRESIDENT, INHOFE
HULAH LAKE, OK....................              996              996  PRESIDENT, INHOFE
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OK.              238              238  PRESIDENT
KAW LAKE, OK......................            2,145            2,145  PRESIDENT, INHOFE
KEYSTONE LAKE, OK.................            4,173            4,173  PRESIDENT, INHOFE
MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER                 5,307            5,307  PRESIDENT, INHOFE
 NAVIGATION SYSTEM, OK.
OOLOGAH LAKE, OK..................            2,083            2,083  PRESIDENT, INHOFE
OPTIMA LAKE, OK...................              231              231  PRESIDENT
PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE                 85               85  PRESIDENT
 CHEROKEES, OK.
PINE CREEK LAKE, OK...............            1,197            1,197  PRESIDENT, INHOFE
ROBERT S KERR LOCK AND DAM AND                5,131            5,131  PRESIDENT, INHOFE
 RESERVOIRS, OK.
SARDIS LAKE, OK...................            1,056            1,056  PRESIDENT, INHOFE
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS,                868              868  PRESIDENT
 OK.
SKIATOOK LAKE, OK.................            1,743            1,743  PRESIDENT, INHOFE
TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK..........            3,700            3,700  PRESIDENT, INHOFE
WAURIKA LAKE, OK..................            1,371            1,371  PRESIDENT, INHOFE
WEBBERS FALLS LOCK AND DAM, OK....            3,783            3,783  PRESIDENT, INHOFE
WISTER LAKE, OK...................              760              760  PRESIDENT, INHOFE

              OREGON

APPLEGATE LAKE, OR................              901              901  PRESIDENT
BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR...............              400              400  PRESIDENT
BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA..           15,176           15,176  PRESIDENT
CHETCO RIVER, OR..................              443              443  PRESIDENT, WYDEN, SMITH
COLUMBIA & LWR WILLAMETTE R BLW              25,212           25,512  PRESIDENT, MURRAY, WYDEN, SMITH
 VANCOUVER, WA & PORTLA.
COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR &            12,050           14,820  PRESIDENT, MURRAY, WYDEN, SMITH
 WA.
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER,               484              484  PRESIDENT
 WA AND THE DALLES, O.
COOS BAY, OR......................            3,967            3,967  PRESIDENT, WYDEN, SMITH
COQUILLE RIVER, OR................              275              275  PRESIDENT, WYDEN, SMITH
COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR............              968              968  PRESIDENT
COUGAR LAKE, OR...................            1,324            1,324  PRESIDENT
DETROIT LAKE, OR..................            1,285            1,285  PRESIDENT
DORENA LAKE, OR...................            1,044            1,044  PRESIDENT
FALL CREEK LAKE, OR...............            1,099            1,099  PRESIDENT
FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR...............            1,379            1,379  PRESIDENT
GREEN PETER--FOSTER LAKES, OR.....            1,646            1,646  PRESIDENT
HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR..............              816              816  PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED                          43               43  PRESIDENT
 ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, OR.
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR.              174              174  PRESIDENT
JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA....            4,686            4,686  PRESIDENT
LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR............            1,632            1,632  PRESIDENT
LOST CREEK LAKE, OR...............            3,134            3,134  PRESIDENT
MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA......            5,711            5,711  PRESIDENT
PORT ORFORD, OR...................              333              333  PRESIDENT, WYDEN, SMITH
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR.....              150              150  PRESIDENT
ROGUE RIVER AT GOLD BEACH, OR.....              462              462  PRESIDENT, WYDEN, SMITH
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS,                 64               64  PRESIDENT
 OR.
SIUSLAW RIVER, OR.................              520              520  PRESIDENT, WYDEN, SMITH
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY               400              400  PRESIDENT
 WATERS, WA.
TILLAMOOK BAY AND BAR, OR.........  ...............            2,000  WYDEN, SMITH
UMPQUA RIVER, OR..................              974              974  PRESIDENT, WYDEN, SMITH
WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE                   80              258  PRESIDENT, WYDEN, SMITH
 FALLS, OR.
WILLAMETTE RIVER BANK PROTECTION,                62               62  PRESIDENT
 OR.
WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR.............              617              617  PRESIDENT
YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR........            1,348            1,348  PRESIDENT, WYDEN, SMITH
YAQUINA RIVER, OR.................  ...............              400  WYDEN, SMITH

           PENNSYLVANIA

ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA...............            7,039            7,039  PRESIDENT, CASEY
ALVIN R BUSH DAM, PA..............              813              813  PRESIDENT
AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA.........              320              320  PRESIDENT
BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA...............            2,457            2,457  PRESIDENT
BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA...............            3,115            3,115  PRESIDENT
CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA..........            1,630            1,630  PRESIDENT
COWANESQUE LAKE, PA...............            2,326            2,326  PRESIDENT
CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA............            1,457            1,457  PRESIDENT
CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA.............              805              805  PRESIDENT
EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA            1,682            1,682  PRESIDENT
FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA......              805              805  PRESIDENT
FRANCIS E WALTER DAM, PA..........            1,286            1,286  PRESIDENT
GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND                    372              372  PRESIDENT
 RESERVOIR, PA.
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA.              456              456  PRESIDENT
JOHNSTOWN, PA.....................            1,247            1,247  PRESIDENT
KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY                      1,377            1,377  PRESIDENT
 RESERVOIR, PA.
LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA...............            1,166            1,166  PRESIDENT
MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA...........            2,408            2,408  PRESIDENT
MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA.............           17,170           17,170  PRESIDENT
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, PA, OH            24,723           24,723  PRESIDENT
 & WV.
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, PA,               520              520  PRESIDENT
 OH & WV.
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA.....               85               85  PRESIDENT
PROMPTON LAKE, PA.................              792              792  PRESIDENT
PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA..................              786              786  PRESIDENT
RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA.................            4,420            4,420  PRESIDENT
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS,                 63               63  PRESIDENT
 PA.
SCHUYLKILL RIVER, PA..............              150            1,500  PRESIDENT, SPECTER
SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA...........            3,002            3,002  PRESIDENT
STILLWATER LAKE, PA...............              572              572  PRESIDENT
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                87               87  PRESIDENT
 WATERS, PA.
TIOGA--HAMMOND LAKES, PA..........            2,760            2,760  PRESIDENT
TIONESTA LAKE, PA.................            2,216            2,216  PRESIDENT
UNION CITY LAKE, PA...............              320              320  PRESIDENT
WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA...........              956              956  PRESIDENT
YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA..........              632              632  PRESIDENT
YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA & MD..            2,149            2,149  PRESIDENT

           RHODE ISLAND

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, RI.               22               22  PRESIDENT
POINT JUDITH HARBOR OF REUGE, RI..  ...............              200  REED, WHITEHOUSE
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, RI.....              400              400  PRESIDENT
WARWICK COVE, RI..................  ...............              200  REED, WHITEHOUSE

          SOUTH CAROLINA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC              872            3,872  PRESIDENT, GRAHAM
CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC.............            9,342            9,342  PRESIDENT, GRAHAM
COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR,              3,982            3,982  PRESIDENT, GRAHAM
 SC.
FOLLY RIVER, SC...................  ...............              500  GRAHAM
GEORGETOWN HARBOR, SC.............            3,360            3,360  PRESIDENT, GRAHAM
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC.               60               60  PRESIDENT
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC.....              593              593  PRESIDENT

           SOUTH DAKOTA

BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD.....            7,996            7,996  PRESIDENT
CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER   ...............            3,000  JOHNSON, THUNE
 BRULE SIOUX, SD.
COLD BROOK LAKE, SD...............              237              237  PRESIDENT
COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD.......              174              174  PRESIDENT
FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS                7,533            7,533  PRESIDENT
 CASE, SD.
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SD.               25               25  PRESIDENT
LAKE TRAVERSE, SD & MN............              570              570  PRESIDENT
MISSOURI R BETWEEN FORT PECK DAM                150              150  PRESIDENT
 AND GAVINS PT, SD, MT.
OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD & ND......            9,079            9,379  PRESIDENT, DORGAN
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS,                 54               54  PRESIDENT
 SD.

             TENNESSEE

CENTER HILL LAKE, TN..............            5,431            5,431  PRESIDENT
CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN.........            7,095            7,095  PRESIDENT
CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TENNESSEE RIVER,            1,140            1,140  PRESIDENT, ALEXANDER, CORKER
 TN.
CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN            5,298            5,298  PRESIDENT
DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN..............            6,414            6,414  PRESIDENT, ALEXANDER, CORKER
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN.               35               35  PRESIDENT
J PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR,             4,240            4,240  PRESIDENT
 TN.
OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN......            8,156            8,156  PRESIDENT
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TN.....                2                2  PRESIDENT
TENNESSEE RIVER, TN...............           22,264           22,264  PRESIDENT, SHELBY
WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN.............              251              251  PRESIDENT

               TEXAS

AQUILLA LAKE, TX..................              944              944  PRESIDENT
ARKANSAS--RED RIVER BASINS                    1,410            1,410  PRESIDENT
 CHLORIDE CONTROL--AREA VI.
BARBOUR TERMINAL CHANNEL, TX......              188              188  PRESIDENT
BARDWELL LAKE, TX.................            2,168            2,168  PRESIDENT
BAYPORT SHIP CHANNEL, TX..........              188              188  PRESIDENT
BELTON LAKE, TX...................            3,227            3,227  PRESIDENT
BENBROOK LAKE, TX.................            2,498            2,498  PRESIDENT
BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TX..........  ...............            1,000  CORNYN
BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX.            6,272            6,272  PRESIDENT
CANYON LAKE, TX...................            3,219            3,219  PRESIDENT
CHANNEL TO PORT BOLIVAR, TX.......              569              569  PRESIDENT
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX...           10,597           10,597  PRESIDENT
DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX......            7,415            7,415  PRESIDENT, INHOFE
ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL                    1                1  PRESIDENT
 PROJECT, TX.
FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O' THE              3,251            3,251  PRESIDENT
 PINES, TX.
FREEPORT HARBOR, TX...............            5,735            5,735  PRESIDENT, CORNYN
GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX..           20,567           20,567  PRESIDENT
GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX..........            2,336            2,336  PRESIDENT
GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX................            3,047            3,047  PRESIDENT
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX....           24,161           25,000  PRESIDENT, HUTCHISON
HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX..............            1,336            1,336  PRESIDENT
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX..........           14,442           17,221  PRESIDENT, HUTCHISON, CORNYN
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX.              713              713  PRESIDENT
JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX..............            1,748            1,748  PRESIDENT
JOE POOL LAKE, TX.................              785              785  PRESIDENT
LAKE KEMP, TX.....................              617              617  PRESIDENT
LAVON LAKE, TX....................            2,595            2,595  PRESIDENT
LEWISVILLE DAM, TX................            3,780            3,780  PRESIDENT
MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX........            8,713            8,713  PRESIDENT, HUTCHISON
NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX............            2,266            2,266  PRESIDENT
NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE                2,007            2,007  PRESIDENT
 GEORGETOWN, TX.
O C FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX.......              871              871  PRESIDENT
PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX................            1,049            1,049  PRESIDENT
PROCTOR LAKE, TX..................            2,347            2,347  PRESIDENT
RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX..............            1,421            1,421  PRESIDENT
SABINE--NECHES WATERWAY, TX.......           12,612           12,612  PRESIDENT
SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX.            4,229            4,229  PRESIDENT
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS,                196              196  PRESIDENT
 TX.
SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX...............            3,932            3,932  PRESIDENT
STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX.........            1,912            1,912  PRESIDENT
TEXAS CITY SHIP CHANNEL, TX.......            4,587            4,587  PRESIDENT
TEXAS WATER ALLOCATION ASSESSMENT,              100            1,000  PRESIDENT, HUTCHISON, CORNYN
 TX.
TOWN BLUFF DAM, B A STEINHAGEN                3,081            3,081  PRESIDENT
 LAKE, TX.
WACO LAKE, TX.....................            2,669            2,669  PRESIDENT
WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX..............            2,358            2,358  PRESIDENT
WHITNEY LAKE, TX..................            6,493            6,493  PRESIDENT
WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX....            3,610            3,610  PRESIDENT

               UTAH

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT.               50               50  PRESIDENT
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS,                695              695  PRESIDENT
 UT.

              VERMONT

BALL MOUNTAIN LAKE, VT............              988              988  PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VT.               55               55  PRESIDENT
NARROWS OF LAKE CHAMPLAIN, VT & NY               80               80  PRESIDENT
NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT...........            1,229            1,229  PRESIDENT
NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT........              951              951  PRESIDENT
TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT................              965              965  PRESIDENT
UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT.............              695              695  PRESIDENT

             VIRGINIA

APPOMATTOX RIVER, VA..............  ...............              750  WARNER, WEBB
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--              1,795            1,795  PRESIDENT
 ACC, VA.
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--                561            1,619  PRESIDENT, WARNER, WEBB
 DSC, VA.
CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA............              650              650  PRESIDENT
GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA.            2,019            2,019  PRESIDENT
HAMPTON RDS, NORFOLK & NEWPORT                  897              897  PRESIDENT
 NEWS HBR, VA (DRIFT REM.
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA.              243              243  PRESIDENT
JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA...........            4,320            4,320  PRESIDENT
JOHN H KERR LAKE, VA & NC.........           11,102           11,102  PRESIDENT
JOHN W FLANNAGAN DAM AND                      1,730            1,730  PRESIDENT
 RESERVOIR, VA.
LITTLE WICOMICO RIVER, VA.........              100              100  PRESIDENT
NORFOLK HARBOR, VA................           10,687           10,687  PRESIDENT, WARNER, WEBB
NORFOLK HARBOR, VA (PREVENTION OF               210              210  PRESIDENT
 OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS.
NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA              435              435  PRESIDENT
ONANCOCK RIVER, VA................  ...............            1,400  WARNER, WEBB
PHILPOTT LAKE, VA.................            4,875            4,875  PRESIDENT
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA.....              860              860  PRESIDENT
RUDEE INLET, VA...................            1,023            1,023  PRESIDENT, WARNER, WEBB
TYLERS BEACH, VA..................              200              200  PRESIDENT
WATERWAY ON THE COAST OF VIRGINIA,              190              190  PRESIDENT
 VA.
YORK RIVER, VA....................               50               50  PRESIDENT

            WASHINGTON

CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA..............              814              814  PRESIDENT
COLUMBIA RIVER AT BAKER BAY, WA &   ...............              500  MURRAY, CANTWELL
 OR.
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN CHINOOK AND  ...............              500  MURRAY
 SAND ISLAND, WA.
EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH                  1,637            1,637  PRESIDENT, MURRAY, CANTWELL
 RIVER, WA.
GRAYS HARBOR AND CHEHALIS RIVER,              8,705            8,705  PRESIDENT
 WA.
HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA.............            3,615            3,615  PRESIDENT
ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA.......            4,052            4,052  PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED                          65               65  PRESIDENT
 ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, WA.
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA.              320              320  PRESIDENT
LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA....            5,952            5,952  PRESIDENT, CANTWELL
LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, WA.....            1,467            1,467  PRESIDENT
LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, WA....            3,944            3,944  PRESIDENT
LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA.            3,202            3,202  PRESIDENT, CRAPO
MILL CREEK LAKE, WA...............            1,539            1,539  PRESIDENT
MT ST HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA.              278              278  PRESIDENT
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA..............            3,830            3,830  PRESIDENT, MURRAY, CANTWELL
NEAH BAY, WA......................               33               33  PRESIDENT
PORT TOWNSEND, WA.................              275              275  PRESIDENT
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA.....              447              447  PRESIDENT
PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS,               910              910  PRESIDENT
 WA.
QUILLAYUTE RIVER, WA..............               66               66  PRESIDENT
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS,                515              515  PRESIDENT
 WA.
SEATTLE HARBOR, WA................               55               55  PRESIDENT
STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA...........              182              182  PRESIDENT
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                64               64  PRESIDENT
 WATERS, WA.
SWINOMISH CHANNEL, WA.............  ...............              500  MURRAY, CANTWELL
TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA........              146              146  PRESIDENT
THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM, WA & OR..            3,978            3,978  PRESIDENT
WILLAPA RIVER AND HARBOR, WA......               34               34  PRESIDENT

           WEST VIRGINIA

BEECH FORK LAKE, WV...............            1,236            1,236  PRESIDENT
BLUESTONE LAKE, WV................            2,592            2,592  PRESIDENT
BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV...............            1,987            1,987  PRESIDENT
EAST LYNN LAKE, WV................            1,799            1,799  PRESIDENT
ELKINS, WV........................               13               13  PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV.              121              121  PRESIDENT
KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV..           10,293           10,293  PRESIDENT
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY            31,709           31,709  PRESIDENT
 & OH.
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, WV,             2,541            2,541  PRESIDENT
 KY & OH.
R D BAILEY LAKE, WV...............            1,994            1,994  PRESIDENT
STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV........            1,120            1,120  PRESIDENT
SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV.............            1,696            1,696  PRESIDENT
SUTTON LAKE, WV...................            1,962            1,962  PRESIDENT
TYGART LAKE, WV...................            3,753            3,753  PRESIDENT

             WISCONSIN

EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI..........              789              789  PRESIDENT
FOX RIVER, WI.....................            2,135            4,535  PRESIDENT, KOHL
GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI..............            2,845            4,970  PRESIDENT, KOHL
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WI.               42               42  PRESIDENT
KEWAUNEE HARBOR, WI...............                8                8  PRESIDENT
MILWAUKEE HARBOR, WI..............            1,519            1,519  PRESIDENT
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WI.....              108              108  PRESIDENT
STURGEON BAY, WI..................               20               20  PRESIDENT
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY               487              487  PRESIDENT
 WATERS, WI.
TWO RIVERS HARBOR, WI.............  ...............            2,000  KOHL

              WYOMING

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WY.               16               16  PRESIDENT
JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY...........              332              332  PRESIDENT
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS,                 88               88  PRESIDENT
 WY.
                                   ----------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, PROJECTS LISTED           2,083,432        2,237,653
       UNDER STATES.

REMAINING ITEMS:
    AQUATIC NUISANCE CONTROL                    690              690  PRESIDENT
     RESEARCH.
    ASSET MANAGEMENT/FACILITIES               4,000            4,000  PRESIDENT
     AND EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE.
    BUDGET/MANAGEMENT SUPPORT FOR             5,365            5,365  PRESIDENT
     O&M BUSINESS LINES.
    CHIEF'S 12 ACTIONS............            8,737            8,737  PRESIDENT
    COASTAL INLET RESEARCH PROGRAM            2,475            2,475  PRESIDENT
    CULTURAL RESOURCES (NAGPRA/               1,500            1,500  PRESIDENT
     CURATION).
    DREDGE WHEELER READY RESERVE..            8,000            8,000  PRESIDENT
    DREDGING DATA AND LOCK                    1,062            1,062  PRESIDENT
     PERFORMANCE MONITORING SYSTEM.
    DREDGING OPERATIONS AND                   6,080            6,080  PRESIDENT
     ENVIRONMENTAL R.
    DREDGING OPERATIONS TECHNICAL             1,391            1,391  PRESIDENT
     SUPPORT PROGRAM.
    EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION                270              270  PRESIDENT
     PROGRAM.
    FACILITY PROTECTION...........           12,000           12,000  PRESIDENT
    GREAT LAKES SEDIMENT TRANSPORT              900              900  PRESIDENT
     MODEL.
    HARBOR MAINTENANCE FEE DATA                 725              725  PRESIDENT
     COLLECTION.
    INLAND WATERWAY NAVIGATION                3,708            3,708  PRESIDENT
     CHARTS.
    INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS.            1,780            1,780  PRESIDENT
    MONITORING OF COASTAL                     1,575            1,575  PRESIDENT
     NAVIGATION PROJECTS.
    NATIONAL COASTAL MAPPING......            4,000           10,000  PRESIDENT, COCHRAN
    NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM...           10,000           10,000  PRESIDENT
    NATIONAL EMERGENCY                        5,000            5,000  PRESIDENT
     PREPAREDNESS (NEPP).
    NATIONAL NATURAL RESOURCES                3,296            3,296  PRESIDENT
     MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES.
    NATIONAL PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT               300              300  PRESIDENT
     FOR REALLOCATION.
    PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT TECHNICAL               300              300  PRESIDENT
     SUPPORT.
    PROTECTION OF NAVIGATION--                  500              500  PRESIDENT
     REMOVAL OF SUNKEN VESSELS.
    PROTECTION OF NAVIGATION--                   50               50  PRESIDENT
     STRAIGHTENING OF CHANNELS.
    RECREATIONONESTOP(R1S)                    1,130            1,130  PRESIDENT
     NATIONAL RECREATION
     RESERVATION.
    REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT              1,391            4,391  PRESIDENT, INOUYE, CARDIN, DOLE, BURR,
     PROGRAM.                                                          WYDEN, SMITH, REED, WHITEHOUSE, SCHUMER
    RELIABILITY MODELS PROGRAM FOR              608              608  PRESIDENT
     MAJOR REHAB.
    WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL                  653              653  PRESIDENT
     SUPPORT (WOTS).
    WATERBORNE COMMERCE STATISTICS            4,271            4,271  PRESIDENT
                                   ----------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL FOR ITEMS NOT                 91,757          100,757
       LISTED UNDER STATES.
REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS   ...............          -46,439
 AND SLIPPAGE.
                                   ----------------------------------
      TOTAL, OPERATION AND                2,175,189        2,291,971
       MAINTENANCE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Alabama and Mississippi.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $26,848,000. Funds provided 
above the budget request are provided for the construction of 
mooring cells near Columbus, Mississippi for safety of tows 
tying up during high water levels.
    Helena Harbor, Arkansas.--The Committee includes $438,000 
for maintenance dredging of this harbor.
    McClellan-Kerr, Arkansas River Navigation System, Arkansas 
and Oklahoma.--An additional $3,000,000 is provided above the 
budget request to begin Planning, Engineering and Design [PED] 
for the Arkansas/White Cutoff project and to complete repairs 
on the Jim Smith Lake Structure, south end.
    Crescent City, California.--The Committee has provided 
$500,000 for dredging.
    Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor, California.--An additional 
$2,000,000 is provided for dredging the Los Angeles River 
Estuary.
    Cherry Creek, Chatfield, and Trinidad Lakes, Colorado.--The 
Committee has included an additional $2,000,000 for continued 
repairs at these three lakes. 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 of the operation and maintenance of these recreation 
facilities. Of the funds provided, the Corps is directed to 
conduct a reallocation study for Chatfield Reservoir project.
    Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, 
Delaware and Maryland.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$13,295,000 for this project. Additional funds provided above 
the budget request are for repairs to the Summit Bridge.
    Intracoastal Waterway, Caloosahatchee to Anclote, 
Florida.--The Committee provides $1,000,000 for maintenance 
dredging.
    Intracoastal Waterway, Jacksonville to Miami, Florida.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000 for maintenance 
dredging.
    Miami River, Florida.--The Committee provides $7,500,000 
for continued operations and maintenance of the Miami River 
Channel. This project will provides the first maintenance 
dredging of the Miami River since its original authorization in 
1930.
    Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Georgia.--$1,000,000 is 
provided for dredging critical areas of this waterway as well 
as for work related to new upland disposal sites.
    Port Allen Breakwater Repair, Hawaii.--The Committee 
includes $1,700,000 for the breakwater repair.
    Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Illinois.--The Committee 
has provided $500,000 for maintenance of the Asian Carp 
Barriers.
    Mississippi River Between Missouri River and Minneapolis 
(MVR Portion), Illinois.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$49,970,000. Additional funds are provided for backlogged 
maintenance.
    Missouri River--Rulo to the Mouth, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, 
and Missouri.--Additional funds provided above the budget 
request are for dike repairs.
    Wolf Creek Dam, Lake Cumberland, Kentucky.--The Committee 
notes that Lake Cumberland has been drastically lowered for on-
going seepage/stability correction repairs to Wolf Creek Dam. 
Additional funds provided above the budget request are for pool 
lowering mitigation features.
    Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf and Black, 
Louisiana.--The Committee has provided an additional funds for 
maintenance dredging activities.
    Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana.--The Committee 
provides additional funding for maintenance dredging of this 
channel.
    J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Louisiana.--The Committee 
recommendation includes an additional $2,000,000 for bank 
stabilization repairs, dredging entrances to oxbow lakes, 
routine operation and maintenance activities, annual dredging 
requirements, and backlog maintenance.
    Herring Bay and Rockhold Creek, Maryland.--The Committee 
recommendation includes funds to dredge this project.
    Boston Harbor, Massachusetts.--The Committee has provided 
$7,000,000 for dredging in the Harbor.
    Michigan Harbors, Michigan.--The Committee notes that there 
are some 30 federally maintained harbors in Michigan. However, 
the Committee also notes that fewer than 10 are budgeted. The 
Committee has attempted to provide for some of the dredging 
needs of the State. However, recognizing that conditions on 
these harbors are constantly changing and that the Great Lakes 
are continuing to suffer from historic low water levels, the 
Committee is directing the Corps to propose a dredging program 
for fiscal year 2008 that would most effectively utilize the 
scarce funds available for these harbor projects. This plan 
should be presented within 30 days of enactment of this act as 
a reprogramming action for approval by the House and Senate 
Appropriation Committees.
    Grand Marais Harbor, Michigan.--The Committee provides 
$1,500,000 to continue construction of the replacement 
breakwater.
    Mouth of the Yazoo River, Mississippi.--The Committee 
includes additional funds for the maintenance dredging of the 
entrance to Vicksburg Harbor.
    Pascagoula Harbor, Mississippi.--The Committee has provided 
$12,000,000 for this project. Additional funds above the budget 
request are to perform maintenance dredging of the Bar Channel, 
the Pascagoula River and Bayou Casotte channels.
    Rosedale Harbor, Mississippi.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $600,000 for maintenance dredging of the harbor.
    Cocheco River, New Hampshire.--The Committee provides 
$3,000,000 continue dredging of the Cocheco River project.
    Rio Grande Bosque Rehabilitation, New Mexico.--The 
Committee includes $4,000,000 to continue fire reduction work 
and general Bosque rehabilitation in order to complete repairs 
and fire protection resulting from 2003 and 2004 fires in the 
urban interface.
    Upper Rio Grande Water Operations Model, New Mexico.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $500,000 to develop an 
outline for an integrated management plan of the Rio Grande in 
New Mexico in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation.
    Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, North Carolina.--The 
Committee includes an additional $2,100,000 for dredging of the 
project.
    Manteo (Shallowbag Bay), North Carolina.--The Committee 
includes additional funds for dredging of the project.
    Garrison Dam and Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota.--The 
Committee provides $200,000 for mosquito control, $950,000 for 
the Corps to work in cooperation with the Friends of Lake 
Sakakawea to ensure the recreation sites around the lake can be 
utilized.
    Columbia River at the Mouth, Oregon and Washington.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $14,820,000 for the project. 
Additional funds above the budget request are to initiate a 
design documentation report to serve as supporting information 
for plans and specifications for the major rehabilitation of 
the jetties and to repair a foredune at the North Jetty that 
breached during the winter storms of 2007.
    Cheyenne River Siuox Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux, South 
Dakota.--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 provides 
$3,000,000 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.
    Oahe Dam, Lake Oahe, South Dakota and North Dakota.--The 
Committee has provided additional funds above the budget 
request to allow the Corps to modify public facilities so that 
they can be utilized with the extreme low water levels 
currently being experienced on the lake.
    Houston Ship Channel, Texas.--The Committee includes an 
additional $2,779,000 for additional dredging and dredging 
related activities.
    Texas Water Allocation Study, Texas.--The Committee 
provides $1,000,000 for this ongoing study.
    Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway-DSC, Virginia.--The 
Committee has provided additional operation and maintenance 
funds for the project.
    Chinook, Head of Sand Island and Baker Bay, Washington.--
The conferees note the proximity of Corps navigation facilities 
on the Columbia River between Chinook and the Head of Sand 
Island, Washington, and at Baker Bay, Washington, and encourage 
the Corps of Engineers to seek ways to achieve cost savings and 
efficiency, such as by utilizing appropriate contracting 
methods while having these two projects be considered together 
when seeking bids and awarding contracts.
    Mud Mountain Dam, Washington.--Within the funds provided, 
the Corps is directed to use up to $903,000 to satisfy Federal 
fish passage obligations for the term of the cooperative 
agreement with Puget Sound Energy.
    Fox River, Wisconsin.--Additional funds above the budget 
request are to reimburse Wisconsin, in accordance with the 
agreement, for the costs of repairs and rehabilitation of the 
transferred locks and for the Corps of Engineers to undertake 
major repairs for the dams and associated infrastructure.
    Chief's 12 Actions.--The Committee has provided the 
Administration's request for this item. The Committee believes 
that these funds can serve to make significant improvements to 
the way the Corps administers completed projects to account for 
changed conditions since construction.
    National Coastal Mapping.--$10,000,000 is provided for this 
program. Additional funds provided above the budget request are 
for LIDAR bathymetry for use in regional sediment management 
and for Coastal Zone Mapping and Imaging LIDAR/LASER to be 
conducted with the University of Southern Mississippi.
    Regional Sediment Management Demonstration Program.--The 
Committee has provided $4,391,000 for this program, $3,000,000 
above the budget request. Within the funds provided, the Corps 
is directed to undertake studies for the southeast coast of 
Oahu, Hawaii; the State of North Carolina; South Jetty and 
Clatsop Spit, Oregon; South Coastal Rhode Island; and for Long 
Island, New York coastal planning.

                 FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

Appropriations, 2007....................................................
Budget estimate, 2008...................................     $40,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      50,000,000

\1\Excludes emergency appropriation of $1,561,000,000.

    The Committee has included $50,000,000 for the FCCE 
account. This account provides funds for preparedness 
activities for natural and other disasters, response, and 
emergency flood fighting and rescue operations, hurricane 
response, and emergency shore protection work. It also provides 
for emergency supplies of clean water where the source has been 
contaminated or where adequate supplies of water are needed for 
consumption.
    The Committee has provided an additional $10,000,000 in 
this account to continue the National Flood Inventory rather 
than authorize the work to be carried out in the General 
Investigations Account as proposed by the administration. The 
National Flood Inventory was initiated in this account through 
supplemental funding following Hurricane Katrina. It is an 
interagency effort to improve management of the Nation's flood 
and storm damage reduction infrastructure. To date, work has 
consisted of data collection and development of an assessment 
methodology specific to levees and floodwalls. The COE has also 
worked with the Federal Emergency Management agency on issues 
such as risk communication and revisions to the Corps' 
Rehabilitation and Inspection program. The recommended funds 
will be used to continue development of the inventory of both 
Federal and non-Federal projects, to initiate testing of a risk 
assessment methodology for levees and floodwalls, to begin 
preliminary identification of ``high risk'' levees and other 
for other associated items. The Committee directs that outyear 
funding should be budgeted in this account unless specific 
authorization is enacted for this study in a Water Resource 
Development Act.

                           REGULATORY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2007....................................    $159,273,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................     180,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     180,000,000

    An appropriation of $180,000,000 is recommended for the 
regulatory program of the Corps of Engineers.
    This appropriation provides for salaries and costs incurred 
administering regulation of activities affecting U.S. waters, 
including wetlands, in accordance with the Rivers and Harbors 
Act of 1899 33 U.S.C. section 401, the Clean Water Act of 1977 
Public Law 95-217, and the Marine Protection, Research and 
Sanctuaries Act of 1972 Public Law 92-532.
    The appropriation helps maintain program performance, 
protects important aquatic resources, and supports partnerships 
with States and local communities through watershed planning 
efforts.
    The Committee is aware that the Corps of Engineers has 
begun a pilot program aimed at streamlining decisions for 
certain complex, high impact permit applications which have 
national or large regional implications. Specifically, we 
understand this program is focusing on projects related to rail 
capacity expansion, highway construction and pipelines where 
knowledge and experience gained in one district can be shared 
with other districts facing similar challenges, thus promoting 
efficiencies, the development and sharing of ``best 
practices,'' and use of virtual or dedicated teams to expedite 
broad-impact permit applications. Since the Committee continues 
to be concerned about the permit application backlog and delays 
in making permit decisions, it fully supports this effort and 
encourages the Corps to dedicate even more attention and expand 
its efforts to an even greater extent in developing and using 
this pilot program to minimize negative impacts of the backlog 
and resulting delays, especially where there are significant 
impacts to the nation's economy and environmental health. The 
Committee further supports the three emphasis areas selected 
for the pilot program as it believes them to be critical 
elements of a healthy, expanding economy which must be 
vigorously developed, but in an environmentally sound manner.
    The Committee is keenly aware that U.S. economic health and 
national security depends on the continued availability of 
reliable and affordable energy. The Committee is also aware 
that the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Regulatory Branch 
plays a key role by authorizing much of the 1.13 billion tons 
of coal production expected this year through its regulatory 
program.
    Therefore, the Committee directs the Corps to work with the 
Office of Surface Mining [OSM] to develop a more efficient 
process for issuing permits associated with surface coal mining 
operations. To avoid unnecessary time delays and duplication of 
agency resources, the Corps shall maintain the availability of 
a meaningful general permit for surface coal mining that may be 
issued in coordination with and for the term of the permit 
already required pursuant to the Surface Mining Control and 
Reclamation Act [SMCRA]. The Corps should also dedicate 
sufficient personnel and financial resources to support a 
consistent program for permit review and issuance.

            FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2007....................................    $138,672,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................     130,000,000
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 2005.
    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. The Committee directs the Corps to prioritize 
sites that are nearing completion during fiscal year 2008.

                            GENERAL EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007....................................    $167,250,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................     177,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     175,000,000

    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 $175,000,000. The Committee rejects 
the proposal to include the Office of the Assistant Secretary 
of the Army (Civil Works) within the GE account. The Committee 
continues to believe that the office should be funded in the 
Defense Appropriations Act due to the other Army related duties 
of the Assistant Secretary's office and directs that it be 
funded in the Department of Defense, Operation and 
Maintenance--Army budget account in future budgets. However, 
the Committee recognizes that this office will likely be funded 
in this bill this year. The Committee believes that if the 
Secretary's office is going to be funded in this bill, it 
should be funded in a separate account. The Committee's 
recommendation includes funding for this office under a 
separate account.
    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, analyses, and develops planning techniques for the 
management and development of the Nation's water resources.
    United States Army Corps of Engineers Finance Center.--This 
center provides centralized support for all Corps finance and 
accounting.
    Office of Congressional Affairs.--The Committee 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. The Corps is reminded that General Expense 
funds are appropriated solely for the executive management and 
oversight of the Civil Works Program under the direction of the 
Director of Civil Works.
    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' 
civil works 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 continue to provide biannual written 
notification of the dispersal of general expense funds.
    Millions of dollars have been spent over the last several 
years on an initiative to contract out Government jobs in order 
to make the Government more efficient. However, in more than 70 
percent of the cases Government employees win the competition 
for their jobs. The Committee fails to see any evidence of cost 
savings or increased efficiency by undergoing these expensive 
competitions. Therefore, the Committee directs that no funds 
provided in this account or otherwise available for expenditure 
shall be used to comply with the competitive sourcing 
initiative.
    The Committee acknowledges that the General Expense account 
has not kept pace with inflation. Over the last 6 years this 
account has fluctuated. The low point was in fiscal year 2000, 
when the account was funded at $149,500,000 for a 
$4,100,000,000 program. The high point was in fiscal year 2005, 
when the account was funded at $167,000,000 for a 
$4,700,000,000 program. Both of these numbers represent about 
3.6 percent of the total dollars appropriated. The Committee 
recommendation for the fiscal year 2007 program is about 
$5,450,000,000. Using the same percentage, this translates to 
more than $196,000,000 for the GE account for fiscal year 2007. 
Obviously other variables must be considered than a single 
percentage, but it is one way to approximate the level of 
funding needed in the GE account to provide similar levels of 
service.
    While the Committee recommendation did not provide 
$192,000,000 for the GE account, it did increase the account by 
$3,000,000 to $175,000,000. These additional funds are provided 
in recognition of the heavier workload of the Corps 
Headquarters offices resulting from recent budget increases 
unrelated to hurricane Katrina. The costs for overseeing the 
New Orleans area are temporary and are being addressed in 
current budgets. The additional funds are provided for the 
recent budget increases to the Corps' program and that the 
recognition by this Committee that effective oversight of the 
Corps' program was being endangered by the lean budgets of the 
last few years. The Committee believes that these additional 
funds should be used to hire an additional 15-20 positions and 
that these additional positions should continue to be budgeted 
for in future budget submissions.

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

Appropriations, 2007....................................................
Budget estimate, 2008...................................................
Committee recommendation................................      $4,500,000

    The Committee has recommended $4,500,000 for the Office of 
the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) [OASA(CW)]. 
As has been previously stated, the Committee believes that this 
office should be funded through the Defense appropriations bill 
and directs the administration to budget for this office under 
the Department of Defense, Operation and Maintenance--Army 
account in future budget submissions. The Committee continues 
to believe that the ASA(CW) has neither the time nor should he 
be involved in the day-to-day operational matters of the civil 
works program. It is the Committee's opinion that the 
traditional role of the ASA(CW) is to provide the Chief of 
Engineers advice about policy matters and generally be the 
political spokesperson for the administration's policies; 
however, the Chief of Engineers is responsible for carrying out 
the program. This is underscored by the administration's budget 
documents that state that the OASA(CW) provides policy 
direction and oversight for the civil works program and the 
Headquarters of the Corps provides executive direction and 
management of the civil works program.
    The decisions of fiscal year 2005 through 2007 to fund the 
expenses of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil 
Works through Energy and Water appropriations were an 
experiment in striving for management improvements in the Civil 
Works program. The desired management improvements can be and 
are being achieved but, based on the experience of these 3 
years, it is apparent that funding the Assistant Secretary's 
office out of Energy and Water appropriations, rather than the 
military appropriation that funds the rest of the Army 
Secretariat, is neither necessary to achieve these improvements 
nor is it an efficient way to fund the office.
    The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works advises 
the Secretary of the Army on a variety of matters, including 
the Civil Works program of the Corps of Engineers. The 
Assistant Secretary is a member of the Army Secretariat with 
responsibilities, such as participating in Continuity of 
Government exercises that extend well beyond Civil Works. The 
Assistant Secretary also oversees the administration, operation 
and maintenance, and capital development of Arlington National 
Cemetery and the Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery. 
Congressional oversight of the Army Cemetery program lies not 
with the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, but 
rather with the Appropriation Subcommittee on Military 
Construction and Veterans Affairs and with the Committee on 
Veterans Affairs.
    The Assistant Secretary has broad responsibilities to 
oversee the Support for Others program of the Corps of 
Engineers, totaling nearly $2,400,000,000 in fiscal year 2005. 
Through this program, the Corps provides reimbursable 
engineering and construction services for more than 70 other 
Federal agencies and, under certain conditions specified in 
law, provides services for States, localities and tribes. The 
Assistant Secretary also has oversight over Corps international 
activities that are not directly in support of U.S. military 
forces overseas. These include more than $500,000,000 in design 
and construction for the Defense Department's Foreign Military 
Sales program and more than $150,000,000 in vertical 
construction for the Department of State's Cooperative Threat 
Reduction program. Oversight of domestic activities includes 
support for the Department of Homeland Security (in both 
national security activities and emergency response under the 
Stafford Act in support of the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency), the Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund 
program, the Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration, and many other agencies.
    The Army's accounting system does not track OMA funding of 
overhead or Army-wide support offices on the basis of which 
office receives support, nor would it be efficient or effective 
to do so for a 20 person office. Instead, expenses such as 
legal support, personnel services, finance and accounting 
services, the executive motor pool, travel on military 
aircraft, and other support services are centrally funded and 
managed on a department-wide basis. Transferring the funding 
for the expenses of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works to 
a separate account has greatly complicated the Army's 
accounting for such indirect and overhead expenses with no 
commensurate benefit to justify the change. The Committee does 
not agree that these costs should be funded in this bill and 
therefore has only provided funding for salaries and expenses 
as in previous years.

             GENERAL PROVISIONS--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL

    Section 101. The bill includes language concerning 
reprogramming guidelines.
    Section 102. The bill includes language prohibiting 
implementation of competitive sourcing or HPO.
    Section 103. The bill includes language prohibiting the 
divesting or transferring Civil Works functions.
    Section 104. The bill includes language prohibiting any 
steps to dismantle the St. Georges Bridge in Delaware. (Biden, 
Carper)
    Section 105. The bill includes language concerning report 
notifications.
    Section 106. The bill includes language concerning 
reallocations in Lake Cumberland, Kentucky. (McConnell)
    Section 107. The bill includes language regarding the Lower 
Mud River, Milton, West Virginia, project. (Byrd)
    Section 108. The bill includes language allowing the use of 
the revolving fund for construction of two buildings at the 
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Design Center. (Cochran)
    Section 109. The bill includes language concerning 
cooperative agreements. (Domenici)
    Section 110. The bill includes language concerning in-kind 
services for the Rio Grande Basin Watershed study. The 
provision allows for local sponsors of this project to be 
reimbursed for overpayment of the non-Federal share of the 
costs of the study. (Domenici)
    Section 111. The bill includes language regarding the 
Middle Rio Grande Collaborative Program, New Mexico. (Domenici)
    Section 112. The bill includes language regarding 
Apalachiacola, Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers and Alabama, 
Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. 
(Shelby)
    Section 113. The bill includes language regarding the Rio 
De Flag, Arizona, project. The provision increases the cost 
ceiling on this ongoing project to allow progress on te project 
to continue uninterrupted. (Kyl)
    Section 114. The bill includes language regarding Avian 
Predation in the Columbia River Fish Mitigation project. The 
provision increases the authorization of funding to allow 
continued work on aviation predation. (Murray)
    Section 115. The bill includes language regarding the Santa 
Ana, California, project. The provision increases the cost 
ceiling for the project in order to allow incorporation of the 
replacement of an aging wastewater line to be incorporated as a 
project feature. The line is endangered by bank erosion caused 
by other features of the Santa Ana project. (Feinstein)
    Section 116. The bill includes language regarding the Upper 
Guadalupe, California, project. The provision increases the 
cost ceiling on this ongoing project to allow progress on te 
project to continue uninterrupted. (Feinstein)
    Section 117. The bill includes language concerning the 
conveyance of surplus property in Tate County, Mississippi. 
(Cochran)
    Section 118. The bill includes a modification to section 
594 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The 
modification provides authority for North Dakota to be eligible 
for this assistance. (Dorgan)
    Section 119. The bill includes language regarding the 
Kahuku Storm Damage Reduction Project, Hawaii. This provision 
allows the Corps to initiate PED and to include interior 
drainage improvements as part of the project. (Inouye)
    Section 120. The bill includes language regarding the 
Federal dredge fleet.
    Section 121. The bill includes language regarding the 
Federal dredge fleet.
    Section 122. The bill includes language regarding the 
Federal dredge fleet.
    Section 123. The bill includes language concerning Missouri 
River mitigation. The provision authorizes provision of 
facilities at Intake Dam for endangered species recovery. 
(President, Baucus, Tester)
    Section 124. The bill includes language limiting Corps of 
Engineers expenditure on a project.
    Section 125. The bill includes language repealing a 
sections of Public Law 109-103 pertaining to continuing 
contracts.
    Section 126. The bill includes language concerning the 
Shore Line Erosion Control Development and Demonstration 
Program. This provision extends the authorization and will 
allow the Corps to expend funds that have been previously 
appropriated to complete on going projects and continue 
monitoring of completed projects.
    Section 127. The bill includes language regarding 
congressional budget justifications.
    Section 128. The bill includes language regarding a 
replacement health care facility at Lake Sakakawea, North 
Dakota. (Dorgan)
    Section 129. The bill includes language regarding 
reimbursements. This provision increases the limits allowed on 
certain reimbursements for work undertaken by local interests.
    Section 130. The bill includes language regarding Johnson 
Creek, Texas. This amends the previous authorization for the 
flood control project. (Hutchison)
    Section 131. The bill includes language regarding McAlpine 
Lock and Dam. The provision increases the cost ceiling on this 
ongoing project to allow progress on te project to continue 
uninterrupted. (President, McConnell)
    Section 132. The bill includes a provision concerning 
reimbursement for expenses incurred by locals carrying out 
portions of authorized Federal flood and storm damage reduction 
projects. (Landrieu, Vitter)
    Section 133. The bill includes language regarding crediting 
of non-Federal expenditures on the San Lorenzo River, 
California project. (Feinstein)
    Section 134. The bill includes a provision regarding the 
Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers Enhancement Project. 
(Bond)
    Section 135. The bill includes a provision concerning 
Nogales Wash, Arizona. The provision increases the cost ceiling 
on this ongoing project to allow progress on the project to 
continue uninterrupted. (Kyl)
    Section 136. The bill includes a provision concerning 
Tucson Drainage Area, Arizona. The provision increases the cost 
ceiling on this ongoing project to allow progress on the 
project to continue uninterrupted. (Kyl)
    Section 137. The bill includes a provision on the Coronado, 
California project. The provision allows the local project 
sponsor credit for work undertaken prior to a project 
cooperation agreement. (Feinstein)
    Section 138. The bill includes a provision concerning the 
Rural Utah [EI], Utah project. The provision increases the cost 
ceiling on this ongoing project to allow progress on the 
project to continue uninterrupted. (Bennett)
    Section 139. Te bill includes a provision for the Navajo 
Reservation, Arizona, Utah and New Mexico project. This 
provision modifies the project by allowing the non-Federal 
share to be in the form of in-kind services. (Domenici)
    Section 140. The bill contains a provision concerning the 
Connecticut River Watershed Study, New Hampshire, Connecticut, 
Massachusetts and Vermont. The provision allows The Nature 
Conservancy to serve as the non-Federal sponsor of the study. 
(Lieberman, Gregg)
    Section 141. The bill contains a provision concerning the 
Asian carp barriers on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, 
Illinois. (President, Durbin, Obama, Levin. Stabenow)
    Section 142. The bill contains a funding limitation on a 
project.
    Section 143. The bill contains a provision concerning the 
visitor reservation services for Corps of Engineers recreation 
sites.
    Section 144. The bill includes a provision concerning 
Marshall, Minnesota project. The provision increases the cost 
ceiling on this completed ongoing project allowing the Corps to 
do the final fiscal closeouts of the project. (Coleman, 
Klobuchar)
    Section 145. The bill includes a provision concerning the 
St. John's-New Madrid Floodway, Missouri. The provision makes 
the St. John's-New Madrid project a part of the Mississippi 
River Levees project. (Bond)
    Section 146. The bill contains a provision concerning the 
Southeast Louisiana, Louisiana project. The provision 
recognizes the Southeast Louisiana project as an integral part 
of the project to provide 100-year level of protection to 
certain areas of the New Orleans metropolitan area. (Landrieu)
    Section 147. The bill contains a provision allowing funds 
provided in Public Law 110-28 to be utilized for the purposes 
for which they were appropriated.

                                TITLE II

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                Central Utah Project Completion Account

Appropriations, 2007....................................     $34,020,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................      43,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      43,000,000

    The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2008 to carry 
out the provisions of the Central Utah Project Completion Act 
totals $43,000,000. An appropriation of $40,404,000 has been 
provided for Central Utah project construction; $976,000 for 
fish, wildlife, and recreation, mitigation and conservation. 
The Committee recommendation provides $1,620,000 for program 
administration and oversight.
    Legislative language in the bill that accompanies this 
report allows up to $1,500,000 to be used for administrative 
costs. The one time increase in administrative expenses is to 
provide funding for costs associated with securing new office 
space and relocating the Commission's office in fiscal year 
2007.
    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, 2007....................................    $878,623,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................     816,197,000
Committee recommendation................................     950,106,000

\1\Includes Emergency Supplemental Appropriations of $18,000,000.

    An appropriation of $950,106,000 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.
    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.
    It has been nearly 10 years since the Committee addressed 
reprogramming guidance for Reclamation. The Committee believes 
that Reclamation is managing funds in the appropriate manner, 
but thinks that it would be prudent to reiterate the 
guidelines. The guidelines are as follows:
    The Bureau is permitted to transfer, without prior 
congressional approval and without regard to percentage 
limitation, not more than $5,000,000 in any one case to provide 
adequate funds for settled contractor claims, increased 
contractor earnings due to accelerated rates of operations, and 
real estate deficiency judgments, provided that such 
reprogramming is necessary to discharge legal obligations of 
the Bureau of Reclamation.
    As to each project within the Resources Management and 
Development category for which $2,000,000 or more is available 
at the beginning of the fiscal year, the Bureau is permitted to 
transfer to such project in that fiscal year no more than 15 
percent of the amount available at the beginning of the fiscal 
year for such project, without prior congressional approval. As 
to each project within the Resources Management and Development 
category for which less than $2,000,000 is available at the 
beginning of the fiscal year, the Bureau is permitted to 
transfer to such project no more than $300,000 in that fiscal 
year without prior congressional approval.
    The Bureau is further permitted to transfer funds within 
the Facility Operation, Maintenance and Rehabilitation category 
without prior congressional approval and without regard to 
percentage or dollar limitation. The Bureau may not transfer, 
without prior congressional approval, more than $500,000 from 
either the Facilities Operation, Maintenance and Rehabilitation 
category or the Resources Management and Development category 
to any project in the other category. The Bureau is prohibited 
from initiating any program, project or activity through an 
internal reprogramming action.

                         DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS

    The Committee received more than 130 requests for projects, 
programs, studies or activities for the Bureau of Reclamation 
for fiscal year 2008. These were items that were in addition to 
the budget request as well as those included in the budget 
request. The Committee obviously was unable to accommodate all 
of these requests.
    In the interest of providing full disclosure of funding 
provided in the Energy and Water bill, all disclosures are made 
in this report accompanying the bill.
    All of the projects funded in this report have gone through 
the same rigorous public review and approval process as those 
proposed for funding by the President. The difference in these 
projects, of course, is that the congressionally directed 
projects are not subject to the artificial budgetary 
prioritization criteria that the administration utilizes to 
decide what not to fund.
    A new column has been added to the tables to show the 
requestors of the various projects. For those programs, 
projects, or studies that were included in the budgetary 
documents provided in the budget request, the word President 
has been added to denote this administration request. The level 
of funding provided for each of these programs projects or 
studies should not be construed as what was requested. Rather, 
the only intent is to disclose the requestor.
    It should be noted that many line items only have President 
listed as the requestor. It should not be inferred that the 
affected members are not interested in these projects studies 
or activities. Rather this is due to Committee direction that 
the President's budget requests are assumed to be requested by 
the affected Members unless they notify the Committee to the 
contrary.
    The purposes for the funding provided in the various 
accounts is described in the paragraphs associated with each 
account. The location of the programs, projects or studies are 
denoted in the account tables.
    The amounts recommended by the Committee are shown on the 
following table along with the budget request.

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

                    ARIZONA

AK CHIN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT....  ..........       8,700  ..........       8,700  PRESIDENT
CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT, COLORADO RIVER BASIN..      26,961         218      27,811         218  PRESIDENT, KYL, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE SYSTEM.....       3,312  ..........       3,312  ..........  PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
NORTHERN ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM........         385  ..........         385  ..........  PRESIDENT
PHOENIX METROPOLITAN WATER REUSE PROJECT.......         200  ..........         200  ..........  PRESIDENT
SALT RIVER PROJECT.............................         360         240         360         240  PRESIDENT
SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE WATER SETTLEMENT ACT...         310  ..........         310  ..........  PRESIDENT
SOUTH/CENTRAL ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...         915  ..........         915  ..........  PRESIDENT
SOUTHERN ARIZONA WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT          4,445  ..........       4,445  ..........  PRESIDENT
 PROJECT.
YUMA AREA PROJECTS.............................       1,652      21,257       1,652      21,257  PRESIDENT
YUMA EAST WETLANDS.............................  ..........  ..........       1,500  ..........  KYL

                   CALIFORNIA

CACHUMA PROJECT................................       1,071         640       1,821         640  PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM..............         460  ..........         460  ..........  PRESIDENT
CALLEGUAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT RECYCLING            900  ..........         900  ..........  PRESIDENT
 PLANT.
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECTS:
    AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION....................       1,903       7,725       1,903       7,725  PRESIDENT
    AUBURN-FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT...................       4,723         100       4,723         100  PRESIDENT
    DELTA DIVISION.............................      11,818       5,830      11,818       5,830  PRESIDENT
    EAST SIDE DIVISION.........................       1,551       2,903       1,551       2,903  PRESIDENT
    FRIANT DIVISION............................       2,261       3,686       3,761       4,261  PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
    MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS.............      12,697       1,083      14,697       1,083  PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
    REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND EXTRAORDINARY   ..........      19,410  ..........      19,410  PRESIDENT
     MAINT.
    SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION..................       6,522       1,506       6,522       1,506  PRESIDENT
    SAN FELIPE DIVISION........................         891          29         891          29  PRESIDENT
    SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION.......................         327  ..........         327  ..........  PRESIDENT
    SHASTA DIVISION............................         584       7,957         584       7,957  PRESIDENT
    TRINITY RIVER DIVISION.....................       7,329       3,133       9,329       3,133  PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
    WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS.................       1,407       8,874       1,407       8,874  PRESIDENT
    WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS UNIT...       3,460       6,504       3,460       6,504  PRESIDENT
    YIELD FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION............         562  ..........         562  ..........  PRESIDENT
IRVINE BASIN GROUND AND SURFACE WATER            ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........  FEINSTEIN
 IMPROVEMENT.
LAKE TAHOE REGIONAL WETLANDS...................  ..........  ..........       2,300  ..........  REID
LONG BEACH AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE             600  ..........         600  ..........  PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
 PROJECT.
LONG BEACH DESALINATION RESEARCH AND                    250  ..........         250  ..........  PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
 DEVELOPMENT PROJ.
NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY AREA WATER RECYCLING           1,500  ..........       1,500  ..........  PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
 PROJECT.
ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL WATER RECLAMATION              1,500  ..........       1,500  ..........  PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
 PROJECT, PHAS.
ORLAND PROJECT.................................          15         702          15         702  PRESIDENT
SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT....................         300  ..........         300  ..........  PRESIDENT
SAN DIEGO AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE            3,450  ..........       3,450  ..........  PRESIDENT
 PROGRAM.
SAN GABRIEL BASIN PROJECT......................         700  ..........         700  ..........  PRESIDENT
SAN JOSE AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE               200  ..........         200  ..........  PRESIDENT
 PROGRAM.
SOLANO PROJECT.................................       1,452       2,533       1,452       2,533  PRESIDENT
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.....         190  ..........         237  ..........  PRESIDENT
VENTURA RIVER PROJECT..........................         402          56         402          56  PRESIDENT

                    COLORADO

ANIMAS-LA PLATA PROJECT, CRSP..................      57,750         250      63,000         250  PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, ALLARD, SALAZAR, BINGAMAN
COLLBRAN PROJECT...............................         172       1,321         172       1,321  PRESIDENT
COLORADO-BIG THOMPSON PROJECT..................         370      11,319         370      11,319  PRESIDENT
COLORADO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM................         304  ..........         304  ..........  PRESIDENT
FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT.......................          57         151          57         151  PRESIDENT
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT.....................         172       8,897         172       8,897  PRESIDENT
GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II............         144       1,014         144       1,014  PRESIDENT
LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY..............          36       1,994          36       1,994  PRESIDENT
MANCOS PROJECT.................................          51         101          51         101  PRESIDENT
PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II..........          62       2,501          62       2,501  PRESIDENT
PINE RIVER PROJECT.............................         124         145         124         145  PRESIDENT
SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT........................         272       4,715         272       4,715  PRESIDENT
UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT............................         108         132         108         132  PRESIDENT
UPPER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS................         200  ..........         200  ..........  PRESIDENT

                     HAWAII

HAWAII RECLAIMATION PROJECTS--LAHAINA..........  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........  INOUYE

                     IDAHO

BOISE AREA PROJECTS............................       2,420       2,743       2,420       2,743  PRESIDENT
COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY             15,000  ..........      15,000  ..........  PRESIDENT
 PROJECT.
IDAHO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...................         331  ..........         331  ..........  PRESIDENT
LEWISTON ORCHARDS PROJECTS.....................         576          27         576          27  PRESIDENT
MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS.........................       3,029       2,720       3,029       2,720  PRESIDENT

                     KANSAS

KANSAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM..................          72  ..........          72  ..........  PRESIDENT
WICHITA-CHENEY PROJECT.........................           8         419           8         419  PRESIDENT
WICHTITA PROJECT--EQUUS BEDS DIVISION..........  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........  ROBERTS

                    MONTANA

FORT PECK RESERVATION/DRY PRAIRIE RURAL WATER    ..........  ..........      10,000  ..........  BAUCUS, TESTER
 SYSTEM.
HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT...........................  ..........         913  ..........         913  PRESIDENT
HUNTLEY PROJECT................................          56         105          56         105  PRESIDENT
LOWER YELLOWSTONE PROJECT......................         235          65         235          65  PRESIDENT
MILK RIVER PROJECT.............................         471       1,255         471       1,255  PRESIDENT
MONTANA INVESTIGATIONS.........................          23  ..........          23  ..........  PRESIDENT
ROCKY BOYS/NORTH CENTRAL MONTANA RURAL WATER     ..........  ..........       6,000  ..........  BAUCUS, TESTER
 SYSTEM.
SUN RIVER PROJECT..............................         108         262         108         262  PRESIDENT

                    NEBRASKA

MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT...........................          29         111          29         111  PRESIDENT
NEBRASKA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM................           8  ..........           8  ..........  PRESIDENT

                     NEVADA

HALFWAY WASH PROJECT STUDY.....................         175  ..........         175  ..........  PRESIDENT
LAHONTAN BASIN PROJECT.........................       4,875       3,704       4,875       3,704  PRESIDENT
LAKE MEAD/LAS VEGAS WASH PROGRAM...............         900  ..........       2,750  ..........  PRESIDENT, REID, ENSIGN
NORTH LAS VEGAS WATER REUSE....................  ..........  ..........       3,000  ..........  REID

                   NEW MEXICO

ALBUQUERQUE METRO AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND     ..........  ..........       1,500  ..........  DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
 REUSE.
CARLSBAD PROJECT...............................       2,231         660       3,181         660  PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
CHIMAYO WATER PLAN.............................  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........  DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
EASTERN NEW MEXICO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAMS.....          38  ..........          38  ..........  PRESIDENT, DOMENICI
EASTERN NEW MEXICO WATER REUSE.................  ..........  ..........         500  ..........  DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
EASTERN NEW MEXICO RURAL WATER SUPPLY..........  ..........  ..........         500  ..........  DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT......................      12,005      11,195      20,655      18,895  PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
NAVAJO-GALLUP WATER SUPPLY, NM, UT, CO.........  ..........  ..........         500  ..........  DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
NAVAJO NATION INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...........          84  ..........          84  ..........  PRESIDENT, DOMENICI
PECOS RIVER BASIN WATER SALVAGE PROJECT........  ..........         197  ..........         197  PRESIDENT, DOMENICI
RIO GRANDE PROJECT.............................         833       3,683         833       3,683  PRESIDENT, DOMENICI
SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM....         133  ..........         133  ..........  PRESIDENT, DOMENICI
SANTA FE BUCKMAN DIVERSION, NM.................  ..........  ..........         500  ..........  DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO/WEST TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS           140  ..........         140  ..........  PRESIDENT, DOMENICI
 PROGRAM.
TUCUMCARI PROJECT..............................          23          10          23          10  PRESIDENT, DOMENICI
UPPER RIO GRANDE BASIN INVESTIGATIONS..........          76  ..........          76  ..........  PRESIDENT, DOMENICI

                  NORTH DAKOTA

DAKOTAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.................         204  ..........         204  ..........  PRESIDENT
PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN--GARRISON DIVERSION        15,495       4,725      64,275       4,725  PRESIDENT, DORGAN
 UNIT.

                    OKLAHOMA

ARBUCKLE PROJECT...............................          51         137          51         137  PRESIDENT
MCGEE CREEK PROJECT............................          42         568          42         568  PRESIDENT
MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT..........................          15         400          15         400  PRESIDENT
NORMAN PROJECT.................................          16         387          16         387  PRESIDENT
WASHITA BASIN PROJECT..........................          26       1,467          26       1,467  PRESIDENT
W.C. AUSTIN PROJECT............................          18         357          18         357  PRESIDENT

                     OREGON

BURNT, MALHEUR, OWYHEE, AND POWER RIVER BASIN    ..........  ..........         300  ..........  WYDEN, SMITH
 WATER OPTIMAZATION FEASIBILITY STUDY.
CROOKED RIVER PROJECT..........................         426         548         426         548  PRESIDENT
DESCHUTES PROJECT..............................         264         172         264         172  PRESIDENT
EASTERN OREGON PROJECTS........................         521         289         521         289  PRESIDENT
KLAMATH PROJECT................................      23,605       1,395      23,605       1,395  PRESIDENT
OREGON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM..................         232  ..........         732  ..........  PRESIDENT, WYDEN, SMITH
ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT DIVISION.....         851         490         851         490  PRESIDENT
SAVAGE RAPIDS DAM REMOVAL......................      15,000  ..........      15,000  ..........  PRESIDENT
TUALATIN BASIN WATER SUPPLY PROJECT............  ..........  ..........         250  ..........  WYDEN, SMITH
TUALATIN PROJECT...............................         125         243         125         243  PRESIDENT
TUALATIN PROJECT TITLE TRANSFER AND FACILITY     ..........  ..........         400  ..........  WYDEN, SMITH
 ASSESMENT STUDY.
UMATILLA PROJECT...............................         957       2,689         957       2,689  PRESIDENT

                  SOUTH DAKOTA

LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM.............      15,000  ..........      28,000  ..........  PRESIDENT, JOHNSON, HARKIN, GRASSLEY, COLEMAN
                                                                                                  KLOBUCHAR, THUNE
MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT.................  ..........          15  ..........          15  PRESIDENT
MNI WICONI PROJECT.............................      19,474       9,526      30,909       9,526  PRESIDENT, JOHNSON, THUNE
PERKINS COUNTY RURAL WATER SYSTEM, SD..........  ..........  ..........       1,500  ..........  JOHNSON, THUNE
RAPID VALLEY PROJECT, DEERFIELD DAM............  ..........          74  ..........          74  PRESIDENT

                     TEXAS

BALMORHEA PROJECT..............................          41          17          41          17  PRESIDENT
CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT.........................          72          72          72          72  PRESIDENT
DALLAS-TRINITY WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE       ..........  ..........         500  ..........  HUTCHISON
 STUDY.
LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY WATER RESOURCES........          50  ..........       3,500  ..........  PRESIDENT, HUTCHISON
NUECES RIVER PROJECT...........................          29         718          29         718  PRESIDENT
SAN ANGELO PROJECT.............................          10         331          10         331  PRESIDENT
TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...................         114  ..........         114  ..........  PRESIDENT

                      UTAH

HYRUM PROJECT..................................         120          33         120          33  PRESIDENT
MOON LAKE PROJECT..............................           3          29           3          29  PRESIDENT
NEWTON PROJECT.................................          54          25          54          25  PRESIDENT
NORTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...........          76  ..........         576  ..........  PRESIDENT, BENNETT
OGDEN RIVER PROJECT............................         160          92         160          92  PRESIDENT
PARK CITY FEASIBILLTY STUDY....................  ..........  ..........         500  ..........  BENNETT
PROVO RIVER PROJECT............................         553         314         553         314  PRESIDENT
SCOFIELD PROJECT...............................          56          37          56          37  PRESIDENT
SOUTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...........         114  ..........         114  ..........  PRESIDENT
STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT......................         204          16         204          16  PRESIDENT
WEBER BASIN PROJECT............................       1,546         421       1,546         421  PRESIDENT
WEBER RIVER PROJECT............................          48          69          48          69  PRESIDENT

                   WASHINGTON

COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT.........................       3,658       8,299       5,658       8,299  PRESIDENT, MURRAY, CANTWELL
MAKAH INDIAN COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY............  ..........  ..........         300  ..........  MURRAY
ODESSA SUBAREA SPECIAL STUDY...................         185  ..........       1,185  ..........  PRESIDENT, MURRAY, CANTWELL
STORAGE DAM FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY.....         400  ..........         400  ..........  PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON AREA PROJECTS.......................          82          10          82          10  PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM..............         138  ..........         138  ..........  PRESIDENT
YAKIMA PROJECT.................................       1,155       6,789       1,155       6,789  PRESIDENT
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT...       8,470  ..........       8,470  ..........  PRESIDENT
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE PROJECT.......  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........  MURRAY, CANTWELL

                    WYOMING

KENDRICK PROJECT...............................         108       3,839         108       3,839  PRESIDENT
NORTH PLATTE PROJECT...........................         323       1,816         323       1,816  PRESIDENT
SHOSHONE PROJECT...............................          76         960          76         960  PRESIDENT
                                                ------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL FOR PROJECTS....................     321,433     211,064     459,948     218,764

                REGIONAL PROGRAMS

COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL, TITLE I.  ..........       9,441  ..........       9,441  PRESIDENT, KYL
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL, TITLE II       7,850  ..........       8,350  ..........  PRESIDENT, BENNETT
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE, SECTION 5..............       2,110       3,884       2,110       3,884  PRESIDENT
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE, SECTION 8..............       4,690  ..........       4,690  ..........  PRESIDENT
COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT                440  ..........         440  ..........  PRESIDENT
 PROGRAM.
DAM SAFETY PROGRAM
    DEPARTMENT DAM SAFETY PROGRAM..............  ..........       1,400  ..........       1,400  PRESIDENT
    INITIATE SOD CORRECTIVE ACTION.............  ..........      57,100  ..........      57,100  PRESIDENT
    SAFETY OF EVALUATION OF EXISTING DAMS......  ..........      18,500  ..........      18,500  PRESIDENT
DROUGHT EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM...........         436  ..........         436  ..........  PRESIDENT, INOUYE
EMERGENCY PLANNING & DISASTER RESPONSE PROGRAM.  ..........       1,442  ..........       1,442  PRESIDENT
ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION.....      16,614  ..........      16,614  ..........  PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BENNETT, SALAZAR, BINGAMAN, HATCH
ENVIRONMENTAL & INTERAGENCY COORDINATION              1,637  ..........       1,637  ..........  PRESIDENT
 ACTIVITIES.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION...........         855  ..........         855  ..........  PRESIDENT
EXAMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES.............  ..........       6,440  ..........       6,440  PRESIDENT
FEDERAL BUILDING SEISMIC SAFETY PROGRAM........  ..........       1,496  ..........       1,496  PRESIDENT
GENERAL PLANNING STUDIES.......................       2,006  ..........       2,006  ..........  PRESIDENT
LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM..............       7,584  ..........       7,584  ..........  PRESIDENT
LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM.........................       1,000  ..........       1,000  ..........  PRESIDENT
LOWER COLORADO RIVER INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM....         236  ..........         236  ..........  PRESIDENT
LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM........      15,418  ..........      15,418  ..........  PRESIDENT
MISCELLANEOUS FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS.........  ..........         675  ..........         675  PRESIDENT
NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM................       6,179  ..........       6,179  ..........  PRESIDENT
NEGOTIATION & ADMINISTRATION OF WATER MARKETING       1,597  ..........       1,597  ..........  PRESIDENT
OPERATIONS AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT..............         828         458         828         458  PRESIDENT
PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN......................       4,130      36,836       4,130      36,836  PRESIDENT
POWER PROGRAM SERVICES.........................         786         240         786         240  PRESIDENT
PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY PROGRAM...............       1,088         155       1,088         155  PRESIDENT
RECLAMATION LAW ADMINISTRATION.................       2,073  ..........       2,073  ..........  PRESIDENT
RECLAMATION RECREATION MANAGEMENT (TITLE XXVII)  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........  DOMENICI
RECREATION & FISH & WILDLIFE PROGRAM                  1,076  ..........       1,076  ..........  PRESIDENT
 ADMINISTRATION.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT DESALINATION AND WATER       2,275       2,100       5,400       2,100  PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
 PURIFICATION PROGRAM.
SALT CEDAR AND RUSSIAN OLIVE CONTROL PROGRAM...  ..........  ..........         600  ..........  DOMENICI, BEN NELSON, BINGAMAN
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.................       9,003  ..........       9,003  ..........  PRESIDENT
SITE SECURITY..................................  ..........      35,500  ..........      35,500  PRESIDENT
TITLE XVI WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM..         800  ..........       3,800  ..........  PRESIDENT, DOMENICI
UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER ISSUES--TECHNICAL            90  ..........          90  ..........  PRESIDENT
 SUPPORT.
WATER CONSERVATION FIELD SERVICES PROGRAM......       6,232  ..........       7,000  ..........  PRESIDENT
WATER 2025.....................................      11,000  ..........      14,000  ..........  PRESIDENT, REID, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
UNDER FINANCING................................  ..........  ..........     -22,158      -3,688  PRESIDENT
                                                ------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES....     429,466     386,731     559,363     390,743
                                                ------------------------------------------------
       TOTAL, WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES......     816,197  ..........     950,106  ..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Central Arizona Project, Colorado River Basin.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $600,000 for activities 
related to the Gila River Settlement in New Mexico and $500,000 
to initiate environmental compliance for the San Carlos 
Irrigation Project.
    Central Valley Project--Friant Division.--The Committee 
recommendation includes an additional $1,000,000 for the 
Friant-Kern and Madera canals capacity improvements and an 
additional $500,000 for the Semi Tropic Phase II groundwater 
banking.
    Miscellaneous Project Programs.--An additional $2,000,000 
above the budget request is provided for anadromous fish screen 
projects.
    Trinity River Division.--The Committee has provided 
$2,000,000 above the budget request to accelerate 
implementation of the Trinity River Restoration Program.
    Animas-La Plata, Colorado.--The Committee has provided 
$63,000,000 for construction of this project.
    Hawaii Reclamation Projects, Lahaina.--The Committee has 
included $1,000,000 for this water reuse project.
    Fort Peck, Dry Prairie Rural Water System, Montana.--The 
Committee has provided $10,000,000 for continued construction 
of the project.
    Carlsbad Project, New Mexico.--The committee provided an 
additional $200,000 to assess the rehabilitation of radial 
gates at Sumner Dam, New Mexico and $750,000 for implementation 
of water salvage in partnership with the New Mexico Interstate 
Stream Commission under the Pecos River Settlement.
    Middle Rio Grande Project, New Mexico.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $39,550,000 for the Middle Rio Grande 
project, $20,655,000 for Resources Management and $18,895,000 
for Operations, Maintenance and Replacements. Within the 
$20,655,000 for Resources Management, the Committee includes 
$16,271,000 for the Collaborative Program; and $1,000,000 for 
the Silvery Minnow Sanctuary operations. Within the $18,895,000 
for Operations, Maintenance and Replacements, the Committee 
includes $2,200,000 for further development of the Upper Rio 
Grande Water Operations Model and ESA Water conservation 
planning; $500,000 for initial development of an integrated 
management plan in partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers; and $2,000,000 to be transferred to the USGS for 
stream gage repair and development in New Mexico. The Committee 
encourages the Bureau of Reclamation to be transparent in its 
communication of the cost of administration of the Middle Rio 
Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program and to rapidly 
implement project management improvements to address the issues 
and recommendations of the non-Federal partners to the 
Collaborative Program. The Committee also encourages the Bureau 
of Reclamation to work closely with the Middle Rio Grande 
Conservancy District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to 
develop a rehabilitation plan for the levee system in the 
Middle Rio Grande.
    Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin, Garrison Diversion Unit, North 
Dakota.--An additional $48,780,000 has been provided for rural 
water projects. Of this amount, $24,390,000 shall be expended 
for the following projects: $10,000,000 for the Northwest Area 
Water Supply; $500,000 for the Lakota Water Supply; $3,000,000 
for the South Central Regional Water District; $1,000,000 for 
the Walsh Rural Water District; $1,000,000 for the South Benson 
County/North Central Rural Water System; $1,000,000 for the 
Traill Rural Water District; $500,000 for the Upham/All Seasons 
Rural Water System;$2,000,000 for the Williston Water Treatment 
Plant; $4,000,000 for the Southwest Pipeline; and $1,390,000 
for Garrison Water Treatment.
    Northern Utah Investigations Program, Utah.--The Committee 
has included an additional $500,000 for the Rural Water 
Technology Alliance.
    Odessa Subarea Special Study, Washington.--The Committee 
has provided $1,185,000 for this study.
    Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project, Title I.--In 
the fiscal year 2006 conference report (House Report 109-275), 
the conferees expressed their concern that the Bureau of 
Reclamation was making excess releases of approximately 100,000 
acre-feet of water per year from storage in Colorado River 
reservoirs to help meet the United States' Colorado River water 
quality obligations to Mexico. The excess releases are being 
made because Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District's 
agricultural return flows--that bypass the Colorado River and 
are discharged to the Cienega de Santa Clara in Mexico (bypass 
flows)--are not counted as part of the 1.5 million acre-feet of 
water that the United States is required to deliver annually to 
Mexico. Because the bypass flows are not counted, system 
storage from the Colorado River has been used to make up for 
the bypass flows. The Yuma Desalting Plant was originally 
constructed to treat the flows and return a portion of them to 
the river, thus reducing excess releases from Colorado River 
reservoirs.
    The current drought and projected long-term water demands 
have heightened concern about this demand on the river system. 
Consequently, in fiscal year 2006, the conferees indicated 
their support for Reclamation's ongoing public process to 
address this complex hydrologic problem, considering various 
methods of recovering or replacing the flows, including options 
that address potential impacts to wetlands in the Cienega de 
Santa Clara. This Committee encourages Reclamation to continue 
this stakeholder process. In fiscal year 2006, the conferees 
also directed the Bureau of Reclamation to dedicate sufficient 
resources to the Yuma Desalting Plant so that one-third 
operational capacity may be achieved by the end of calendar 
year 2006. To date, the plant is not one-third operational, 
although Reclamation did conduct a demonstration run at one-
tenth capacity for 90 days in 2007. The Committee, once again, 
directs the Bureau of Reclamation, within the funds provided 
for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project, title I, 
to dedicate sufficient funds to the Yuma Desalting Plant so 
that one-third operational capacity may be achieved by the end 
of calendar year 2007. The Bureau of Reclamation is also 
directed to provide the Committee with a status report of the 
plant's operational status by no later than March 1, 2008. If 
the plant is not one-third operational by the end of calendar 
year 2007, the report shall include an explanation as to why 
the Bureau of Reclamation has failed to comply with the 
Committee's directive.
    Drought Emergency Assistance.--The Committee has provided 
the budget request for this program. Within the funds provided, 
the Committee urges the Bureau of Reclamation to provide full 
and fair consideration for drought assistance from the State of 
Hawaii.
    Research and Development, Desalination Research and 
Development Program.--The Committee has provided $7,500,000. Of 
the funds provided, $2,100,000 is provided to New Mexico State 
University to undertake operations and maintenance of the newly 
constructed National Inland Desalination Research Facility in 
Alamogordo, New Mexico, on behalf of the Bureau of Reclamation; 
$1,900,000 is provided to New Mexico State University for 
research activities undertaken at or associated with the 
National Inland Desalination Research Facility; and $3,000,000 
is provided to New Mexico State University to undertake a 
research program for development and commercialization of water 
treatment technology in collaboration with Federal agencies, 
national laboratories, State agencies, local agencies, 
industry, educational institutions or other water research 
entities.
    Title XVI, Water Reclamation and Reuse.--The Committee has 
provided $3,800,000 for this program. Within the funds 
provided, the Committee has included $3,000,000 for the 
WateReuse Foundation. These are available to support the 
Foundation's research priorities.
    Water Conservation Field Service Program.--The Committee 
has provided $7,000,000 for the Water Conservation Field 
Services Program. Within the amounts provided, Reclamation is 
urged to continue urban water conservation projects identified 
through the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 
Innovative Conservation Program; industrial water efficiency 
surveys to assess opportunities to conserve water in industrial 
water use; and for weather based irrigation controller 
activities to pilot ways to speed distribution and acceptance 
of these landscape water efficiency devices.
    Water 2025.--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 $14,000,000 for this initiative proposed by the 
administration. The Committee has included additional funds 
above the budget request to provide for continued efficiency 
and water improvements related to the Middle Rio Grande 
Conservancy District. A critical component of reducing tension 
among multiple water users is collaborative planning and joint 
operations. Within the funds provided, funds are provided for 
the Desert Research Institute to address water quality and 
environmental issues in ways that will bring industry and 
regulators to mutually acceptable answers.

                CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

Appropriations, 2007....................................     $52,150,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................   \1\59,122,000
Committee recommendation................................      51,622,000

\1\Includes $7,500,000 legislative proposal on which Congress has not 
acted.

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $51,622,000 
for the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund. The Committee 
recommendation does not reflect the establishment of the San 
Joaquin River Restoration Fund as proposed by the 
administration as this program is not yet authorized. 
Consequently the Budget request is reduced by $7,500,000.
    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, 2007....................................     $36,648,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................      31,750,000
Committee recommendation................................      40,750,000

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

                       POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2007....................................     $57,575,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................      58,811,000
Committee recommendation................................      58,811,000

    The Committee recommendation for general administrative 
expenses is $58,811,000. 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, Colorado, and five regional offices. 
The Denver office and regional offices charge individual 
projects or activities for direct beneficial services and 
related administrative and technical costs. These charges are 
covered under other appropriations.

             General Provisions--Department of the Interior

    Section 201. The bill includes language regarding the San 
Luis Unit and the Kesterson Reservoir in California. 
(President)
    Section 202. The bill includes language that states 
requirements for purchase or lease of water from the Middle Rio 
Grande or Carlsbad Projects in New Mexico. (Domenici)
    Section 203. The bill includes language regarding Drought 
Emergency Assistance.
    Section 204. The bill includes language concerning Water 
2025.
    Section 205. The bill includes language regarding the Rio 
Grande Collaborative water operations team. (Domenici)
    Section 206. The bill includes language concerning the 
project at Las Vegas Wash and Lake Mead. (Reid)
    Section 207. The bill includes language concerning expended 
funds from the Desert Terminus Lakes program for the Truckee 
River Settlement Act. (Reid)
    Section 208. The bill includes language concerning expended 
funds from the Desert Terminus Lakes program for a number of 
purposes within Nevada. (Reid)
    Section 209. The bill includes a provision extending the 
authorization of the Mni Wiconi project from 2008 until 2013. 
Without this provision work would have to stop during fiscal 
year 2008. (Johnson)
    Section 210. The bill includes a provision concerning 
operations of the Tularosa Basin National Desalination Research 
Facility. (Domenici)
    Section 211. The bill includes a provision for a reporting 
requirement to the appropriate House and Senate authorizing 
committees concerning changed land use determinations. (Dorgan)
    Section 212. The bill contains a provision that increases 
the appropriation ceiling for the Indian Irrigation projects in 
the Pick-Sloan--Garrison Diversion Unit, North Dakota and South 
Dakota. (Dorgan)

                               TITLE III

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

          Laboratory Directed Research and Development [LDRD]

    The Committee recognizes the invaluable role the Laboratory 
Directed Research and Development [LDRD] program provides to 
the Federal Government and the Nation in general. Discretionary 
LDRD investments have been and will continue to be responsive 
to the energy needs of the Nation, as evidenced by recent R&D 
projects in materials science, optoelectronics, computer 
science, and high energy density physics. Cutting-edge LDRD 
research provides the science base for energy-specific 
applications such as fuel cells, hydrogen technologies, carbon 
management, nuclear energy and solid state lighting. In 
addition, LDRD is the national labs' most important tool for 
maintaining the vitality of the national labs in support of 
other national security missions. LDRD enables the labs to hire 
the ``best and brightest'' young scientists and engineers and 
allows them to seek innovative science and technology solutions 
for current or emerging national security issues, including 
those of energy security. LDRD investments have been effective 
in providing solutions for today's energy problems and 
demonstrate the inherent flexibility of the program to provide 
national security mission support on a very timely basis. 
Energy research needs can best be addressed by continuing a 
vibrant LDRD program at the national labs.

                        Reprogramming Guidelines

    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 
2008, unless specifically identified in the House, Senate, or 
conference reports. Any reallocation of new or prior year 
budget authority or prior year de-obligations must be submitted 
to the Committees in writing and may not be implemented prior 
to approval by the Committees on Appropriations.

                     ENERGY SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION


                 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Appropriations, 2007....................................  $1,474,285,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................   1,236,199,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,715,551,000

    The Committee recommendation is $1,715,551,000 for Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, $479,352,000 above the 
President's request. The Committee notes that virtually every 
program except Hydrogen Research and Development [R&D] suffers 
a reduction from the fiscal year 2007 Operating Plan. Hardest 
hit are the energy efficiency programs. Vehicle Technologies, 
Building Technologies, and Industrial Technologies are down 
about $40,000,000, while Weatherization grants are down over 
$60,000,000. The Department plays a key role in developing new 
energy-efficient technologies. For every dollar invested in 
Energy Efficiency R&D, the U.S. economy receives about $20 in 
return through energy savings, new jobs, and new products. This 
Committee sees wisdom in such investments, and supports 
increases above the President's request in the efficiency 
programs. The Committee understands the Department has made 
awards for projects within the Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy, but has not provided funding to carryout 
these awards. The Committee strongly urges the Department to 
fulfill it prior commitments, and to provide notification to 
the Committee on any awards that are not being funded and for 
what purpose.
    Hydrogen Technology.--The Committee recommends 
$228,000,000, a total of $15,000,000 above the request. The 
Committee notes that fiscal year 2008 request completes the 
President's 5-year, $1,200,000,000 commitment to the Hydrogen 
Fuel Initiative. Along with the Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy request, the President's budget also requests research 
and development funding for hydrogen projects in the budgets of 
the Office of Science ($59,500,000), the Office of Nuclear 
Energy ($22,600,000), and the Office of Fossil Energy 
($12,450,000), as well as in the Department of Transportation 
($1,425,000). In total, the fiscal year 2008 request amounts to 
$308,975,000 for hydrogen research and development, the largest 
for hydrogen in the 5-year period.
    Since the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, there 
has been insufficient attention paid to the guidance Congress 
gave the Department regarding the hydrogen program which had 
several purposes. It broadened the Secretary's authority to 
accelerate the research, development and demonstration process 
toward commercialization; made Government a more reliable 
partner in more ambitious public/private partnerships; and gave 
the program permanent authority beyond the 5-year span of the 
President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. The Committee is 
encouraged by the Department's efforts to establish a program 
facilitating the deployment of hydrogen and fuel cell 
technology and to cultivate a competitive market for such 
technologies as demonstrated by its recent request for 
information [DE-PS36-07GO37002]. The Committee believes that 
the Federal Government can be an early adopter of new 
technology and can play a role in its deployment. In order to 
facilitate Federal purchases it is essential to provide Federal 
procurement officials with proven validation of operational 
performance data and expected lifecycle costs of alternative 
energy technologies. The Department, using its extensive 
laboratory capabilities and in partnership with technology 
venders, could validate the operational and economic 
capabilities of specific technologies. This review is likely to 
provide procurement officials more confidence in deploying 
alternative, energy saving technologies. Within the additional 
funds provided, the Committee recommends an additional 
$5,000,000 to support the development of a technology 
validation strategy. The Department may establish a pilot 
program to demonstrate such a capability if it believes it will 
have a positive impact. The Committee authorizes the Department 
to recover all costs associated with the validation activities.
    The Committee also notes that the Department requested 24 
percent less funding for Technology Validation Program than the 
enacted fiscal year 2007 program. This runs counter to the 
intent of the Energy Policy Act, and endangers the success of 
worthwhile public investments already made. The validation 
program has ambitious and critical goals concerning durability, 
vehicle range, storage, attainable hydrogen fuel cost, data 
reporting, technology evolution, renewable hydrogen feedstock 
generation, codes and standards coordination and public 
outreach. Within the funding available to the Program, the 
Committee directs that $40,000,000 be allocated to Technology 
Validation efforts in fiscal year 2008.
    The Committee appreciates that this program has achieved 
its objective and is beginning to phase out research on 
hydrogen production from natural gas starting in fiscal year 
2008. The full benefits of a hydrogen economy will be realized 
when our Nation is able to generate hydrogen from renewable 
sources and nuclear energy rather than fossil fuels. The 
Committee supports continued research and development into 
solar-powered hydrogen generation research and development 
programs including both thermo-chemical and photolysis 
processes. The Committee commends the Department for this 
progress in these areas and urges the Department to provide 
additional funds to the Department's Hydrogen Production and 
Delivery program for its continuation.
    Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D.--The Committee 
strongly endorses the commitment to decrease our reliance on 
foreign oil. The President's goal of reducing gasoline usage by 
20 percent in the next 10 years, coupled with growth in the 
Biomass R&D budget, could significantly reduce this Nation's 
``oil addiction.'' Unfortunately, the President's request is 
$20,424,000 below the fiscal year 2007 Operating Plan, and well 
below this Committee's recommendation from last year. 
Therefore, the Committee recommends $244,000,000, an increase 
of $64,737,000 over the request. Of the increase, $32,897,000 
is for the Integration of Biorefinery Technologies under the 
Utilization of Platform Outputs R&D subprogram, and $5,000,000 
is for the Products Development element within this subprogram.
    Within the available funds, the Committee directs the 
Department to conduct a study on the feasibility of increasing 
consumption in the United States of ethanol-blended gasoline 
with levels of ethanol blends between 10-25 percent, including 
a study of production and infrastructure constraints on 
increasing the consumption. In addition, the Committee requests 
that Department provide periodic updates on the National 
Biofuels Action Plan and have a goal of providing the final 
plan to Congress no later than the submission of the fiscal 
year 2009 budget request.
    Within the available funds, the Committee recommends the 
Department provide a report to the House and Senate 
Appropriations Committee on how it intends to develop the 
proposed reverse auction as proposed in the fiscal year 2008 
budget request before establishing such a program. The report 
should include information on market data and pricing and 
proposals as to which incentives would be the most effective in 
facilitating the deployment of cellulosic biomass and the 
expected costs.
    The Feedstock Infrastructure subprogram provides for work 
with the Department of Agriculture on biomass feedstock. 
Lowering feedstock costs and ensuring sustainable supplies of 
biomass are necessary to greatly increase the amount of 
Biofuels production in the United States. To meet this goal, 
the Department developed a Regional Feedstock Partnership and 
should continue to work with the Sun Grant Initiative as well 
as other laboratories, and universities to assess and improve 
biomass resource availability throughout five distinct regions. 
The Committee is encouraged by the Department commitment to 
developing a variety of biomass feedstock. The Committee 
expects the Department to evaluate all manner of regional 
feedstock materials that include sorghum, switch grass, rice 
straw, corn stover, as well as other feedstock material.
    The Committee also notes that the Pacific Northwest 
National Laboratory is building on key competencies in the 
areas of catalysis and biotechnology, and conducts R&D with 
industry as part of the DOE/Office of Biomass core program. The 
core research program also is an important part of expanding 
research with Washington State University, in a new 
Bioproducts, Sciences, and Engineering Laboratory [BSEL] being 
constructed in Richland, Washington, by the State of 
Washington.
    Solar Energy.--The Committee recommends $180,000,000, an 
increase of $31,696,000 over the President's request. The 
Committee is pleased with the administration's efforts to 
diversify our energy supply while minimizing the generation of 
greenhouse gases. The Solar Energy Technology Program has 
established a target of making solar power cost-competitive by 
2015, 5 years sooner than targeted in fiscal year 2006 budget 
request. Under this scenario, solar would provide hundreds of 
thousands of new high-tech jobs throughout the United States 
and would reduce natural gas demand on the order of billions of 
cubic feet. Unfortunately, as is painfully clear from the 
Department's budget, the promise of solar energy stretches back 
33 years, to the 1974 Solar Heating and Cooling Demonstration 
Act, and the program has only lost ground to other nations ever 
since. Now, the United States must make substantial investments 
if it is to reclaim technological leadership in this critical 
sector. Therefore, the Committee directs an increase of 
$8,000,000 for Photovoltaic Energy Systems, an increase of 
$2,696,000 for Solar Heating and Lighting Systems to support 
deployment of this technology, and an increase of $16,000,000 
for Concentrating Solar Power. The increase in Concentrating 
Solar Power is to help reduce the cost of heliostat technology 
to improve the economic performance of power towers and to 
facilitate the deployment of demonstration facilities. The 
Committee recommends $4,000,000 to demonstrate thermo-chemical 
processes in producing hydrogen using high temperature solar 
facilities.
    Wind Energy.--The recommendation is $57,500,000, a total of 
$17,431,000 above the request.
    Geothermal Technology.--The recommendation for Geothermal 
Technology is $25,000,000, similar to the fiscal year 2006 
level, and above the administration's request of $0. The 
Committee notes the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 
report on the Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems on the 
United States in the 21st century recommended a number of 
actions that could be taken to encourage development of 
renewable energy sources. Among the short-term recommendations 
in this report is a call for more detailed and site-specific 
assessment of geothermal energy resources in the United States, 
as well as demonstrations of reservoir stimulation technology 
at as many as five enhanced geothermal systems within or on the 
edges of existing geothermal fields. The Committee urges the 
Department to build upon the success of its geothermal program 
and move the program forward.
    Hydropower.--The Committee provides $2,000,000 for 
continuation of the program.
    Water Power Energy R&D.--The Committee recommends creating 
a new program, authorized in EPACT 2005, which explores 
technologies that could convert the kinetic energy from non-
impounded water sources, such as waves, currents and tidal 
streams, into renewable energy. The Committee recommends 
$8,000,000 to initiate this R&D effort.
    Vehicle Technologies.--The Committee provides $230,000,000 
for vehicles technology. This is an increase of $53,862,000 
over the request. The recommendation provides $100,000,000 for 
hybrid electric systems. The increase of $19,336,000 is for 
Energy Storage Research and Development to make improvements in 
plug-in hybrid technology. Other increases provide a total of 
$50,000,000 for Advanced Combustion Energy Research and 
Development, $45,000,000 for Materials Technology, $18,000,000 
for Fuels Technology, and $17,000,000 for Technology 
Integration Innovative Concepts. The Committee urges the 
Department to continue to support the Advanced Reciprocating 
Engine Systems program.
    The Committee fully funds the fiscal year 2008 request for 
FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership, a $207,819,000 departmental 
effort of which $126,619,000 is requested under the Vehicle 
Technologies program.
    The Committee urges the Department to integrate the 
transportation sector's fuel and energy needs with zero 
emission and renewable electricity generation to improve the 
Nation's energy and environmental security by providing a 
minimum of $10,000,000 from the funds made available for 
Vehicles Technology in competitively awarded grants for 
developing, researching, testing and operating grid-enabled 
plug-in electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and 
batteries and technology, and related power electronics that 
use zero emission generated electricity for recharging. The 
Committee wishes to reinforce and recommend further enhancing 
research, development and demonstration of advanced battery 
technology (in partnership with the private sector), for 
electric, hybrid-electric, and plug-in hybrid vehicles. The 
Committee is concerned that many advanced batteries are 
currently being sourced from outside the United States. The 
prohibitively high costs of many advanced battery technologies 
must be addressed, along with the remaining performance 
barriers.
    The Committee includes $5,000,000 for Off-highway Engine 
R&D within the Advanced Combustion Engine R&D subprogram. Off-
highway Engine R&D supports diesel engine research and 
development having a high potential for improving fuel 
efficiency and low emission engines. The Committee also 
supports the 21st Century Truck Partnership. This cooperative 
effort between commercial vehicle (truck and bus) industry and 
major Federal agencies is developing technologies that will 
make commercial vehicles more efficient, clean, and safe. The 
21st Century Truck Partnership will use research and 
development funding to increase engine efficiency, improve 
hybrid powertrains, and reduce losses.
    The Committee directs the Department to study methods of 
increasing the fuel efficiency of alternative fueled vehicles 
by optimizing alternative fueled vehicles to operate using E-85 
fuel. Within this funding the Committee directs the Department 
to use at least $2,000,000 for E-85 infrastructure deployment.
    Building Technologies.--The Committee provides 
$137,000,000, an increase of $50,544,000 above the request. The 
increase is distributed as follows: $7,300,000 for Residential 
Buildings Integration; $10,000,000 for Commercial Buildings 
Integration; $8,244,000 for Emerging Technologies; $18,639,000 
for Technology Validation and Market Introduction; and 
$6,361,000 for Equipment Standards and Analysis. The increase 
supports technology deployment of increased energy efficiency 
technologies that can improve energy savings in the home and 
reduce the cost of operating lighting, heating and cooling, and 
electricity using energy efficient appliances in residential 
and commercial buildings. The Department has set a goal of 
achieving zero emission homes by 2020 using the most energy-
efficient technology and applying state-of-the-art distributed 
renewable generation so as to achieve a net zero energy 
consumption.
    The Committee specifically recommends $24,283,000 for the 
solid state lighting research and development portion of the 
Emerging Technologies budget, an increase of $5,000,000 to 
support advanced research. The Committee recognizes the 
potential to achieve significant energy savings in this area.
    Industrial Technologies.--The Committee provides 
$57,000,000, an increase of $11,002,000 over the request. Of 
the increase, the Committee directs $6,000,000 to be applied to 
the specific industries budget subprogram to begin focusing on 
new process development that can provide energy savings, 
environmental and economic benefits. The Committee directs 
$2,002,000 to be applied to the combustion budget for continued 
development and deployment on Super Boiler technology. The 
Committee recommends that from within available funds, 
$3,000,000 is provided to support research and development to 
increase the efficiency of computer chips and systems.
    Federal Energy Management Program.--This program is 
intended to support the deployment of energy efficiency and 
renewable technology to U.S. Government buildings. Since 1985, 
the Program has assisted in the reduction of energy intensity 
in Federal buildings by nearly 30 percent. Considering today's 
energy challenges, it hardly seems the time to reduce funding 
for this Program. Therefore, the Committee recommends 
$23,000,000, a total of $6,209,000 above the request.
    Facilities and Infrastructure.--The Committee recommends 
$6,982,000, the same as the budget request.
    Weatherization.--The Committee provides $240,550,000, a 
total of $96,550,000 above the request. This program provides 
critical assistance to encourage the use of energy efficient 
technology to reduce energy costs for low and moderate income 
families hit hardest by high energy costs. The Secretary is 
directed to make fiscal year 2008 Weatherization funding 
available from October 1, 2007, through March 31, 2009, for 
States that submit plans requesting allocations for all or part 
of this period.
    The Committee also provides $55,000,000 to the State Energy 
Program Grants, $7,000,000 for Tribal Energy Activities, and 
$5,000,000 for Renewable Energy Production Incentive programs. 
The Committee eliminates funding for the Asia-Pacific 
Partnership [APP]. The Committee remains unclear about the 
goals and direction of APP.
    Program Direction.--The Committee recommends $105,013,000, 
the same as the budget request.
    Program Support.--The Committee recommends $13,481,000, 
consistent with the budget request.
    Congressionally Directed Projects.--The Committee 
recommendation includes the following congressionally directed 
projects, within available funds, for the purposes of research, 
development, and demonstration of energy efficiency or 
renewable energy technologies or programs. The Committee 
reminds recipients that statutory cost sharing requirements may 
apply to these projects.

   COMMITTEE DIRECTED ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Committee
            Project              recommendation        Requested by
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Auburn, NY, Auburn Regional            $500,000  Schumer, Clinton
 Bioenergy Enterprise.
Southern Illinois University,           300,000  Durbin
 Carbondale, Biofuels Research.
Chariton Valley R.C.&D.,                500,000  Harkin, Grassley
 Chariton Valley Biomass for
 Rural Development.
Chautauqua County, NY, Methane          500,000  Schumer, Clinton
 Gas Utilization Project from
 landfill at  Ellery.
Department of Energy's Clean            600,000  Byrd
 Energy Technology Export
 Program (CETE), to export U.S.
 clean energy technologies.
Compact Membrane Systems, Inc.,         500,000  Biden, Carper
 Wilmington, DE, Development of
 Applied Membrane Technology
 for Processing Ethanol from
 Biomass.
DBS Energy, Inc., Glastonbury         1,000,000  Dodd
 CT, Connecticut Biofuels
 Technology Project in
 Suffield, CT.
Consortium for Plant                  2,000,000  Stabenow, Brown, Kohl,
 Biotechnology Research, Inc.,                    Inouye, Bayh, Levin,
 St. Simons Island, GA.                           Klobuchar, McConnell,
                                                  Bunning, Bond,
                                                  Chambliss, Lugar
Costilla County, CO, and                275,000  Salazar
 Costilla County Economic
 Development Council, Inc.,
 Biodiesel Project.
Council of Energy Resource              500,000  Salazar
 Tribes, Denver, CO.
Dakota Gold Research                  1,000,000  Johnson
 Association, Sioux Falls, SD,
 Biomass.
U. of Florida, Gainesville,           1,000,000  Nelson, Bill
 with the EARTH University
 Foundation, Biofuel  Project.
Eikos, Inc., Franklin, MA,            1,000,000  Kennedy, Kerry
 National Renewable Energy
 Laboratory, Conductive,
 Transparent Coatings for Solar
 Cells.
Electro Energy, Inc., Danbury,          500,000  Lieberman
 CT, Development of bipolar
 wafer cell vehicle batteries.
Foster-Glocester Regional             1,000,000  Reed, Whitehouse
 School District, RI,
 Ponaganset Alternative Energy
 Lab and Biomass Facilities
 Project.
Hawaii Natural Energy                 2,000,000  Inouye
 Institute, Honolulu, HA,
 Hawaii-New Mexico Sustainable
 Energy Security Partnership.
Koochiching County, Renewable           400,000  Klobucher
 Energy Clean Air Project
 (RECAP), Koochiching County,
 MN, Plasma Gasification Waste-
 to-Energy project.
Iowa Association of Municipal         1,500,000  Harkin
 Utilities, Iowa Stored Energy
 Plant.
Iowa Central Community College,       1,000,000  Harkin, Grassley
 Iowa Renewable Fuels Testing
 Laboratory.
Lilliputian Systems, Inc.,              500,000  Kennedy, Kerry
 Woburn, MA, Silicon Based
 Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Chip for
 Portable Consumer Electronics.
Louisiana State University,           1,000,000  Landrieu, Vitter
 Agriculture Center Biorefinery
 for Ethanol, Chemicals, Animal
 Feed and Biomaterials from
 Sugar Cane Bagasse.
Michigan State University,              400,000  Levin
 Advanced Hybrid Vehicle
 Technology, Hybrid Electric
 Vehicle group.
Michigan Technological                  500,000  Stabenow, Levin
 University, Fuel Cell Research
 at the Center for
 Nanostructured and Lightweight
 Materials.
National Center for                     400,000  Levin
 Manufacturing Sciences, Ann
 Arbor, MI, Lightweight
 Automotive Materials for
 Increased Fuel Efficiency.
Nevada Institute for Renewable        1,500,000  Reid
 Energy Commercialization,
 Reno, NV.
North Dakota State University,        6,000,000  Dorgan
 Center for Nanoscale Energy.
Oregon Institute of Technology,       1,000,000  Wyden, Smith
 Geothermal Power Generation
 Study.
Pacific International Center          1,250,000  Inouye
 for High Technology Research,
 Honolulu, HI, Renewable Energy
 Development Venture.
Pierce County, WA, Landfill Gas-      3,550,000  Murray
 to-Clean-Fuel Project, Biomass.
Raceland Raw Sugar Corporation,       1,500,000  Landrieu
 Raceland, LA, Bio-Renewable
 Ethanol and Co-Generation
 Plant, Biomass.
Stamford, CT, Waste-to-Energy           500,000  Lieberman
 Project.
South Dakota State University,        3,500,000  Johnson
 SD, Sun Grant Initiative,
 Regional Biomass Feedstock
 Development Partnerships,
 Biomass.
Snohomish County, WA, Biodiesel         100,000  Murray, Cantwell
 Project.
Trenton, NJ, Trenton Fuel Works       1,500,000  Lautenberg, Menendez
 Biofuels Plant Re-
 Construction, Biomass.
U. of Hawaii, College of                500,000  Inouye
 Tropical Agriculture and Human
 Resources, Development of High
 Yield Tropical Feedstocks,
 Biomass.
U. of Nebraska, Kearney, CIBS           950,000  Ben Nelson, Hagel
 Solar Cell Development, Solar.
U. of Nebraska, Lincoln,              2,000,000  Ben Nelson, Hagel
 Bioenergy Demonstration
 Project: Value-Added Products
 from Renewable Fuels.
U. of Nevada, Las Vegas, Light          600,000  Reid
 Emitting Diode Display
 Engineering.
U. of Nevada, Las Vegas, Solar          750,000  Reid
 Cell Nanotechnology.
U. of North Dakota, Grand             2,000,000  Dorgan
 Forks, Center for Biomass
 Utilization.
U. of Northern Iowa, National         1,000,000  Harkin, Grassley
 Agriculture-Based Industrial
 Lubricants (NABL), Biomass.
U. of Rhode Island, Research          1,500,000  Reed
 and Technology Development for
 genetic improvement of
 Switchgrass, Biomass.
University of Akron, OH, Carbon       1,000,000  Brown
 Based Fuel Cell.
Vermont Biomass Energy                1,000,000  Leahy
 Resources Center, Biomass.
Vermont Public Power Supply             500,000  Sanders
 Authority, Renewable Energy
 from Animal Bio-  mass.
Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund,          500,000  Leahy
 Montpelier, VT, Central
 Vermont Recovered Biomass
 Facility, Biomass.
Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund,        1,000,000  Leahy
 Montpelier, VT, Vermont
 Biofuels Initiative, Biomass.
West Virginia University,               500,000  Byrd
 Lightweight Composite Material
 for Heavy Duty  Vehicles.
West Virginia University,             1,000,000  Byrd
 Transportable Emissions
 Testing Laboratory (TESL), for
 alternative vehicles emissions
 testing.
City of Chula Vista, CA,                750,000  Boxer
 Alternative Fuels Pilot
 Project.
Affordable, Energy Efficient,           300,000  Cochran
 Self Help Housing, Mississippi.
Alternate Fuel Cell Membranes         1,000,000  Cochran
 for Energy Independence at
 USM, Mississippi.
Alternate Fuel for Cement             1,500,000  Shelby
 Processing at Auburn
 University, Alabama.
Center for Advanced Vehicular         4,000,000  Cochran
 Systems (CAVS) at MSU,
 Mississippi.
Center for Producer-Owned             1,000,000  Coleman
 Energy, Minnesota.
Cloud County Community College        1,000,000  Brownback
 Wind Turbine, Kansas.
Cooling, Heating, and Power           2,000,000  Cochran
 (CHP) at MSU, Mississippi.
Kansas City Area Transportation       1,000,000  Brownback
 Authority, Demonstration of
 Plug-in Vehicles, Kansas.
Great Plains Wind Power Test          2,000,000  Hutchison
 Facility at Texas Tech
 University, Texas.
Kentucky Rural Energy                 2,000,000  McConnell
 Consortium at the University
 of Louisville, Kentucky.
MidSouth/Southeast Bioenergy          2,000,000  Chambliss, Isakson
 Consortium, Georgia.
Nanostructured Materials for          1,000,000  Dole
 Energy at NC State, North
 Carolina.
Renewable Energy for Rural            1,000,000  Bennett
 Economic Development Program,
 Utah.
Sandia National Lab                   3,000,000  Domenici
 Concentrating Solar, New
 Mexico.
Sustainable Buildings Project           400,000  McConnell
 at the University of
 Louisville, Kentucky.
Sustainable Energy Research          11,000,000  Cochran
 Center at MSU, Mississippi.
Ocean Power Technologies,             2,000,000  Smith, Wyden
 Reedsport, OR, Wave Energy
 Research and Demo Center,
 Reedsport, Oregon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

              Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability

Appropriations, 2007....................................    $137,000,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................     114,937,000
Committee recommendation................................     168,437,000

    The Committee recommendation is $168,437,000, a total of 
$53,500,000 above the request. The increase brings the High 
Temperature Superconductivity [HTS] R&D subaccount up to 
$40,242,000. As no technology has greater potential to resolve 
the transmission and distribution dilemma than HTS wire and 
cables and attendant HTS equipment can potentially provide, 
this funding level will permit continued strategic research at 
universities and National Laboratories; develop second 
generation (2G) wire; and will continue superconductivity 
industry partnerships which design, fabricate, test and 
demonstrate prototype products for the Nation's aging electric 
power grid. Additionally, $25,305,000 is provided for 
Visualization and Controls subaccount, the same as the request, 
from which the Committee encourages the Department to continue 
its efforts at the Electricity Infrastructure Operations Center 
at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. The Operations 
and Analysis subaccount recommendation is $19,500,000, 
$7,944,000 above the request. The Committee encourages 
continuation of the electricity transmission, distribution, and 
energy assurance activities including the Modern Grid 
Initiative, and, in particular, the Phase 2 Development Field 
Tests for the Allegheny Power Initiative.
    Renewable Energy Deployment.--In order to facilitate 
further deployment of renewable energy resources, the Committee 
has provided additional funding to support the development of 
large scale energy storage capabilities to mitigate the effects 
of the intermittent nature of wind and solar power. Developing 
low-cost, reliable technologies will have a positive impact on 
renewable energy deployment. The Committee expects the Office 
of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability and the Office 
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to work together 
developing transmission and distribution technologies to enable 
a smart, reliable grid; developing technical and regulatory 
standards for interconnecting our Nation's renewable and 
distributed energy portfolio; and enabling demand response. To 
the extent possible, the Office of Electricity Delivery and 
Energy Reliability will be the primary Federal interface with 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the States for the 
Department of Energy.
    The Committee is interested to understand the commercial 
potential of the distributed generation market, including 
deployment of fuel cells, combined heat and power systems or 
other technologies that will increase the efficiency of 
existing generating (electric and thermal) sources. The 
Committee encourages the Office of Electricity Delivery and 
Energy Reliability to identify the possible energy savings that 
may be achieved from increased efficiency and from transmission 
line losses as a result of locating generating facilities 
closer to the users. The Committee hopes this study will 
provide a clearer potential of the best commercial 
opportunities that can be realized immediately and the 
possibilities of technologies in the future for both industrial 
and residential systems.
    The Committee recommends $21,803,000 for energy storage 
activities, and increase of $15,000,000. The Committee also 
provides $30,700,000 for Distributed systems integration, an 
increase of $5,000,000 in order to support the study on 
distributed generation and to enable this office to play a 
greater role in the deployment of renewable energy onto the 
transmission grid.
    Congressionally Directed Projects.--The Committee 
recommendation includes the following congressionally directed 
projects, within available funds for the purposes of research, 
development, and demonstration of electricity delivery and 
energy reliability technologies or programs. The Committee 
reminds recipients that statutory cost sharing requirements may 
apply to these projects.

COMMITTEE DIRECTED OFFICE OF ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY
                                PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Committee
            Project              recommendation        Requested by
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gonzaga University, Spokane,           $800,000  Murray, Cantwell
 WA, Electricity Utility
 Transmission and Distribution
 Line Engineering Program.
Navajo Tribal Utility                 2,000,000  Bingaman, Domenici
 Authority, Fort Defiance, AZ,
 Navajo Electrification
 Demonstration Program.
Bismarck State College, Center        5,200,000  Dorgan
 of Excellence.
Florida State University, FL,         1,000,000  Bill Nelson, Martinez
 Electric Power Infrastructure
 Security Research &
 Development.
Rolls-Royce Fuel Cell Systems           500,000  Brown, Voinovich
 (US), Inc., Stark State
 College of Tech., Fuel Cell
 Prototyping Center, Canton,
 OH, solid oxide fuel cell.
Energy Surety Research Center         2,000,000  Domenici
 at New Mexico Tech University,
 New Mexico.
Alabama Power Project,                2,000,000  Shelby
 Integrated Distribution
 Management System, Alabama.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             Nuclear Energy

Appropriations, 2007....................................    $618,190,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................     801,703,000
Committee recommendation................................     720,558,000

    The Committee recommendation for the Office of Nuclear 
Energy is $720,558,000.
    Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.--The Committee 
recognizes the administration, through the Global Nuclear 
Energy Partnership, is seeking to reduce the amount of nuclear 
waste that will need to be placed in a permanent repository or 
repositories. The goal of providing a comprehensive solution to 
the nuclear fuel cycle is understandable in light global growth 
of nuclear power. The policy of reinitiating the recycling of 
spent nuclear fuel in the United States is a significant issue 
and one that has international implications. While the 
Committee has members who support the administration's efforts 
on GNEP there are also members who have questions regarding the 
cost, pace, science, technology, and nonproliferation 
implications underpinning the GNEP initiative. The Committee 
believes the administration must come forward with greater 
scientific, technical, and policy information that examines 
more alternatives in the fuel cycle and recycling process. The 
administration is directed to limit the fiscal year 2008 work 
scope to research and development and technology demonstrations 
at existing facilities. No funds may be used beyond conceptual 
design of new facilities or the sodium cooled fast burner 
reactor.

                        RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

    The Committee recommendation for nuclear energy research 
and development includes a total of $470,600,000. This is 
$97,145,000 below the budget request of $567,745,000.
    University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support.--For the 
second year, the Committee rejects the administration's 
proposal to include funding within the research and development 
accounts and provides $15,000,000 for this program. The 
Committee has decided to break this funding out of the research 
and development accounts, and therefore, doesn't expect the 
Department to duplicate these efforts.
    Nuclear Power 2010.--The Committee has included 
$135,000,000 to support the development of license applications 
for new nuclear power plant designs under the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission's combined Construction and Operating 
License process, an increase of $21,000,000.
    Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative.--The Committee provides 
$22,600,000 for nuclear hydrogen research and development, as 
requested. The Committee recommends the Department work to 
accelerate the experiments for thermochemical and high-
temperature electrolysis production methods and move to a 
hydrogen production pilot scale demonstration to test the 
system under extreme temperatures.
    Generation IV.--The Committee provides $55,000,000 for the 
Generation IV nuclear energy systems initiative. Of the total 
funding provided, $45,000,000 is for the Very High Temperature 
Reactor at Idaho National Laboratory. $7,000,000 is provided 
for continued research and development of gas cooled reactors. 
The Department is urged to coordinate research between the 
GenIV and AFCI programs was conducting this research, but 
diverted funding to GNEP activities.
    Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative.--The Committee recommends 
$243,000,000 for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative. The 
Committee notes that the Department seems to have decided on a 
recycling pathway that consists of the UREX+ separations 
technology and sodium cooled advanced burner reactors. Many 
feel the decision to down-select to these technologies was made 
too soon. The Committee directs the Department to support a 
broader technology research and development program that better 
defines the technical requirements, validates the proliferation 
resistance and demonstrates the commercial feasibility of 
various recycling technologies. In addition, the Committee does 
not support the integration of the NNSA's mixed oxide fuel 
facility into the GNEP. This technology is intended to support 
a key nonproliferation objective of destroying weapons grade 
plutonium. The Committee does not support additional delays 
that may result in attempt to redesign the plant to handle 
spent nuclear fuel. As such, the Committee expects the 
Department, on August 1, 2007, to proceed with the construction 
of the facilities that will support the MOX program in South 
Carolina.
    Of the funds provided, $50,000,000 is provided for 
separations technology development. DOE is directed to examine 
a broader array of technologies than UREX+, including 
pyroprocessing, and other technologies to determine the most 
cost-effective and proliferation resistant technology. 
$50,000,000 is provided for advanced fuels technology, 
including investments in testing facilities to support fuel 
irradiation experiments. Reactor and separations designs will 
be dependent on the type of fuel to be used, so fuels are on 
the critical path--and they pose substantial complexities. DOE 
is directed to examine different approaches for fuels that 
could be used for recycling, including, oxide, triso, metal, 
and nitride fuels; fuels with the plutonium and minor actinides 
together or separate; inert matrix fuels; and fuels that do or 
do not leave some of the fission products in the recycling 
fuel. $8,000,000 is provided for transmutation science. 
$50,000,000 is provided for systems analysis. DOE is urged to 
analyze a broad range of scenarios, including both once-through 
and recycling scenarios that include more than and UREX+. 
$25,000,000 is provided for reactor technology. DOE is directed 
to work with our international partners to examine other 
advanced burner reactor technology, including molten-salt, 
lead-cooled, and gas-cooled thermal fast-reactors, as well as 
sodium cooled reactors. DOE should focus on whether technical 
barriers can be overcome and costs reduced enough so that these 
reactors might make sense for commercial deployment. $5,000,000 
is provided for the budget request related to small reactors 
that are passively safe and proliferation resistant. As the 
Committee recommends no funding to support the advanced fuel 
cycle facility for either technology development or 
demonstration, the Committee instead recommends $40,000,000 to 
be provided to make needed upgrades to existing hot cells at 
the NNSA and Department of Energy facilities. Of this funding, 
the Committee provides $10,000,000 to Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory, $7,000,000 to Idaho National Laboratory and 
$23,000,000 to Los Alamos National Laboratory to make badly 
needed investments to the existing infrastructure to support 
nuclear fuel production and testing. The Committee also 
recognizes the strong technical capabilities of the existing 
laboratory staff, and encourages the Department to make 
additional investment in upgrading existing nuclear facilities 
in future budget submissions. The Committee recommendation 
includes the following congressionally directed projects, 
within available funds. The Committee reminds recipients that 
statutory cost sharing requirements may apply to these 
projects. $3,000,000 is provided to Technologies Ventures 
Corporation for technology transfer activities (Domenici).

                   RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

    The Committee provides $53,021,000, the same as the budget 
request, for the Radiological Facilities Management program.

                      IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

    The Committee recommends $120,713,000, an increase of 
$16,000,000 to support nuclear research and development at the 
Idaho National Laboratory. The Committee has included an 
increase of $16,000,000 for research and development as well as 
planning design, modernization, and construction of safety 
posture improvements at the Advanced Test Reactor.

                           PROGRAM DIRECTION

    The Committee provides $76,244,000 in Program Direction.

                IDAHO SITE-WIDE SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

    The Committee recommends $75,949,000 consistent with the 
budget request and provided in 050 Defense Activity under the 
Other Defense Activities account.

                           LEGACY MANAGEMENT

    The Committee provides $35,104,000 for Energy Supply-
related activities of the Office of Legacy Management, the same 
the budget request. Funds will be used to protect human health 
and the environment through efficient long-term surveillance 
and maintenance, to protect and make accessible legacy records 
and information, and to ensure contractor worker pension and 
medical benefits.

                         CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

                   (INCLUDING DEFERRAL AND RECISSION)

    The Committee recommends the deferral of $149,000,000 in 
the Clean Coal Technology funding until fiscal year 2009. The 
Committee is aware that not all of the previously awarded 
projects have been successfully developed for a variety of 
reasons and available balances will not be used. The Committee 
recommends that the Department transfer $166,000,000 from the 
Clean Coal Technology account and apply $88,000,000 in funding 
to the FutureGen project, $73,000,000 in funding to the Clean 
Coal Power Initiative for the current competitive solicitation, 
and $5,000,000 in funding to the Fossil Energy Research and 
Development program.

                 Fossil Energy Research and Development

Appropriations, 2007....................................    $592,621,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................     566,801,000
Committee recommendation................................     808,113,000

    The Committee recommendation for Fossil Energy Research and 
Development is $808,113,000 an increase of $215,492,000 above 
the request.
    The Committee is concerned with the reduction in the fossil 
energy research and development activities proposed as part of 
this budget. In 2005, the Congress passed and the President 
signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This legislation provided 
incentives to support the deployment of clean coal technology 
that would provide reliable domestic energy supply and the 
potential to diversify our transportation fuel supply. The 
Department is challenged with developing new technology that 
will support the continued deployment of coal through 
affordable and environmentally sound generating facilities, 
while creating opportunities for production of hydrogen and 
other coal technologies. The Committee has provided additional 
funding to sustain technology development and to send a clear 
message to the administration that the Congress is serious 
about making a long-term investment in fossil energy.
    Clean Coal Power Initiative.--The Committee recommends 
$88,000,000. The Committee is frustrated by the remarkably low 
level of funding provided to this initiative which demonstrates 
advanced coal technologies including carbon sequestration, 
emission control and other co-production opportunities. The 
budget only provided $15,000,000 in new funding in addition to 
the $58,000,000 transferred from the Clean Coal Technology 
account. The Committee is aware that the Department has 
announced a new solicitation for the Clean Coal Power 
Initiative for the capture of carbon dioxide for sequestration 
or other beneficial uses. However, the Committee strongly urges 
the Department to select projects after September 30, 2008, so 
that sufficient funding will be available to award projects 
that will result in significant technological impact. Funds 
previously awarded for the WMPI project selected under DOE 
solicitation DE-PS26-02NT41428 shall remain available for 
obligation to the project provided that a cooperative agreement 
is awarded not later than September 30, 2008.
    FutureGen.--The Committee understands and recognizes the 
potential value of the FutureGen project. However, the 
Committee is concerned about maintaining adequate funding for 
the core fossil energy research, development, and demonstration 
programs. The Committee has emphatically stated its intent, and 
has warned that this R&D project must not be funded at the 
expense of the balance of the core coal R&D program. Yet the 
administration has continued to ignore congressional intent and 
has eliminated or decreased funding for other core coal 
programs. Therefore, the Committee provides $88,000,000 for the 
FutureGen project. This is $20,000,000 less than the budget 
request, but $34,000,000 more than was provided in fiscal year 
2007.
    Fuels and Power Systems.--The Committee recommends 
$374,025,000 for fuels and power systems, an increase of 
$128,423,000. The recommendation includes $34,000,000 for 
Innovations for Existing Plants. Because carbon capture from 
existing plants is a substantial ongoing challenge to the 
existing fleet, the Innovations for Existing Plants program is 
directed to consider carbon capture as a future focus of this 
program. Included in Innovations for Existing Plants is 
$12,000,000 for Federal laboratories, in collaboration with 
research institutions, to conduct research and development on 
the critical link between water and fossil energy extraction 
and utilization and how different regions of the country can 
employ water efficiency technology. The Committee recommends 
$55,000,000 for the Advanced Integrated Gasification Combined 
Cycle activities and $25,000,000 for Advanced Turbines. The 
Committee recommends $132,000,000 for Carbon Sequestration 
activities. The Committee believes that carbon capture and 
sequestration must be accelerated while also advancing other 
important related coal research and development activities. The 
Committee urges the Department to continue to support the 
carbon sequestration demonstration projects authorized in the 
Energy Policy Act of 2005, including section 413 of Public Law 
109-58. Additional funds are needed for the Regional 
Partnerships to expand to field and large-scale injection in 
various geologic formations. The Committee encourages the 
Department to develop and validate a science-based, site-
specific risk assessment framework based on appropriate field 
observations from pilot injections and analog sites, including 
both short-term and long-term risks; this framework should 
serve as a common resource for assessing large-scale 
demonstrations and storage efforts. The Committee recommends 
$10,000,000 within the available funds to support this report. 
Within available funds for Carbon Sequestration, the Committee 
encourages the program to study CO2 accelerated 
growth algae technology to recycle carbon and produce fuels. 
The Committee recommends $30,000,000 for Fuels to support both 
fuels from coal liquids and hydrogen. Within available funds 
for Fuels, the Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 to 
initiate an integrated coal and biomass research activity to 
address carbon emissions and technology barrier issues. The 
Committee recommends $65,025,000 for Fuel Cell Research. Within 
available funds for Fuel Cell Research, $5,000,000 is available 
for the manufacturing initiative for coal-based systems. The 
Committee recommends $33,000,000 for Advanced Research. Within 
available funds for Advanced Research, the Committee 
recommendation includes $5,000,000 for computational energy 
sciences.
    Natural Gas Technology.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $20,000,000. Of this amount, $15,000,000 is provided 
for methane hydrates, and $5,000,000 for research in developing 
technology solutions to minimize the impact, or develop 
treatment technologies for produced water as a by-product of 
natural gas production.
    Oil Technology.--The Committee recommends $10,000,000. 
Within the available funds, the Committee provides $1,500,000 
to continue support for the Risk Based Management System, a 
nationwide database for oil and gas regulations and technology 
developments. The Committee recommends the continuation of the 
stripper well program.
    Program Direction.--The Committee recommends $149,962,000 
for Program Direction.
    Other Programs.--The Committee recommends $16,570,000 for 
fossil energy environmental restoration. The increase of 
$7,000,000 is to carryout research authorized in section 964 of 
EPACT 2005 that supports research in advanced coal mining 
recovery and to minimize the environmental impacts associated 
with underground mining. The Committee recommendation is 
$656,000 for the special recruitment program. The Committee 
recommendation for plant and capital equipment is $13,000,000. 
The Committee recommendation for cooperative research and 
development is $8,000,000.
    Congressionally Directed Projects.--The Committee 
recommendation includes the following congressionally directed 
projects, within available funds for the purposes of research, 
development, and demonstration of fossil energy related 
technologies or programs. The Committee reminds recipients that 
statutory cost sharing requirements may apply to these 
projects.

   COMMITTEE DIRECTED FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Committee
            Project              recommendation        Requested by
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado School of Mines,            $1,000,000  Salazar, Allard
 Golden, CO, Colorado Center
 for Sustainable Energy at the
 Colorado School of Mines.
North Dakota Energy and               4,000,000  Dorgan
 Environment Research Center,
 Grand Forks, ND, Fossil Fuel
 Cooperative Research &
 Development.
Ramgen, Bellevue, WA, CO2             1,200,000  Murray
 compression initiative
 utilizing shockwave/ramjet
 compression technology.
Sparks, NV, City of Sparks            1,000,000  Reid
 Methane Reclamation project.
US/China Energy and                   1,200,000  Landrieu
 Environmental Center, Clean
 Coal Technologies, Tulene
 University, Louisiana.
North Dakota Energy and               3,000,000  Dorgan
 Environment Research Center,
 Grand Forks, ND, National
 Center for Hydrogen Technology.
West Virginia University,               350,000  Byrd
 Advanced coal technology
 (liquefaction) in China.
Center for Zero Emissions             6,000,000  Baucus, Tester
 Technology, Montana State
 University, Clean Coal
 Technologies.
Interdisciplinary Clean Energy        3,500,000  Bennett
 Program at the University of
 Utah, Utah.
Shallow Carbon Sequestration          2,500,000  Bond
 Pilot Demonstration, Missouri.
Gulf of Mexico Hydrates               1,000,000  Cochran
 Research Consortium at the
 University of Mississippi, MS.
Membrane Technology for               1,500,000  Domenici
 Produced Water at Lea County,
 New Mexico.
Carbon Sequestration Monitoring       1,650,000  Enzi
 Activities, Wyoming.
Penn State University, Solid          4,000,000  Specter
 Oxide Fuel Cells, Pennsylvania.
Arctic Energy Office, Alaska...       7,000,000  Stevens
Center for Advanced Separation        1,000,000  Warner, Webb
 Technologies, Virginia.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves

Appropriations, 2007....................................     $21,326,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................      17,301,000
Committee recommendation................................      21,301,000

    The Committee recommends $21,301,000 for fiscal year 2008. 
$2,000,000 of the increase provided is for the operation of the 
naval petroleum and oil shale reserves. Within available funds 
and consistent with the budget request, $3,000,000 is provided 
to support the Rocky Mountain Oil Technology Centers and 
$3,810,000 is recommended to support NPR-3 to continue and 
maintain production.
    Congressionally Directed Projects.--The Committee 
recommendation includes the following congressionally directed 
projects, within available funds. The Committee reminds 
recipients that statutory cost sharing requirements may apply 
to these projects. $2,000,000 is provided to Los Alamos 
National Laboratory in New Mexico to support research for 
inbasin scale environmental impacts for oil shale production 
(Domenici, Bingaman).

                      Elk Hills School Lands Fund

Appropriations, 2007....................................................
Budget estimate, 2008...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

    The State of California maintains that they are due 
$9,710,000 under the Elk Hills program from fiscal year 2007. 
The Department disagrees. If this legal dispute is resolved 
prior to the completion of the conference report, this issue 
may be re-visited.

                      Strategic Petroleum Reserve

Appropriations, 2007....................................    $164,441,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................     331,609,000
Committee recommendation................................     163,472,000

    The Committee supports maintaining the existing storage 
program but does not support the expansion program request at 
this time. Current cost estimates and schedule for an expansion 
are $10,000,000,000 for new facilities and $55,000,000,000 for 
the cost of the oil fill, which would not be complete until 
2027. The Committee does not believe that it makes sense to 
spend Federal funds to take oil off the market when prices are 
at record levels when such funds can be used for more pressing 
needs. The Committee recommends $163,472,000 for the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve. Within available funds for the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve, $10,000,000 is provided for the Secretary to 
conduct an updated inventory of the oil and natural gas 
resources of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico OCS planning area using 
the latest non-drilling seismic technologies. The committee has 
also included section 313 regarding land acquisition related to 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

                   Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve

Appropriations, 2007....................................      $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................       5,325,000
Committee recommendation................................      12,825,000

    The Committee recommends $12,825,000, an increase of 
$7,500,000 above the budget request. The Department will use 
the additional funds to meet costs associated with increased 
storage contracts.

                   Energy Information Administration

Appropriations, 2007....................................     $90,653,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................     105,095,000
Committee recommendation................................     105,095,000

    The Committee recommends $105,095,000 for the Energy 
Information Administration.

                   Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup

Appropriations, 2007....................................    $349,687,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................     180,937,000
Committee recommendation................................     195,437,000

    For the Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup program, the 
Committee recommends $195,437,000, a net increase of 
$14,500,000 above the President's request (this increase 
reflects an offset of $10,000,000 to prior year funds located 
at the Consolidated Business Center for which the program has 
no identified need). The Committee realizes that the 
Department's effort to complete cleanup in the future will be 
challenged by the failure to request sufficient funding. The 
Committee reminds the Department that it is not enough to 
simply fund projects that have the greatest perceived reduction 
to public risk; the Department committed to the public that it 
would meet regulatory agreements too. The Committee expects 
future funding requests to include sufficient funding to meet 
that commitment.
    Control Levels.--In fiscal year 2006, the Environmental 
Management Program's budget was restructured to better display 
site information, which paralleled its management of the 
program. However, Congress increased the number of 
congressional reprogramming control points from approximately 
25 line items in fiscal year 2005 to nearly 100 in fiscal year 
2006. This Committee understands and continues to support the 
need for site managers to have the flexibility to meet the 
changing requirements at the sites and recommends the following 
reprogramming control points for fiscal year 2008:
  --West Valley Demonstration Project;
  --Gaseous Diffusion Plants;
  --Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility Decontamination and 
        Decommissioning;
  ---Small Sites;
  --All construction line items.
    Internal Reprogramming Authority.--In fiscal year 2008, 
Environmental Management may transfer up to $2,000,000, one 
time, between accounts listed below to reduce health and safety 
risks, gain cost savings, or complete projects, as long as a 
program or project is not increased or decreased by more than 
$2,000,000 in total during the fiscal year. This reprogramming 
authority may not be used to initiate new programs or to change 
funding levels for programs specifically denied, limited, or 
increased by Congress in the act or report. The Committee on 
Appropriations in the House and Senate must be notified within 
30 days after the use of this internal reprogramming authority.
    The following is a list of account control points for 
internal reprogramming purposes:
  --West Valley Demonstration Project
  --Gaseous Diffusion Plants;
  --Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility Decontamination and 
        Decommissioning;
  --Small Sites;
  --Transfers between construction line item(s) and operating 
        projects within the same site, as applicable.
    West Valley Demonstration Project.--The Committee includes 
$78,895,000 for West Valley, $24,500,000 above the budget 
request. The Committee notes that this budget request is 
significantly lower than that enacted fiscal year 2006 or the 
program's own preferred funding level displayed in their fiscal 
year 2007 Operating Plan submitted to Congress in March 2007. 
The fiscal year 2008 reduction is puzzling considering the 
amount of waste, decontamination and decommissioning, and 
remediation of contaminated groundwater that still must be 
accomplished. The Committee therefore provides an additional 
$18,000,000 for decontamination and decommissioning of excess 
ancillary facilities, per the State agreement, as well as 
$6,500,000 for additional low-level waste shipments for 
disposal from the ongoing decontamination and decommissioning.
    Gaseous Diffusion Plants.--The Committee recommends 
$38,120,000 for operation of gaseous diffusion plant uranium 
conversion and stabilization activities, the same as the 
President's request.
    Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility Decontamination and 
Decommissioning Project.--The Committee recommends $10,342,000, 
the same as the budget request.
    Small Sites.--The Committee includes $78,080,000 for fiscal 
year 2008. These funds are distributed as follows: Argonne 
National Laboratory, $2,437,000; Brookhaven National 
Laboratory, $23,699,000; Idaho National Laboratory, $5,400,000; 
California Site Support, $160,000; Inhalation Toxicology, 
$427,000; Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, $5,900,000; 
Energy Technology Engineering Center, $13,000,000; Los Alamos 
National Laboratory, $1,905,000; Consolidated Business Center's 
Completed Sites Administration and Suppport, $1,200,000; and 
Moab, $23,952,000. The Committee is concerned with the lack of 
progress and funding in the request for Moab. The removal of 
the tailings pile must be accelerated to cut costs. The 
Committee expects to see increased funding in fiscal year 2009.
    The Committee is aware of the suspension of the 
Department's deactivation and decommissioning activities at the 
Energy Technology and Engineering Site, Santa Susanna Field 
Laboratory, in Simi Valley, California, while the Department 
evaluates stakeholder concerns and input regarding the 
deactivation and decommissioning activities at the site. The 
Department has placed all operations in a safe and stable 
configuration during this pause that allows time to complete 
the evaluation, but will continue to perform environmental 
monitoring activities. The Department claims it is committed to 
cleaning up the Energy Technology and Engineering Site in 
accordance with applicable Federal and State regulations. The 
Committee is very concerned with this situation and will be 
monitoring the Department's actions during the ``pause'' in 
cleanup.

      Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund

Appropriations, 2007....................................    $556,606,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................     573,509,000
Committee recommendation................................     573,509,000

    Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund.--The Committee provides 
$573,509,000, the same as the budget request. The Committee 
also recommends $250,406,000, an increase of $20,000,000, to 
keep the decontamination and decommissioning of the East 
Tennessee Technology Park's K-25 process building on schedule 
for completion by fiscal year 2010. This building is on the 
critical path for the regulatory-driven completion of the 
cleanup of East Tennessee Technology Park by fiscal year 2012.
    Uranium/Thorium Reimbursement.--The Committee recommends no 
funding for this activity, $20,000,000 below the request.

                                SCIENCE

Appropriations, 2007....................................  $3,797,294,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................   4,397,876,000
Committee recommendation................................   4,496,759,000

    The Committee recommends $4,496,759,000 for the Office of 
Science. These funds represent an investment in basic research 
that is critical to both the future economic competitiveness of 
the United Sates and to the success of our national and energy 
security.
    Report on Scientific Cooperation.--The Department is 
directed to prepare a report supported by the Office of Science 
and the Office of Energy Supply and Conservation regarding the 
specific steps the Department is taking to ensure cooperation 
between the two offices in identifying broad research 
objectives and goals as well as specific R&D priorities 
required in the short term. This report should contain 
information as to how the various Department of Energy 
laboratories are supporting these activities and budget 
projections in the next 5 years. This report is due to the 
Committee concurrent with the President's fiscal year 2009 
budget submission.
    Advanced Materials Testing.--Many of the stockpile 
stewardship, Office of Science, and nuclear energy R&D programs 
face scientific challenges posed by ultra high temperature and 
pressure and high radiation environments. As such, the 
Committee urges the Department to begin to develop a research 
and development roadmap that considers the questions of what 
types of facilities are needed to perform experiments on 
materials under extreme temperature and pressure. This facility 
should be shared between the Department of Energy and the 
National Nuclear Security Administration and likewise should 
contribute to the benefit of both programs.

                          HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

    For High Energy Physics, the Committee recommends 
$789,238,000. Understanding the way the universe works is the 
key mission of the High Energy Physics program, and it succeeds 
by probing interactions among matter, energy, space and time. 
The High Energy Physics program has many promising 
opportunities to advance our understanding of the universe and 
its makeup. However, the Department must make important 
decisions about the future of this program, including balancing 
the immediate opportunities provided through the Joint Dark 
Energy Mission and large future investments in the 
International Linear Collider.
    International Linear Collider.--The Committee provides 
$60,000,000 to support research to support the U.S. ILC effort 
within the Accelerator Development, International Linear 
Collider R&D activities. The Committee appreciates the 
scientific challenge of building the ILC in the United States, 
establishing our leadership in this discipline among an 
international team. Despite the large financial commitment by 
the President in scientific research, the Committee is 
concerned that the ILC will crowd out other valuable research 
as has been demonstrated with both the National Ignition 
Facility within the NNSA, the Rare Isotope Accelerator and 
ITER, both within the Office of Science. The Department must 
provide a cost estimate including an out year funding plan and 
an explanation of how this initiative will impact other 
facilities and scientific research.
    Joint Dark Energy Mission.--The Committee has consistently 
urged the Department to move forward toward launch of the Joint 
Dark Energy Mission [JDEM]. Unfortunately, in spite of the 
Committee's support and the Department's own scientific 
facilities planning process, this has not happened. The 
Department's fiscal year 2008 request for JDEM will cripple the 
Department's capacity to move forward either in partnership 
with NASA or as a single agency mission in 2008. Unfortunately, 
this budget reduction may also discourage international 
collaborations interested in a near term launch--collaborations 
which could significantly reduce the United States' costs. The 
Committee reasserts its strong support of JDEM, directs DOE to 
down select from among the three JDEM competitors immediately 
following the decision of the NRC committee, and provides 
$7,000,000 above the combined requests for JDEM, SNAP and other 
Dark Energy research programs to fund the competition and to 
aggressively ramp up activities focused on a launch in 2014.

                            NUCLEAR PHYSICS

    The Committee provides $471,319,000 for Nuclear Physics. 
The Nuclear Physics program fosters fundamental research that 
will advance our understanding of nuclear matter, helping the 
United States maintain a leading role in developing nuclear 
energy, nuclear medicine, and national security.

                 BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

    For Biological and Environmental Research [BER], the 
Committee provides $605,320,000. BER uses competitive and peer-
reviewed research at national laboratories, universities, and 
private institutions to further the Nation's competitiveness in 
the scientific arena.
    Low Dose Research.--The Committee supports the Department's 
ongoing research efforts to understand the relationship between 
low dose radiation exposure and the impact to human health. 
After eight years of research, the Department is now compiling 
the data for independent scientific review. Following this 
review, the Committee encourages the Department to share its 
finding with other agencies and Congress as it may support 
review of our existing regulatory thresholds.
    Medical Applications and Measurement Science.--Of the funds 
provided, $34,000,000 is for Medical Applications and Medical 
Science. The increase of $20,000,000 is for nuclear medicine 
research and should be distributed through a grant program. The 
Committee is disappointed that for the third year in a row the 
Department has eliminated from its budget funding for nuclear 
medicine research.
    The Committee recommends that funding by used to support 
new isotope development R&D and increased availability of 
research isotopes for critical nuclear medicine applications. 
The Committee also notes that diagnostics are currently in 
development between the University of New Mexico and Los Alamos 
utilizing the unique capabilities of Los Alamos at the IPF at 
LANSCE and the radiopharmaceutical expertise of UNM at the 
Center for Isotopes in Medicine.
    Congressionally Directed Projects.--The Committee 
recommendation includes the following congressionally directed 
projects, within available funds. The Committee reminds 
recipients that statutory cost sharing requirements may apply 
to these projects. $400,000 is provided to the University of 
Rochester in New York to support biosensor and fuel cell 
research (Schumer, Clinton); $2,000,000 is provided to the 
Neurosciences Institute in Morgantown, West Virginia, to 
support molecular genetics research (Byrd); $1,000,000 is 
provided to the Inland Northwest Research Alliance in Idaho 
Falls, Idaho, to support water research (Murray, Cantwell); 
$500,000 is provided to the Nevada Cancer Institute in Las 
Vegas to support research of cellular antigens and nuclei acids 
(Reid); $2,500,000 is provided to the University of North 
Dakota in Grand Forks to support antibodies research (Dorgan); 
$2,000,000 is provided to the University of California, San 
Diego to support seismic research (Feinstein); $500,000 is 
provided to the University of Massachusetts at Boston to 
support marine systems research (Kennedy, Kerry); $3,000,000 is 
provided to the University of Vermont in Burlington to support 
research in agricultural, environmental, and biological 
sciences (Leahy); $1,000,000 is provided to the University of 
Vermont in Burlington to conduct research of MRI science 
(Leahy); $250,000 is provided to the Center for Nanomedicine at 
the University of Maryland in Baltimore to support research 
into new nanoconstructs (Mikulski, Cardin); $2,000,000 is 
provided to the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha 
to conduct nanoscale imaging of proteins (Ben Nelson, Hagel); 
$1,500,000 is provided to WIPP in Carlsbad, New Mexico, to 
support neutrino research (Domenici, Bingaman); $12,000,000 is 
provided the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, New 
Mexico, for the Mind Institute ongoing research into brain 
related research including supporting research of military 
personnel suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, 
depression and traumatic brain injuries (Domenici, Bingaman); 
$1,500,000 is provided to New Mexico Tech University in 
Socorro, New Mexico, for Applied Energy Science Design 
(Domenici); $2,000,000 is provided to Jackson State University 
in Jackson, Mississippi, for Bioengineering Research Training 
(Cochran); $600,000 is provided to the University of 
Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, Mississippi, to fund 
research in the areas of increasing efficiency by reducing the 
amount of contrast media needed for certain procedures 
(Cochran); $6,000,000 is provided to the University of 
California, Los Angeles for the Institute for Molecular 
Medicine radiation research (Stevens); $1,200,000 is provided 
to Northwest Missouri State University in Maryville, Missouri, 
for the Nanoscience Education Project (Bond); $1,000,000 is 
provided to The University of Louisville Regional NMR Facility 
in Louisville, Kentucky, to support ongoing research in 
fundamental processes of electron transport systems and the 
structural biology of proteins (McConnell); $1,000,000 is 
provided to Ultra-dense Supercomputing memory storage in 
Colorado for further research in this field (Allard); 
$1,000,000 is provided to Northern Hemisphere Pierre Auger 
Observatory in Colorado for the northern hemisphere location of 
a particle detection observatory (Allard); $1,000,000 is 
provided to University of Oklahoma in Norman, Oklahoma, for the 
Large Scale Application of Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes 
(Inhofe); $1,000,000 is provided to the University of Maine in 
Orono, Maine, for research in Integrated Forest Products 
Refinery technology (Snowe, Collins); $1,000,000 is provided to 
Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for 
the Institute for Regenerative Medicine (Burr, Dole); 
$1,100,000 is provided to the South Dakota Catalyst Group for 
Alternative Energy to support research that will synthesize, 
characterize and scale up production of catalysts important for 
energy alternatives to fossil fuels (Thune); $1,500,000 is 
provided to Louisiana Tech University in Ruston, Louisiana, for 
research in nanotechnology (Vitter, Landrieu); $300,000 is 
provided to Dominican University in River Forest, Illinois for 
research related to the role of transglutaminases in 
Alzheimer's and Huntington's diseases (Durbin); $300,000 is 
provided to the University of Chicago to research multi-
modality, image-based markers for assessing breast density and 
structure to determine risk of breast cancer (Durbin).

                         BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

    The Committee recommends $1,512,257,000 for Basic Energy 
Sciences, an increase of $13,760,000 from the budget request. 
The Committee fully funds facilities within this account 
including the four Nanoscale Science Research Centers and 
provides $15,992,000 for the Manuel Lujan, Jr., Neutron 
Scattering Center. The Committee provides $17,000,000 for the 
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research 
[EPSCoR].

                 ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

    The Committee provides $334,898 for Advanced Scientific 
Computing Research. The increase of $7,700,000 is for the Oak 
Ridge Leadership Computing Facility to maintain budget and cost 
schedule. The Committee has also included language in the NNSA 
Advanced Simulation and Computing program to encourage the 
Office of Science and the NNSA to work together to establish a 
high performance computing capability within the Department by 
joining the capabilities of both program support advanced 
computing architecture, improvements in cyber security and to 
support the development of advanced software and algorithms to 
increase the speed and efficiency of existing and future 
systems. The Committee does not support the Department 
transferring $19,000,000 to the Department of Defense to play a 
minor role in that effort. Instead, the Committee has shifted 
$13,000,000 from the Office of Science to the NNSA Advanced 
Computing and Simulation program to reestablish the Department 
leadership role in high performance computing.

                         FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

    For Fusion Energy Sciences, the Committee recommends 
$427,850,000. This program advances plasma science, fusion 
science, and fusion technology through collaborations among 
U.S. universities, industry, national research laboratories, 
and the international fusion community.
    High Energy Density Plasma Laboratory Program.--The 
Committee is pleased that the Department has developed a 
multidisciplinary research program, which this Committee has 
been an advocate for the past several years. The Committee 
believes this program will provide greater interaction between 
the Office of Science researchers and the NNSA scientists and 
provide greater access to user facilities such as the Z 
machine, NIF and Omega. While these activities have their 
primary responsibility in the weapons program, these facilities 
can offer scientists new capabilities to support their 
experiments. The Committee encourages the Department to 
increase their investment in this modest program to ensure it 
future success. The Committee supports the budget request of 
$12,281,000 for the Office of Science. The Committee notes a 
similar amount has been included in the NNSA program.

                  SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

    The Committee provides $88,956,000 to support 
infrastructure activities, an increase of $10,000,000 over the 
budget request. The Committee continues to be supportive of the 
Physical Sciences Facility at the Pacific Northwest National 
Laboratory. The Physical Sciences Facility is supported by the 
Office of Science, the National Nuclear Security Administration 
[NNSA], and the Department of Homeland Security. The Committee 
is aware of the MOU that was signed by the three agencies in 
November 2006 but it is unable to understand why the fiscal 
year 2008 budget request does not support this interagency 
agreement. This Committee provides the requested amount of 
$35,000,000 from the Office of Science. The Committee is aware 
that a portion of this project is to be developed by a third 
party and that the financing proposal has not yet been approved 
by OMB. To prevent further delay of this project the Committee 
provides an additional $10,000,000 to proceed with the design 
of the buildings expected to be financed by the third party. 
All funding provided in fiscal year 2008 and all funds provided 
in previous bills for this project shall not be held in 
reserve.

                        SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

    The Committee recommendation provides $76,592,000 for 
Safeguards and Security activities, the same as the budget 
request. The Safeguards and Security program provides funding 
for physical security, information protection, and cyber 
security for the national laboratories and facilities of the 
Office of Science.

                       SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION

    The Committee recommends $184,934,000 for the Office of 
Science Program Direction, the same as the budget request.

                     SCIENCE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

    These initiatives support the missions of the Department's 
Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists program. The 
Committee provides $11,000,000.

                         Nuclear Waste Disposal

Appropriations, 2007....................................     $99,206,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................     202,454,000
Committee recommendation................................     204,054,000

    The Committee recommendation for the Office of Civilian 
Radioactive Waste Management include $202,454,000 from fees 
collected by the Secretary which are deposited into the fund 
established by Public Law 97-425 as amended and $242,046,000 
provided from the defense appropriation. An additional 
$1,600,000 is provided for a total of $446,100,000.
    The Committee directs the Department to exercise great 
discretion to ensure that any work undertaken at or near Yucca 
Mountain is consistent with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act's 
requirements that no repository construction can be undertaken 
prior to the issuance of a repository license by the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission. The Committee provides $1,600,000 for 
the cooperative agreement between the Department of Energy and 
Inyo County, California. (Feinstein)

              Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program

Appropriations, 2007....................................      $7,000,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................       8,390,000
Committee recommendation................................       8,390,000

    The Committee recommendation to support the Office of Loan 
Guarantees is $8,390,000, as requested. The Committee has 
provided full funding to enable to the Department to hire 
experienced staff with a background in project finance or have 
experience with existing U.S. Government agencies such as the 
Overseas Private Investment Corporation or the Export-Import 
Bank. These entities have effectively utilized loan guarantees 
to encourage foreign countries to invest in U.S. technology, 
including the recent sale of nuclear reactor technology to 
China. The Committee strongly believes the administration 
should support a domestic initiative of greater proportion here 
in this country to diversity our energy portfolio. The 
Committee has included language regarding the terms and 
conditions of the loan guarantees provided under section 
1702(b)(2) of the Energy Policy Act. The Committee does note 
that in an April 20, 2007 letter, the Government Accountability 
Office concluded the following: ``EPACT section 1702(b)(2) 
confers upon DOE independent authority to make loan guarantees, 
notwithstanding the FCRA requirements.'' The Committee agrees 
with this determination and doesn't believe Congress is 
required to provide statutory authorization in an 
appropriations bill to comply with the Fair Credit Reform Act. 
However, the Committee is taking this prudent step to avoid 
complications in the future over legal interpretations intended 
to frustrate the effectiveness of this program.
    The Committee expects the Department to move expeditiously 
to complete the rulemaking process and make awards on the first 
solicitation once the regulations have been finalized. The 
Committee, however, is concerned that the draft rules propose 
to limit the Federal guarantee to 90 percent of the debt 
portion, which is inconsistent with the statute, which allows 
for the Government to guarantee up to 100 percent of the debt 
portion. The Committee urges the administration to make the 
correction in order to optimize the effectiveness of the loan 
guarantee program to support the deployment of a diversified 
portfolio of energy saving applications and clean generation 
sources.

                      Departmental Administration


                                (GROSS)

Appropriations, 2007....................................    $276,832,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................     310,366,000
Committee recommendation................................     308,596,000

                        (MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES)

Appropriations, 2007....................................   -$123,000,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................    -161,818,000
Committee recommendation................................    -161,818,000

    The Committee recommends $308,596,000 for Departmental 
Administration, a net appropriation of $146,778,000. The 
Departmental Administration account funds eleven Department-
wide management organizations support administrative functions 
such as human resources, accounting, budgeting, workforce 
diversity and project management activities.

                      Office of Inspector General

Appropriations, 2007....................................     $41,819,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................      47,732,000
Committee recommendation................................      47,732,000

    For the Office of Inspector General, the Committee 
recommends $47,732,000 consistent with the budget request. The 
Office of Inspector General identifies opportunities for cost 
savings and operational efficiencies and provides the 
Department of Energy with the assurance that those attempting 
to defraud the Government are apprehended.

                    ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES


                National Nuclear Security Administration


                           Weapons Activities

Appropriations, 2007....................................  $6,275,583,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................   6,511,312,000
Committee recommendation................................   6,489,024,000

    Reliable Replacement Warhead.--The Committee is divided on 
the Reliable Replacement Warhead [RRW] program, but unified in 
its desire to review and discuss our national strategic defense 
policy and the role of nuclear weapons in the post-cold war and 
post-September 11th world. The President requested $88,000,000 
for the RRW program and the bill will provide funding of 
$66,000,000. This is the amount required to complete phase 2a, 
design definition and cost studies, of the RRW research and 
planning outline. Following the completion of phase 2a, 
Congress will have to authorize any continuation of the RRW 
program.
    The information developed from phase 2a will be helpful in 
assessing the role RRW might play in the reliability, safety, 
and nonproliferation areas of the nuclear weapon arsenal, but 
the information alone will not be enough upon which to base a 
decision on its construction or deployment. Congress should 
have a more vigorous analysis and debate of our national 
strategic defense policy prior to deciding whether to continue 
or terminate RRW development.
    Specifically, we need to decide the type and size of our 
future inventory of nuclear weapons. We have thousands of 
warheads. Under treaties we have committed to substantial 
reductions and eventual elimination of nuclear warheads. We 
must decide the methodology of meeting those obligations and 
over what time. In the meantime, we also have to determine how 
we maintain the warheads we decide we must keep. Do we continue 
the Stockpile Stewardship Program, which has been used for many 
years to maintain our nuclear deterrence, or do we develop the 
RRW program to replace the current nuclear warheads with new 
ones?
    These are important questions that must be answered before 
we decide whether to continue with or terminate the RRW 
program. Some of these answers will be influenced by how long 
the current nuclear warheads can be maintained in the Stockpile 
Stewardship Program without degradation. New evidence suggests 
that the life of those warheads is decades longer than 
previously estimated. The future funding requirements for a new 
RRW program will also have to be weighed against and compared 
to the costs of the Life Extension Program within the Stockpile 
Stewardship Program.
    We should also consider what impact the RRW program would 
have on international nonproliferation efforts. The United 
States is engaged around the world on trying to halt the spread 
of nuclear weapon capability and we must consider the role of 
RRW in those efforts. These are among the most important issues 
policy makers will face in the months and years ahead. The 
question of whether the RRW program should be continued must be 
based on accurate information and thorough debate.
    The Committee favors the development of a bipartisan 
commission created by the Congress to evaluate and make 
recommendations on the role of nuclear weapons in our future 
strategic posture. That commission should engage the 
administration, the Congress and the best minds in the public 
and private sector to evaluate the future role of nuclear 
weapons as a part of our defense and strategic policies. That 
Commission report can form the basis of information and advice 
from which the President and the Congress can make decisions 
about the future of RRW and other weapons programs.
    Complex 2030.--The Committee rejects the Department's 
premature deployment of the NNSA Complex 2030 consolidation 
effort. This plan was based on the adoption and deployment of 
the Reliable Replacement Warhead systems. The Government 
Accountability Office found this proposal to be lacking 
critical details about the size and military mission of the RRW 
system, which of course would dictate the size and makeup of 
the future stockpile including the necessity for a new pit 
manufacturing capability. The Committee has previously canceled 
the Modern Pit Facility, because the National Nuclear Security 
Administration, the Nuclear Weapons Council and the Department 
of Defense were unable to make a compelling case for a 
significantly larger pit manufacturing need. The Committee has 
not provided any funding for the Consolidated Pit Center for 
the very same reason. For as much thought as the Department has 
given to supporting Complex 2030 and its deployment, the 
Committee is concerned about sustaining the science capability 
at the laboratories and ensuring a balanced program that 
continues to make critical investment in improving the 
scientific mission. For example, the NNSA has established a 
preeminent capability in super computing to simulate warhead 
reliability without underground testing. However, the 
Department has no plans to advance the field of high 
performance computing, but instead proposes to reduce computing 
capacity within the laboratory system. This, however, doesn't 
mean that the NNSA doesn't have plans to purchase additional 
platforms in the future, but it is unclear what is driving 
these decisions. The Committee is frustrated by the lack of 
planning to ensure that the laboratory mission is not 
compromised. The Committee directs the Department to provide a 
comprehensive computing proposal that involves the input from 
the weapons laboratories that includes a long term strategy to 
maintain the necessary simulation capabilities within the 
complex and to drive innovation and competition for technology 
and performance. The Committee is also frustrated with the lack 
of scientific development vision for the labs. The NNSA has 
focused on its transformational plan, based on the RRW systems, 
but appears to have given little thought to the scientific path 
forward. The Committee directs the Department, drawing on the 
resources within NNSA and the Office of Science, to provide to 
the Committee a research and development plan that addresses 
unresolved physics and materials questions that will support 
national security mission as well as contributed to improving 
our energy independence, nonproliferation mission and to 
support biomedical applications. This plan should explore 
technology options that can be deployed and provide an added 
capability to our R&D program to update the scientific 
capabilities at each of the laboratories.
    Consolidation.--The Committee does believe the 
consolidation for disposal of the various amounts of special 
nuclear material, including highly enriched uranium; plutonium 
and excess pits should be aggressively pursued. The Committee 
is concerned that rising security costs continue to erode 
mission critical funding. The Committee encourages the 
administration to careful evaluate the future mission need for 
all special nuclear material. Any and all material that no 
longer has a specific mission need should be consolidated and 
destroyed, preferably into other forms that can be reused in 
other applications such as light water reactor fuel if 
possible. The Committee also supports utilizing existing 
facilities to recycle or destroy excess material at the H 
Canyon at the Savannah River Site. The facility, which is the 
last of its kind, can play a key role in down-blending a 
significant and varied amount of highly enriched uranium and 
various forms of plutonium and uranium. The cost of running 
this facility to support the consolidation campaign appears to 
be much more cost effective than attempting to develop a new 
capability. The Committee continues to encourage the Department 
to maintain its campaign to remove plutonium from the Livermore 
National Laboratory as soon as possible and urges the 
Department to give greater consideration to expanding the 
amount of plutonium that can be added to the 34 tons of weapons 
grade material that will be turned in to mixed oxide fuel for 
use in civilian reactors for electric generation.

                        DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK

    The Committee recommendation provides $1,409,521,000 for 
the Directed Stockpile Activities, a reduction of $37,715,000. 
These activities support the activities needed to provide 
critical surveillance, engineering, research and development, 
maintenance, and dismantlement of the stockpile.
    Life Extension Programs.--The Committee recommends 
$238,686,000, as requested. The Committee is concerned about 
the growing costs associated with the Life Extension Program 
for the W-76. The Committee is aware of the fact that the NNSA 
is facing a challenge posed by attempting to reengineer cold 
war capabilities. However, the Committee expects that 
Department to establish a better program assessment and 
reporting requirements to better manage this program.
    Stockpile Systems.--The Committee recommends $346,717,000 
for the Stockpile Systems account as requested.
    Reliable Replacement Warhead.--The Committee recommends 
$66,000,000 and directs the Department to conduct the 
appropriate feasibility studies allowed under phase 2a. The 
Committee commends the NNSA and laboratories for their work in 
the design competition for the RRW program. The design teams 
made security, reliability and manufacturability the foundation 
of both designs and both teams should be commended for their 
effort. The Committee expects the NNSA to conduct a timely and 
thorough feasibility review of the weapon system in order to 
provide Congress with the necessary information to make an 
informed decision as to whether or not it will authorize the 
National Nuclear Security Administration to proceed with the 
next phase of development. It will be incumbent upon NNSA to 
provide specific details as to how many RRW weapons will be 
manufactured, how the Department of Defense intends to 
integrate the system into the stockpile and how many weapons 
from the existing deterrent can be retired. No funds may be 
used for initial research of a RRW2.
    Weapons Dismantlement.--The Committee provides the 
requested level of $52,500,000 as requested. The Committee 
commends the Department for their recent efforts to increase 
the number of dismantlement and fulfill the terms of the 
Washington-Moscow Treaty, which calls for the reduction of the 
active stockpile to the lowest level in over three decades.
    Stockpile Services.--The Committee recommends $705,868,000 
for these activities, a reduction of $14,946,000. The Committee 
expects the Department to focus on providing adequate funding 
support to protect the ongoing research and development, 
engineering and production support to maintain the existing 
life extension program, and not to undertake significant 
transformational activities proposed as part of Complex 2030 or 
to accommodate the proposed RRW workload. The Committee 
recommends $284,979,000 for the Production support program as 
requested. The Committee provides no funding for the responsive 
infrastructure activity. The Committee recommends $205,576,000 
for the Management, Technology and Production activity. The 
Committee provides full funding of the production of limited 
life components for the existing stockpile. Key limited life 
components, such as neutron generators, contain radiological 
sources that cannot be manufactured by private vendors. The 
Committee directs the NNSA to continue to provide full support 
for the continued production of neutron generators to support 
the existing stockpile. The Committee also supports the 
Department's efforts to deploy new core surveillance diagnostic 
capabilities developed in the Engineering Campaign.

                               CAMPAIGNS

    The campaigns provide the foundation for the experimental 
science-based activities that support the NNSA Stockpile 
Stewardship mission. Research supported by the programs provide 
data that is used with the super computing capabilities at each 
of the laboratories needed to support the life extension 
program and to certify to the President the confidence of the 
nuclear deterrent.
    The Committee recommends $1,933,193,000, an increase of 
$66,973,000 above the budget request. Within the funds 
provided, for the various campaigns, the Committee supports the 
budget request for the university research program in robotics 
[URPR] for the development of advanced robotic technologies for 
strategic national applications
    Science Campaign.--The Committee recommends $273,075,000 as 
requested to support the science campaign. This is the same as 
the budget request.
    Engineering Campaign.--The Committee recommends 
$172,749,000, an increase of $20,000,000 for the engineering 
campaign. This account provides critical engineering support to 
the stockpile and can provide solutions to deploy state-of-the-
art use control technologies. There remains a significant 
amount that still must be understood regarding limited life 
components. The Committee expects the NNSA to develop a better 
predictive capability to better understand why systems fail and 
what must be done to increase reliability and component 
lifetimes. The Committee recognizes the continued threat posed 
by international terrorist organizations that seek to acquire 
and detonate nuclear weapons within the stockpile of the United 
States and those possessed by other nations. The Committee 
recommends that the NNSA accelerate efforts within the Enhanced 
Surety subactivity of the engineering campaign to increase the 
safety, security and improved surveillance of nuclear weapons 
in the existing stockpile by developing modern surety 
technologies, and to take advantage of every opportunity to 
implement these technologies in any weapon program. 
Furthermore, the Committee recommends that the NNSA work with 
other nations to explore opportunities to share these 
technologies, within the bounds of existing laws and treaties 
so that nuclear weapons can be better secured against 
international terrorist threats. The Committee recommends 
$44,803,000, an increase of $20,000,000 above the request, to 
enhance these important activities. The Committee also requests 
the NNSA to report back by July 1, 2008 on progress made both 
in the inclusion of modern surety technologies in the RRW 
studies and the plan for making surety technologies available 
for other nations. The Committee expects the Department to 
complete the buildout of the MESA facility. The Committee also 
directs the NNSA to initiate the refurbishment of the Ion Beam 
Lab by reprogramming uncosted Microsystems and Engineering 
Science Applications and Exterior Communication Infrastructure 
Modernization contingency funds. This program is on the 
critical path and the replacement of these existing facilities 
will be offset against the increasing costly maintenance and 
repair activities.
    Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield 
Campaign.--The Committee recommends $459,146,000 for the ICF 
campaign activities including $10,139,000 for the final year of 
construction of the National Ignition Facility as requested. 
The baseline ignition approach on NIF is x-ray or indirect 
drive. This approach was chosen after detailed review of its 
maturity and value to the weapons program. Significant 
challenges remain for the baseline approach as independent 
reviews have concluded. In addition there are severe budgetary 
constraints on the overall Stockpile Stewardship Program. The 
Department is therefore directed to allocate all of its 
resources for the first ignition demonstration with indirect 
drive and to defer other approaches such as direct drive until 
after achievement of x-ray driven ignition or after experiments 
have shown that the baseline approach will not succeed. The 
funds budgeted for direct drive should be used to increase the 
operating capacity of all other ICF funded facilities within 
the complex.
    Facility Operations and Target Production.--The Committee 
recommends $132,970,000 for the facility operations and target 
production. This funding increase reflects the Committee's 
desire to consolidate funding for the Z machine operations and 
experimentation into NNSA Science and ICF campaign accounts. 
The Z facility at Sandia National Laboratories is a model NNSA 
shared national user facility. The request for Z experiments 
continues to grow. Scientists at the NNSA weapons laboratories 
are focused on the mission needs of the Stockpile Stewardship 
Program, and the new initiative in high energy density 
laboratory plasmas will increase the interest from scientists 
in the fundamental research fields of high-energy-density 
science, planetary science, and laboratory astrophysics. NNSA 
has invested $120,000,000 in the Z facility and a petawatt-
class laser. Despite this investment, the budget request fails 
to provide sufficient funding to reestablish experimental 
capabilities (precision, performance, and shot rate) required 
to support the many users of the facility. This funding 
shortfall will severely restrict the ability to conduct high-
priority weapons science, ICF, and basic science research using 
the refurbished Z facility. The Committee concurs with the 
President's budget request for Z using $12,800,000 in the 
Science Campaign, $10,440,000 in the ICF Pulsed Power and 
$1,200,000 in the ICF National Ignition Campaign activities. 
The Committee has provided $58,357,000 in the Facility 
Operations and Target Production category of the ICF Campaign 
in order to fully reestablish experimental capabilities on the 
refurbished Z facility. The Committee shifts $28,887,000 from 
the RTBF Campaign budgeted for Z to the ICF Facility Operations 
and Target Production category. Within the available funds, 
$13,000,000 has been added to ensure full operations and target 
production on Z and $5,000,000 to support a new approach known 
as a Linear Transformer Driver or LTD to create high current 
pulsed power devices has recently been demonstrated at Sandia. 
The funding shall be used to refine the baseline design 
including all of the critical elements of rep-rated high yield 
fusion facility and begin component improvements and 
demonstrations as appropriate. The Committee expects that the 
Department will provide adequate funding for the full 
utilization of Z machine in the out-year budgets.
    Joint Program in High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas.--
The Committee appreciates the Department's effort to establish 
the High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas joint program. The 
Committee is encouraged the Department is taking the proper 
steps to coordinate research between the Office of Science and 
NNSA, and to expand it to other agencies as well. The 
Department has provided $24,637,000 divided equally between 
Fusion Energy Sciences and NNSA. The Committee recommends the 
entire NNSA contribution of $12,356,000 be provided in the High 
Energy Density Laboratory Plasma line. The Committee has 
shifted funds from experimental support activities.
    NIF Assembly and Installation.--The Committee provides 
$136,912,000 for NIF assembly and installation.
    Advanced Simulation and Computing.--The Committee 
recommends $610,738,000 for the activities with the Advanced 
Simulation and Computing program. This is an increase of 
$25,000,000 above the President's request. The Committee has 
provided an additional $12,000,000 for infrastructure 
improvements such as power, storage and visualization across 
the complex. The Committee has also reallocated funding 
targeted to subsidize the Department of Defense research 
program and applied it to support a joint NNSA and Office of 
Science high performance computing effort; $19,000,000 is 
reprioritized to support this initiative. The Committee expects 
the Department to complete work on this computing system before 
proceeding with other platform acquisitions. The National 
Nuclear Security Administration and the Office of Science both 
have major High Performance Computing [HPC] programs. These 
programs have provided national leadership in the development 
of HPC technologies and their application to stockpile 
stewardship and scientific discovery. To address emerging 
issues in the Nation's security, economic competitiveness and 
scientific leadership, advances in HPC need to be accelerated 
beyond what each office can accomplish individually.
    The Committee expects the Department to continue to 
diversify it computing potential and bring together national 
laboratories, computer industries and universities to develop 
critical technologies for future supercomputing platforms. 
Important areas for research and development include advanced 
supercomputer architectures, new algorithms and system software 
to enable efficient use of emerging architectures, advanced 
interconnection network technologies and advanced memory 
subsystems technologies that keep pace with advances in 
microprocessors. The Department is directed to establish a 
joint program office lead by the NNSA Administrator and the 
Under Secretary for Science. This office will have the primary 
responsibility to ensure the sustained availability of a well 
balanced, and hence productive and highly scalable, computing 
platforms for the DOE and the Nation and will serve the 
missions of NNSA, the Office of Science and emerging economic 
competitiveness initiatives. Within this responsibility, the 
institute will develop and maintaining a long-range HPC roadmap 
and create the strategy and guidelines for competitive 
acquisition of supercomputer platforms for the DOE including 
pre-competitive HPC R&D. These supercomputers protect national 
security information and thus have demanding cyber security 
requirements. The Department is expected to support research 
and development efforts to ensure these systems are protected 
from cyber attack. The Department of Energy has requested 
$19,000,000 to be provided to the Department of Defense to 
subsidize the creation of its own high performance computing 
program. Since the Department of Energy plays such a minor role 
in this effort, the Committee recommends no funding be provided 
to the Department of Defense from either the Office of Science 
or the NNSA and instead use the funds to revitalize the 
Department's own R&D capability. The Committee is aware of 
several competitive ideas for increased computing capacity from 
several different technology providers. The Committee 
encourages the NNSA to ensure the three laboratories have 
sufficient computing capacity to support each of the laboratory 
missions well into the future.
    The Committee supports the administration's request to 
provide $52,100,000 for the Roadrunner at Petaflop scale.
    Pit Manufacturing.--The Committee recommends $256,316,000 
to support the Pit Manufacturing mission, down $24,914,000. The 
Committee does not endorse the consolidated plutonium center 
and has not provided any funding for this activity. The NNSA, 
Nuclear Weapons Council and the Defense Department have failed 
to clearly articulate its vision for the stockpile and the 
explain how it will utilize the proposed tools in the Complex 
2030 plan to reduce the overall number of warheads as well as 
individual weapons systems.
    Readiness Campaign.--The Committee recommends $161,169,000, 
as requested. The Committee understands that $12,400,000 in 
uncosted obligations remain available from the completed 
Tritium Extraction Facility (98D125000). The Committee has 
rescinded these available funds for use in other priorities in 
the weapons program. This still leaves sufficient funding for 
closeout activities.

               READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES

    The Committee provides $1,659,248,000. This funding is used 
to support the operations and maintenance of the NNSA 
laboratories, productions facility, equipment purchases and 
personnel.
    Operations of Facilities.--The Committee recommends 
$1,126,409,000 for this account. This funding level reflects a 
reduction of $32,896,000. Within this amount the Committee 
shifted $28,887,000 to the ICF Campaign in order to consolidate 
funding for operations of the Z machine. The Committee also 
recommends a reduction of $4,009,000 from the Institution Site 
Support activities. This cut is expected to be spread equally 
among all sites.
    Program Readiness.--The Committee provides the requested 
amount of $71,466,000.
    Material Recycle and Recovery.--The Committee notes this 
activity continues to have uncosted obligations. As such 
funding has been reduced by $5,000,000 to $64,962,000.
    Containers.--The Committee recommends $19,184,000.
    Storage.--The Committee recommendation included 
$25,133,000, a reduction of $10,000,000. According to the GAO, 
this activity also contains uncosted balances.
    Construction.--The Committee recommends $352,094,000, an 
increase of $45,000,000. The Committee has provided this 
funding increase to make key investments in laboratory 
infrastructure and security needs.
    Project 08-D-801, High Pressure Fire Loop, Pantex, Texas.--
The Committee recommends $7,000,000, the same as the request.
  --08-D-802, High Explosives Pressing Facility, Pantex, 
        Texas.--The Committee recommends $25,300,000, the same 
        as the request.
  --08-D-804, TA-55 Reinvestment Project, Los Alamos, New 
        Mexico.--The Committee recommends $6,000,000, the same 
        as the request.
  --08-D-805, Classified Vaults, Los Alamos, New Mexico.--The 
        Committee recommends an additional $45,000,000 to 
        demonstrate proposed super vault type rooms at Los 
        Alamos to consolidate 142 existing vaults into 10 
        vaults. Consolidation of classified data will deploy 
        advanced security technology to defeat both internal 
        and external threats.
  --07-D-140 Project Engineering and Design, Various 
        Locations.--The Committee recommends $2,500,000, the 
        same as the request.
  --07-D-220 Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility 
        Upgrade Project, LANL, New Mexico.--The Committee 
        recommends $26,672,000, the same as the request.
  --06-D-140 Project Engineering and Design, Various 
        Locations.--The recommendation for this activity is 
        $23,862,000, the same as the budget request.
  --06-D-420 NTS Replace Fire Stations 1&2, Nevada Test Site, 
        Nevada.--The Committee recommends $6,719,000, the same 
        as the request.
  --05-D-140, Project Engineering and Design, Various 
        Locations.--The Committee recommends $7,000,000, the 
        same as the request.
  --04-D-125, Chemistry and Metallurgy Facility Replacement 
        Project, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, 
        New Mexico.--The Committee recommends $95,586,000 for 
        the Chemistry and Metallurgy Facility Replacement 
        Project. The current authorization basis for the 
        existing CMR lasts only through 2010, as it does not 
        provide adequate worker safety or containment 
        precautions. However, deep spending cuts implemented by 
        the NNSA in the 2007 Spend Plan and a significant cut 
        to the 2008 budget request will likely result in delays 
        that will require the laboratory to continue operations 
        in the existing CMR facility. Any further reductions 
        below the $95,586,000 request, which is $65,000,000 
        below the proposed spend plan from the 2007 request, 
        would stop all work on the Nuclear Facility and long 
        lead equipment purchases and would result in the layoff 
        of key design personnel. Attempting to reconstitute a 
        new team at a later day would likely result in a new 
        round of delays and cost increases. The NNSA's 
        indecision regarding future facilities will also result 
        in added costs, delays and keep workers in unsafe 
        working conditions at least 2 years beyond the existing 
        2010 deadline. The Committee has not provided funding 
        to initiate work on the new multibillion consolidated 
        plutonium because the Defense Department has been 
        unable to articulate a coherent policy and pit 
        requirement for the stockpile.
  --04-D-128 TA-18 Criticality Experiments Facility [CEF], Los 
        Alamos National Lab, Los Alamos, New Mexico.--The 
        Committee recommends $29,455,000, the same as the 
        request.
  --01-D-124 HEU Materials Facility, Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, 
        Tennessee.--The Committee recommends $77,000,000, the 
        same as the request.
    Test Capabilities Revitalization Phase II.--The Committee 
is very concerned about the lack of funding for the Test 
Capabilities Revitalization Phase II located at Sandia National 
Laboratory. The NNSA has previously indicated its desire to 
upgrade this testing facility, but has failed to provide any 
funding in the fiscal year 2008 budget request. The Committee 
is concerned that this facility, which represents a single 
point failure in the complex and cannot be operated for much 
longer in this State. The Committee directs the Department to 
provide a report to the Appropriations Committee identifying 
the options for the recovery of this facility and the expected 
cost and timetable.

             FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE RECAPITALIZATION

    The Committee recommends $262,743,000 for Facilities and 
Infrastructure Recapitalization activities, a decrease of 
$31,000,000. This program was developed to reduce the backlog 
of deferred maintenance of aging infrastructure facilities 
throughout the complex. The old facilities continue to be a 
drain on resources and should be demolished or disposed of as 
quickly as possible. The Committee recommends $200,023,000 to 
support the FIRP program and $62,720,000 to support 
construction activities as requested.

                      SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET

    The Committee recommendation for the Secure Transportation 
Asset program is $215,646,000 as requested. This organization 
provides an invaluable service that is responsible for the safe 
and secure transport of our nuclear weapons, weapons components 
and special nuclear material.

                   NUCLEAR WEAPONS INCIDENT RESPONSE

    The Committee recommends full funding for the nuclear 
weapons incident response program. The Committee provides 
$161,748,000 as requested.

                  ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT AND OPERATIONS

    The Committee recommends $17,518,000 as requested for long 
term stewardship responsibilities.

                        SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

    The Committee recommendation for the Safeguards and 
Security program is $893,057,000, an increase of $12,000,000. 
The Committee is frustrated with the continued climb in funding 
for this activity and the constantly increasing demands for 
additional resources. Currently, the Department and 
laboratories spend over $1 billion on physical security costs. 
The ever increasing costs lies in the application of the Design 
Basis Threat, which is linked to manpower needs. The Committee 
continues to be concerned that the Department does not have a 
realistic threat assessment in which to accurately assign risk 
and allocate scarce resources. This view is based on the 
continued escalation of security costs around the complex that 
seem to have no ceiling. Therefore, the Committee recommends 
the National Academy of Sciences analyze how the Design Basis 
Threat is currently formulated along with the funding requests 
to meet these requirements and then build a comprehensive 
``probabilistic risk assessment'' tool for comparison purposes 
and provide a report back to the Committee on Appropriations. 
The Committee expects the NAS to perform this evaluation for 
both the physical and cyber environments and to inform the 
Committee if the Department has identified the proper balance 
between the two activities.
    Operations.--The Committee recommends $733,318,000, an 
increase of $12,000,000 to be used to complete the cyber 
security upgrades of the red network at Los Alamos. This 
funding will provide the interconnectivity and hardening to 
facilitate this complete transformation of the site and allow 
the diskless classified workstation program to come rapidly to 
full implementation. Operating costs for classified computing 
and media will drop to provide annual savings that can continue 
to support world-class cyber security.
    Construction.--The Committee recommends $57,496,000, as 
requested to support the following projects:
  --08-D-701 Nuclear Materials S&S Upgrade Project Los Alamos 
        National Laboratory.--The Committee provides 
        $49,496,000 as requested.
  --05-D-170 Project Engineering and Design, Various 
        Locations.--The Committee recommends $8,000,000 as 
        requested.
    Cyber Security.--The Committee encourages this office to 
redouble its efforts to increase the level of cyber protection 
of national security data and help facilitate the deployment of 
new technology and red networks throughout the complex in order 
to better control classified data. Despite the constant and 
evolving cyber threat, the Committee is surprised that the rate 
of growth in cyber security has failed to keep pace with 
physical security demands. The Committee hopes the National 
Academy Study will shed some light on our best opportunity to 
defeat this growing danger.
    Congressionally Directed Projects.--The Committee 
recommendation includes the following congressionally directed 
projects, within available funds. The Committee reminds 
recipients that statutory cost sharing requirements may apply 
to these projects. The Committee provides $8,000,000 for North 
Dakota State University (Fargo) to support computing capability 
(Dorgan); $600,000 is provided to the Atomic Testing Museum in 
Las Vegas, Nevada, for operations and maintenance (Reid); 
$19,650,000 is provided to the Nevada Test Site for operations 
and infrastructure improvements (Reid); $1,000,000 is provided 
to Arrowhead Center at New Mexico State University to promote 
prosperity and public welfare in New Mexico through economic 
development (Domenici, Bingaman); $750,000 is provided to the 
National Museum of Nuclear Science and History in Albuquerque, 
New Mexico, for the museum site (Domenici); $3,500,000 is 
provided to the University of Texas in Austin, Texas, to 
complete the construction of the Petawatt Laser (Hutchison); 
$3,500,000 is provided to the Sandia Institute for Advanced 
Computing Algorithms, New Mexico, for high performance 
computing and advanced algorithm development (Domenici); 
$350,000 is provided to the University of Nevada-Las Vegas for 
in-situ nanomechanics (Reid).
    Unused Carryover Balances.--The Government Accountability 
Office has conducted a review of the NNSA budget and found that 
$67,000,000 in unobligated carryover balances are available for 
reuse. The Committee has shifted these funds to support vital 
activities with the weapons accounts.

                    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

Appropriations, 2007....................................  $1,818,339,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................   1,672,646,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,872,646,000

       NONPROLIFERATION AND VERIFICATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

    The Committee recommends $322,252,000 for Nonproliferation 
and Verification Research and Development activities, an 
increase of $57,000,000. The Committee is disappointed that the 
Department of Energy has reduced the funding for this activity 
over the past 2 years, despite out year budget estimates that 
show additional needs. The Committee recognizes this program 
provides a critical tool to prevent against technical surprise 
from other nations. The Committee recognizes it is the 
capabilities developed by this program that enable the Federal 
Government to monitor, detect and verify clandestine efforts by 
other countries to hide or disguise their nuclear capability. 
This program also plays a critical role in the development of 
technologies that secure civilian nuclear technology and to 
provide international monitoring of enrichment, reprocessing 
and reactor operations. The Committee also believes innovations 
in detection equipment can provide port and rail cargo better 
screening facilities and provide the NNSA with greater 
capability to screen more cargo in a timely fashion, including 
the deployment of mobile portal detection systems. Of the 
funding provided, $17,000,000 is for Project 06-D-180, National 
Security Laboratory at the Pacific Northwest National 
Laboratory. In providing this funding the Committee accelerates 
half of the NNSA's fiscal year 2009 funding share for this 
facility. Acceleration of completion of this facility is driven 
by the Department of Energy's environmental cleanup of the 
Hanford 300 Area. The NNSA is urged to meet its commitments to 
this replacement facility and continue to work closely with the 
Office of Science and the Department of Homeland Security.

              NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

    For Nonproliferation and International Security, the 
Committee recommends $210,870,000, an increase of $86,000,000. 
These activities provide critical oversight capabilities to 
ensure compliance with international treaties and agreements to 
reduce and eliminate nuclear material that poses a 
proliferation threat. Within available funds, the Committee 
recommends $1,500,000 to New England Research in White River 
Junction, Vermont, for the Caucasus Seismic Network (Leahy).
    International Fuel Bank.--The Committee recommends an 
additional $50,000,000 to provide the U.S. contribution toward 
the establishment of an International Nuclear Fuel Bank under 
the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency, [IAEA]. 
The fuel bank would accept contributions from many nations and 
private contributors to operate a civilian nuclear fuel reserve 
for countries that agree to forgo the development of a domestic 
enrichment capability. This international reserve will protect 
countries from potential economic and political disruptions in 
the nuclear fuel supply. Before the U.S. contribution is made 
to establish this international reserve, the Department will 
negotiate the terms and conditions for participation and use of 
the fuel bank and certify to Congress that the conditions are 
acceptable. Sixty days following the congressional 
notification, and assuming no legislative action is taken to 
prevent the Department from proceeding, the Department is 
directed to make the appropriated contribution.
    Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention.--The 
Committee recommends $28,000,000 for the Global Initiatives for 
Proliferation and Prevention. This is an increase of $8,000,000 
to support international science collaboration. The Committee 
believes that the efforts to engage both Iraqi and Libyan 
scientific institutions are unlikely to bear significant 
results and the Committee authorizes the NNSA to use these 
funds and others to develop stronger research ties with China.
    Global Regimes.--The Committee recommends $10,126,000 for 
the Global Regimes program, an increase of $8,000,000. This 
additional funding shall be used by the Department to conduct 
an international ministerial-level conference on nuclear 
nonproliferation goals and objectives. The Committee encourages 
the administration to press for new multilateral options to 
address the spread of fissile material, equipment and 
technology, particularly with respect to international supplier 
rules, strengthened IAEA safeguards and physical protection 
requirements, bilateral and multilateral cooperation to support 
implementation UNSCAR 1540 and the Global Initiative to Combat 
Nuclear Terrorism, and multilateral cooperative agreements on 
civilian nuclear technology.

       INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS PROTECTION AND COOPERATION

    The Committee recommends $391,771,000, an increase of 
$20,000,000. The fiscal year 2007 global war on terror 
supplemental enacted on May 25, 2007 provided additional 
funding to support efforts to secure special nuclear material. 
The Committee will closely follow the Department's efforts as 
it works off the amount of un-obligated balances as a result of 
the supplemental appropriation.

           ELIMINATION OF WEAPONS-GRADE PLUTONIUM PRODUCTION

    The Committee recommends $152,593,000, a decrease of 
$29,000,000. This nominal reduction is enabled by the fact that 
the Department has succeeded in raising this amount of funding 
from other countries such as United Kingdom, Canada, 
Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Republic of Finland and New 
Zealand. The Committee provided the Department with the 
statutory authority in 2005 to apply international 
contributions to the program and continues to encourage the 
Department to find offsetting contributions that allows the 
Department to provide funding to other priorities.

                     FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION

    The Committee recommends $609,534,000 as requested to 
support the Fissile Materials Disposition program. The 
Committee provides full funding to the Plutonium Disposition 
Program and expects the Department to proceed expeditiously 
with construction of the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility 
a Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility. The Committee would 
note that the Department has also completed certification of 
the surplus pit shipping containers and are beginning to 
fabricate them. During the delay in the start of construction 
due to the 2007 joint resolution, the Department has undertaken 
a thorough review of all the options available in disposing of 
excess weapons-grade plutonium. Despite the increasing projects 
costs associated with the MOX facility, the Department has 
found the MOX path still offers the lowest cost and quickest 
path to disposal. The Committee expects the Department to focus 
on delivering this project at cost and on time.
    Russian Program.--The Committee continues to wait for an 
final agreement with the Russian Government as to terms and 
conditions Russian intends to fulfill the Plutonium Management 
and Disposition Agreements and dispose of 34 tons of excess 
Russian plutonium. The Committee is frustrated with the delay. 
The Committee is aware of the fact that more than $250,000,000 
has been appropriated earmarked for Russia if they commit to a 
disposition pathway. The Committee directs the Department to 
rescind $57,000,000 in previously appropriated funds for the 
Russian program and apply it to the construction activities of 
the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility. This will increase that 
account from $333,849,000 to $390,849,000 for construction of 
the MOX facility on the currently validated baseline and 
schedule. The Committee is not backing away from the United 
States obligation to provide assistance to this program and 
will support future budget requests for the Russian program 
once the Russian Government commits to a specific disposal 
pathway that includes a cost-sharing arrangement and on a 
timetable consistent with the United States effort. Further, 
the plutonium discharged from the portion of the reactors used 
weapons plutonium must be less than the weapons plutonium 
loaded into these reactors, and any material eventually 
reprocessed from these operations should be mixed in such a way 
that any plutonium recovered is not weapons-grade. The 
Committee emphasizes the importance of reaching agreement with 
Russia quickly on a monitoring regime, so that disposition in 
those facilities that already exist can begin; it should not be 
difficult to reach agreement on measures that will confirm that 
weapon-grade plutonium is being dispositioned. The Committee is 
disappointed that the Department does not yet appear to have 
focused on (a) the measures needed to ensure that high levels 
of security are maintained throughout the disposition process 
in Russia, and (b) working with Russia to ensure that the 
disposition pathway chosen is expandable to handle much larger 
quantities of plutonium, should the two sides agree to 
disposition of much larger quantities (which the Committee 
believes would significantly enhance the national security 
value of this effort). In both cases, the needed measures will 
be more effective and less expensive if designed in from the 
outset. The Committee's future support for the Russian effort 
will be affected by the progress made in these two areas.

                   GLOBAL THREAT REDUCTION INITIATIVE

    The Committee provides $185,626,000 for the Global Threat 
Reduction Initiative, an increase of $66,000,000 over the 
request. The program serves the important role of securing and 
reducing vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials located 
at civilian sites around the world. The program is central to 
our efforts to prevent the use of such materials in weapons of 
mass destruction and acts of terrorism.

                             Naval Reactors

Appropriations, 2007....................................    $781,800,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................     808,219,000
Committee recommendation................................     808,219,000

    Through the Naval Reactors program, the National Nuclear 
Security Administration is working to provide the U.S. Navy 
with nuclear propulsion plants that are capable of responding 
to the challenges of 21st century security concerns. The 
Committee recommends $808,219,000 for the Naval Reactors 
program.

                      Office of the Administrator

Appropriations, 2007....................................    $340,291,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................     394,656,000
Committee recommendation................................     394,656,000

    The Committee recommends $394,656,000 for the Office of the 
Administrator, the same as the President's request.

               ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES


                     Defense Environmental Cleanup

Appropriations, 2007....................................  $5,731,839,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................   5,363,905,000
Committee recommendation................................   5,690,380,000

    For Defense Environmental Cleanup, the Committee provides 
$5,690,380,000, an increase of $326,475,000 above the 
President's request. This total includes $10,000,000 for 
Hazardous Waste Worker Training. The Committee recognizes the 
program's focus on project management and encourages the 
program to continue its disciplined approach to managing its 
projects under the Department's Project Management Order (DOE 
Order 413). Using this process, 73 percent (in terms of dollar 
value) of all near-term project baselines have been validated, 
and 96 percent of those baselines are operating within an 
acceptable performance range (plus or minus 10 percent). 
However, the program is only requesting sufficient funding to 
provide a 50 percent confidence that the objectives (cost, 
scope, and schedule) of its projects will remain unchanged. The 
Department's effort to complete clean up in the future will be 
challenged by the failure to request sufficient funding. More 
importantly, it is not enough to simply fund projects that have 
the greatest perceived reduction to public risk; the Department 
committed to the public that it would meet regulatory 
agreements too. The Committee expects future funding requests 
to include sufficient funding to meet that commitment.
    Recently, the Office of Envirenmental Management's 
Leadership determined that a number of activities that were 
directed by the Congress in the past have merit, benefiting the 
cleanup program as well as the taxpayer. Activities such as the 
historic preservation activities related to the Manhattan 
Project sites, the Self-Reliance Foundation/Hispanic 
Communications Network, the Diagnostic Instrumentation and 
Analysis Laboratory, and the Western Environmental Technology 
Office have now been incorporated into the fabric of the EM 
Cleanup program. The Committee recognizes that this 
determination came too late to be included in the fiscal year 
2008 request, but will be supported within available funds. The 
Committee expects these meritorious activities to be supported 
in fiscal year 2009 and future budgets.
    Control Levels.--In fiscal year 2006, the Environmental 
Management Program's budget was restructured to better display 
site information, which paralleled its management of the 
program. However, Congress increased the number of 
congressional reprogramming control points from approximately 
25 line items in fiscal year 2005 to nearly 100 in fiscal year 
2006. This Committee understands and continues to support the 
need for site managers to have the flexibility to meet the 
changing requirements at the sites and recommends the following 
reprogramming control points for fiscal year 2008:
  --Closure sites;
  --Savannah River site, 2012 completion projects;
  --Savannah River site, 2035 completion projects;
  --Savannah River site, tank farm operations projects;
  --Waste Isolation Pilot Plant;
  --Idaho National Laboratory;
  --Oak Ridge Reservation;
  --Hanford site; 2012 completion projects;
  --Hanford site; 2035 completion projects;
  --Office of River Protection, tank farm operations projects;
  --Office of River Protection, Waste Treatment and 
        Immobilization Plant;
  --Program Direction;
  --Program Support;
  --Technology Development and Deployment;
  --All construction line items;
  --NNSA sites;
  --Safeguards and Security.
    Internal Reprogramming Authority.--In fiscal year 2008, 
Environmental Management may transfer up to $5,000,000, one 
time, between accounts listed below to reduce health and safety 
risks, gain cost savings, or complete projects, as long as a 
program or project is not increased or decreased by more than 
$5,000,000 in total during the fiscal year. This reprogramming 
authority may not be used to initiate new programs or to change 
funding levels for programs specifically denied, limited, or 
increased by Congress in the act or report. The Committee on 
Appropriations in the House and Senate must be notified within 
30 days after the use of this internal reprogramming authority.
    The following is a list of account control points for 
internal reprogramming purposes:
  --Savannah River site, 2012 completion projects;
  --Savannah River site, 2035 completion projects;
  --Savannah River site, tank farm operations projects;
  --Hanford site; 2012 completion projects;
  --Hanford site; 2035 completion projects;
  --Transfers between construction line item(s) and operating 
        projects within the same site, as applicable.
    Closure Sites.--The Committee includes $55,937,000, an 
increase of $13,500,000 above the request, to assure disposal 
of the Fernald Byproducts Waste. Miamisburg receives 
$30,308,000, Consolidated Business Center receives $11,834,000, 
and Ashtabula receives $295,000, all as requested.
    Hanford Site.--The Committee includes $950,376,000, a total 
of $73,296,000 above the budget request. The Committee 
recommendation includes an increase of $23,000,000 for solid 
waste activities, $19,400,000 for soil remediation in the 
Central Plateau (U Plant & BC Cribs), Plutonium-Uranium 
Extraction Facility remedial investigation/feasibility study to 
meet Tri-Party Agreement milestones, $23,000,000 for the River 
Corridor Closure project to meet near-term milestones and 
continue the deactivation of critical facilities to meet mid-
term compliance milestones, and the transfer and combination of 
$471,000 from the Office of River Protection to the Hanford 
Office for Community and Regulatory Support. The Committee also 
recognizes that the program has determined the Hazardous 
Materials Management and Emergency Response [HAMMER] facility 
has merit to the needs of the cleanup program and is included 
in the Hanford budget. The program should separately provide 
funding for this activity in its fiscal year 2009 request.
    Office of River Protection.--The Committee is frustrated 
that the Department of Energy continues to request inadequate 
funds for Tank Farm Activities. The safe operation of the tank 
farms, retrieval of waste and the closure of the tank farms is 
an increasingly important activity as the underground storage 
tanks are past their planned life expectancy. Additionally, DOE 
has selected a supplemental treatment technology as part of its 
overall treatment plan for low-activity waste but has requested 
no funds for the demonstration project for the past 2 years. 
The delay of the Waste Treatment Plant highlights the need to 
test, evaluate, and ultimately deploy alternatives for 
treatment of liquid tank waste instead of relying solely on one 
solution. To support a robust program the Committee provides an 
additional $53,000,000 for the Tank Farm Activities. Funding at 
this level will keep an experienced, well-trained workforce on 
the job, achieving real cleanup results. The Committee also 
transfers $471,000 from the Office of River Protection to the 
Hanford Office to consolidate the Community and Regulatory 
Support function in one place. The total for the Tank Farm 
Activities is $325,972,000. The Committee includes $690,000,000 
for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant [WTP], 
bringing the site total to $1,015,972,000. A significant factor 
in establishing an annual funding level of $690,000,000 for 
this project was to moderate the Federal budget impact of 
significant year-to-year swings in actual construction costs by 
allowing for carryover of excess funds in years with lower 
costs to years where costs rise above the appropriation. 
Continued support for this funding level will provide both 
solutions to identified problems with the project as well as 
ramp up in construction.
    Idaho Cleanup Project.--The Committee recommends 
$532,926,000, an increase of $28,900,000. The increase supports 
shipping legacy mixed low-level waste offsite for disposal at 
the Nevada Test Site; plant and equipment upgrades that will 
permit Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Plant to operate at 
capacity to meet Settlement Agreement milestones; and 
completion of the remote handled-transuranic waste shipments to 
the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant by the end of fiscal year 2008 
to meet its operational requirements (to emplace remote-handled 
waste prior to emplacing contact-handled waste in disposal 
rooms).
    NNSA Sites.--The Committee recommendation is $361,663,000, 
a total of $90,533,000 above the request. The Committee 
recommends $222,000,000 for cleanup at Los Alamos National 
Laboratory, $82,533,000 above the request, of which $5,000,000 
is to support environmental impact studies and environmental 
remediation to support land transfer activities from the Los 
Alamos National Laboratory to Los Alamos County. The increase 
is necessary to prevent the site from missing agreed upon 
cleanup milestones in fiscal year 2008, and will also enable 
the laboratory to undertake the necessary predatory work 
necessary to remain on schedule for fiscal year 2009. The 
Committee also provides $8,000,000 above the request of 
$81,106,000 for characterization and certification of remaining 
transuranic waste stored at Nevada for disposal at the Waste 
Isolation Pilot Plant. The Committees also includes $8,680,000 
for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, $1,511,000 for the 
NNSA Service Center, $27,585,000 for the Separations Process 
Research Unit, $12,411,000 for Pantex, and $370,000 for 
California Site Support, all as requested.
    Oak Ridge Reservation.--The recommendation is $179,284,000, 
the same as the budget request.
    Savannah River Site.--The Committee includes 
$1,200,090,000. Within the recommendation, the Committee 
provides $311,811,000 for the nuclear materials stabilization 
and disposition activity, the same as the budget request.
    Waste Isolation Pilot Plant [WIPP].--The recommendation is 
$250,739,000, an increase of $31,000,000 above the requested 
amount. The increase provides for equipment to maintain 
operational reliability, assurance of transuranic waste 
receipts at an average rate of 21 contact- and 5 remote-handled 
shipments per week, procurement of TRUPACT III shipping casks 
for large containers, and finally, monitoring and plugging of 
wells. The remaining funds are for Carlsbad educational 
support, infrastructure improvements resulting from of 
operations at WIPP and for construction of the WIPP digital 
records center, activities the Program found meritorious enough 
to support in fiscal year 2007.
    Program Direction.--The Committee includes $309,760,000, 
consistent with the requested amount.
    Program Support.--The Committee includes $41,946,000.
    Safeguards and Security.--The Committee recommends 
$273,581,000, an increase of $200,000, which is for WIPP.
    Technology Development and Deployment.--The Committee 
provides $55,106,000, which provides for additional research 
and development for High Level Waste retrieval, pretreatment 
and immobilization, and decontamination and decommissioning 
activities designed to reduce long-term costs.
    The Committee recommendation includes the following 
congressionally directed projects, within available funds. The 
Committee reminds recipients that statutory cost sharing 
requirements may apply to these projects. $3,000,000 is 
provided to the University of Nevada, Reno, Department of Civil 
and Environmental Engineering, for continued expansion of the 
James E. Rogers and Louis Weiner Jr. Large-Scale Structures 
Laboratory (Reid); $3,475,000 is provided to the University of 
Nevada, Reno, Center for Materials Reliability (Reid); 
$1,500,000 is provided to Cellular Bioengineering, Inc., 
Honolulu, Hawaii, to continue development of polymeric 
hydrogels for radiation decontamination (Inouye); $1,500,000 is 
provided to Cerematec Incorporated in Salt Lake City, Utah, for 
Remediation of Low-Level Nuclear Waste Utilizing Ceramic Ionic 
Transport Membranes (Bennett, Hatch); $1,000,000 is provided to 
Savannah River National Lab in South Carolina for Integrated 
Collaborative Prototyping Environment (Graham).
    Federal Contribution to Uranium Enrichment Decontamination 
and Decommissioning Fund.--The recommendation is $463,000,000, 
the same as the request.

                        Other Defense Activities

Appropriations, 2007....................................    $636,271,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................     763,974,000
Committee recommendation................................     765,464,000

    The Committee recommends $765,464,000 for Other Defense 
Activities.

                      HEALTH, SAFETY AND SECURITY

    The Committee recommends $429,348,000, including 
$100,043,000 for Program Direction. The Committee does not 
recommend a reduction of $990,000 of prior-year balances, as 
these funds were not received by the program due to the year 
long continuing resolution in fiscal year 2007.
    The Office of Health, Safety and Security is the 
Department's central organization responsible for health, 
safety, environment, and security; providing corporate-level 
leadership and strategic vision to coordinate and integrate 
these programs. This Office provides the Department with 
effective and consistent policy, assistance, enforcement, and 
independent oversight activities. The integrated approach and 
functional alignment of responsibility alleviates overlap in 
reporting and provides consistency in policy and guidance while 
increasing the effectiveness of communication and 
accountability for worker health, safety and security.
    The Committee directs the Office of Health, Safety and 
Security to allocate $16,500,000 from within available funds 
for the former worker medical screening programs. The Office of 
Health, Safety and Security is directed to initiate an early 
lung cancer screening program using helical low dose CT 
scanning for former workers at Fernald facility in Harrison, 
Ohio, and the Mound facility in Miamisburg, Ohio, who are at 
elevated risk of lung cancer. Additionally, the Office of 
Health, Safety and Security is to extend early lung cancer 
screening at the three gaseous diffusion plants in Portsmouth, 
Ohio, Paducah, Kentucky, and Oak Ridge (K-25), Tennessee, for 
those who have not previously been screened but are now 
eligible according to established eligibility protocols. Given 
that lung cancer screening program carried out at the three 
gaseous diffusion plants since 2000 has identified the majority 
of lung cancers at early stages where surgical intervention has 
been demonstrated to be successful, and studies indicate this 
has led to an increase in survival rates, it is appropriate to 
extend lung screening to at-risk workers at the Fernald and 
Mound facilities.

                           LEGACY MANAGEMENT

    The Committee recommends $159,063,000, the same as the 
request. This funding is in addition to $35,401,000 
appropriated under the Energy Supply and Conservation 
appropriation of the Department. Funds are used to monitor 
closed cleanup sites and manage DOE property as well as manage 
the pension and benefit responsibilities of former DOE 
contractors employed by the closed sites.
    Congressionally Directed Projects.--The Committee 
recommendation includes the following congressionally directed 
projects, within available funds. The Committee reminds 
recipients that statutory cost sharing requirements may apply 
to these projects. $500,000 is provided to the Rocky Flats Cold 
War Museum in Colorado to recognize the work that went on at 
Rocky Flats and those who contributed to the history (Allard).

                FUNDING FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES AT IDAHO

    The recommendation is $75,949,000, the same as the request. 
This provides for Safeguards and Security of the entire Idaho 
National Laboratory, protecting both the Nuclear Energy and 
Environmental Management cleanup employees.

                 DEFENSE RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

    For Defense Related Administrative Support, the Committee 
recommends $99,000,000, the same as the request. These funds 
provide for departmental services which support the National 
Nuclear Security Administration. The Secretary, Deputy 
Secretary, Under Secretaries, and General Counsel are among the 
offices receiving funds.

                     OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

    The Committee provides $4,607,000 for the Office of 
Hearings and Appeals, the same as the President's request. The 
Office of Hearings and Appeals conducts hearings to issue 
decisions of the Department for any adjudicative proceedings 
that the Secretary may delegate.

                     Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal

Appropriations, 2007....................................    $346,500,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................     292,046,000
Committee recommendation................................     242,046,000

    The Committee recommendation for the Office of Civilian 
Radioactive Waste Management is $242,046,000. This total is 
$50,000,000 below the request.

                    Power Marketing Administrations


                    BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION

    The Bonneville Power Administration is the Department of 
Energy's marketing agency for electric power in the Pacific 
Northwest. Bonneville provides electricity to a 300,000 square 
mile service area in the Columbia River drainage basin. 
Bonneville markets the power from Federal hydropower projects 
in the Northwest, as well as power from non-Federal generating 
facilities in the region. Bonneville also exchanges and markets 
surplus power with Canada and California. The Committee 
recommends no new borrowing authority for BPA during fiscal 
year 2008.

      OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2007....................................      $5,602,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................       6,463,000
Committee recommendation................................       6,463,000

    For the Southeastern Power Administration, the Committee 
recommends $6,463,000 the same as the budget request. The 
Committee provides $62,215,000 for purchase power and wheeling.
    The Southeastern Power Administration markets hydroelectric 
power produced at Corps of Engineers projects in 11 
Southeastern States. 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.

      OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2007....................................     $29,998,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................      30,442,000
Committee recommendation................................      30,442,000

    For the Southwestern Power Administration, the Committee 
recommends $30,442,000 the same as the budget request. The 
Committee provides $45,000,000 for purchase power and wheeling.
    The Southwestern Power Administration is the marketing 
agent for the power generated at the Corps of Engineers' 
hydroelectric plants in the six State area of Kansas, Oklahoma, 
Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana, with a total 
installed capacity of 2,158 megawatts. It operates and 
maintains some 1,380 miles of transmission lines, 24 generating 
projects, and 24 substations, and sells its power at wholesale, 
primarily to publicly and cooperatively-owned electric 
distribution utilities.

 CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WESTERN AREA 
                          POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2007....................................    $232,326,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................     201,030,000
Committee recommendation................................     231,030,000

    The Western Power Administration is responsible for 
marketing the electric power generated by the Bureau of 
Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers, and the International 
Boundary and Water Commission. Western also operates and 
maintains a system of transmission lines nearly 17,000 miles 
long, providing electricity to 15 Central and Western States 
over a service area of 1.3 million square miles.
    The Committee notes that Western Area Power Administration 
funding for Construction, Rehabilitation, Operations and 
Maintenance is significantly reduced from prior levels. The 
budget proposes to offset this reduction by a far greater 
reliance on use of alternative financing. While direct customer 
financing is well established there are limits on the 
availability of this alternative financing mechanism. The 
Committee is concerned that continued reductions in Western's 
construction program could impair the reliability of the 
transmission systems.
    The Committee recommends $231,030,000 for the Western Area 
Power Administration. The total program level for Western in 
fiscal year 2008 is $755,911,000 which includes $62,915,000 for 
construction and rehabilitation, $53,271,000 for system power 
operation and maintenance, $475,254,000 for purchase power and 
wheeling, and $157,304,000 for program direction. The Committee 
recommendation includes $7,167,000 for the Utah Mitigation and 
Conservation Fund.
    Offsetting collections total $312,639,000; with the use of 
$3,937,000 of offsetting collections from the Colorado River 
Dam Fund (as authorized in Public Law 98-381), this requires a 
net appropriation of $231,030,000.

           FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

Appropriations, 2007....................................      $2,665,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................       2,500,000
Committee recommendation................................       2,500,000

    The Falcon Dam and Amistad Dam on the Rio Grande River 
generate power through hydroelectric facilities and sell this 
power to public utilities through the Western Power 
Administration. This fund, created in the Foreign Relations 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, defrays the 
costs of operation, maintenance, and emergency activities and 
is administered by the Western Area Power Administration. For 
the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund, the 
Committee recommends $2,500,000 the same as the request.

                  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007....................................    $221,902,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................     255,425,000
Committee recommendation................................     255,425,000

                            REVENUES APPLIED

Appropriations, 2007....................................   -$221,902,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................    -255,425,000
Committee recommendation................................    -255,425,000


                                                                  DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                            Committee recommendation
                                                                                                          Committee               compared to--
                                                                     Revised enacted  Budget estimate   recommendation ---------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Revised enacted  Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               ENERGY EFFICENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

Hydrogen Technology................................................         193,551          213,000          228,000          +34,449          +15,000
Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D................................         199,687          179,263          244,000          +44,313          +64,737
Solar energy.......................................................         159,372          148,304          180,000          +20,628          +31,696
Wind energy........................................................          49,319           40,069           57,500           +8,181          +17,431
Geothermal technology..............................................           5,000   ...............          25,000          +20,000          +25,000
Hydropower.........................................................  ...............  ...............           2,000           +2,000           +2,000
Ocean Tech.........................................................  ...............  ...............           8,000           +8,000           +8,000
Vehicle technologies...............................................         188,024          176,138          230,000          +41,976          +53,862
Building technologies..............................................         104,329           86,456          137,000          +32,671          +50,544
Industrial technologies............................................          56,563           45,998           57,000             +437          +11,002

Federal Energy Management Program:
    Departmental energy management program.........................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
    Federal energy management program..............................          19,480           16,791           23,000           +3,520           +6,209
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Federal Energy Management Program..................          19,480           16,791           23,000           +3,520           +6,209

Facilities and infrastructure:
    National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)....................          24,035            6,982            6,982          -17,053   ...............
    Research Support Buildings.....................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
    NREL Solar equipment recapitalization..........................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
    NREL South-table Mountain infrastructure.......................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
    NREL energy systems integration facility.......................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
    Strategic investment facilities................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
    Construction:
        07-EE-01 Integrated biorefinery research facility, NREL,             20,000   ...............  ...............         -20,000   ...............
         Golden, CO................................................
        06-EE-01 Research support facility Project-1 NREL, Golden,           63,000   ...............  ...............         -63,000   ...............
         CO........................................................
        02-E-001 Science and technology facility, NREL.............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Construction......................................          83,000   ...............  ...............         -83,000   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Facilities and infrastructure.....................         107,035            6,982            6,982         -100,053   ...............

Program Support....................................................          10,930           13,281           13,481           +2,551             +200
Program Direction..................................................          99,264          105,013          105,013           +5,749   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation RDD&D........       1,192,554        1,031,295        1,316,976         +124,422         +285,681

Federal energy assistance:
    Weatherization assistance......................................         200,000          139,450          236,000          +36,000          +96,550
    Training and technical assistance..............................           4,550            4,550            4,550   ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Weatherization.....................................         204,550          144,000          240,550          +36,000          +96,550

Other:
    State energy program...........................................          49,457           45,501           55,000           +5,543           +9,499
    State energy activities........................................           9,348   ...............  ...............          -9,348   ...............
    Gateway deployment.............................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
    International renewable energy program.........................           9,473   ...............  ...............          -9,473   ...............
    Tribal energy activities.......................................           3,957            2,957            7,000           +3,043           +4,043
    Renewable energy production incentive..........................           4,946            4,946            5,000              +54              +54
    Asia pacific...................................................  ...............           7,500   ...............  ...............          -7,500
    Congressionally directed technology deployments................  ...............  ...............          91,025          +91,025          +91,025
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Other..............................................          77,181           60,904          158,025          +80,844          +97,121

      Total, Federal energy assistance.............................         281,731          204,904          398,575         +116,844         +193,671
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, ENERGY EFFICENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY.................       1,474,285        1,236,199        1,715,551         +241,266         +479,352
                                                                    ====================================================================================
            ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY

High temperature superconductivity R&D.............................          47,000           28,186           40,242           -6,758          +12,056
Transmission reliability R&D.......................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
Electricity distribution transformation R&D........................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
Energy storage R&D.................................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
Gridwise...........................................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
Gridworks..........................................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
Visiualization and controls........................................          25,054           25,305           25,305             +251   ...............
Energy storage and power electonics................................           2,900            6,803           21,803          +18,903          +15,000
Distributed systems integration....................................          24,189           25,700           30,700           +6,511           +5,000
Congressionally directed technology deployments....................  ...............  ...............          13,500          +13,500          +13,500
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, Research and development..............................          99,143           85,994          131,550          +32,407          +45,556

Electricity restructuring..........................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
Operations and analysis............................................          20,500           11,556           19,500           -1,000           +7,944
Program direction..................................................          17,357           17,387           17,387              +30   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY...........         137,000          114,937          168,437          +31,437          +53,500

                           NUCLEAR ENERGY

Research and development:
    University reactor infrastructure and education assist.........          16,547   ...............          15,000           -1,547          +15,000
    Nuclear power 2010.............................................          80,291          114,000          135,000          +54,709          +21,000
    Generation IV nuclear energy systems initiative................          35,586           36,145           55,000          +19,414          +18,855
    Nuclear hydrogen initiative....................................          19,265           22,600           22,600           +3,335   ...............
    Advanced fuel cycle initiative.................................         167,484          395,000          243,000          +75,516         -152,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Research and development..............................         319,173          567,745          470,600         +151,427          -97,145

Infrastructure:
    Radiological facilities management:
        Space and defense infrastructure...........................          30,650           35,110           35,110           +4,460   ...............
        Medical isotopes infrastructure............................          15,634           14,964           14,964             -670   ...............
        Enrichment facility and uranium management.................             491   ...............  ...............            -491   ...............
        Research reactor infrastructure............................  ...............           2,947            2,947           +2,947   ...............
        Oak Ridge nuclear infrastructure...........................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Radiological facilities management.............          46,775           53,021           53,021           +6,246   ...............

    Idaho facilities management:
        INL Operations and infrastructure..........................         107,693          104,713          120,713          +13,020          +16,000
        INL infrastructure:
            Construction:
                06-E-200 Project engineering and design (PED), INL,           6,030   ...............  ...............          -6,030   ...............
                 ID................................................
                06-E-201 Gas test loop in the ATR, INL, ID.........  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal, Idaho facilities management............         113,723          104,713          120,713           +6,990          +16,000

    Idaho sitewide safeguards and security.........................          75,919   ...............          75,949              +30          +75,949
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Infrastructure........................................         236,417          157,734          249,683          +13,266          +91,949

Program direction..................................................          62,600           76,224           76,224          +13,624   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Nuclear Energy.....................................         618,190          801,703          795,507         +177,317           -6,196
                                                                    ====================================================================================
Funding from other defense activities..............................        -122,634   ...............         -75,949          +46,685          -75,949
Funding from Naval Reactors........................................         -13,365   ...............  ...............         +13,365   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY........................................         482,191          801,703          719,558         +237,367          -82,145
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                   ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

Office of Environment, Safety and Health (non-defense).............           7,848   ...............  ...............          -7,848   ...............
Program direction..................................................          19,993   ...............  ...............         -19,993   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH........................          27,841   ...............  ...............         -27,841   ...............

                    OFFICE OF LEGACY MANAGEMENT

Legacy management..................................................          33,187           35,104           35,104           +1,917   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION........................       2,154,504        2,187,943        2,639,650         +485,146         +451,707
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                       CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

Deferral of unobligated balances, fiscal year 2005.................         257,000   ...............  ...............        -257,000   ...............
Deferral of unobligated balances, fiscal year 2007.................        -257,000   ...............  ...............        +257,000   ...............
Deferral of unobligated balances, fiscal year 2008.................  ...............         257,000          257,000         +257,000   ...............
Rescission, uncommitted balances...................................  ...............        -149,000         -149,000         -149,000   ...............
Transfer to Fossil Energy R&D (CCPI)...............................  ...............         -58,000          -73,000          -73,000          -15,000
Transfer to Fossil Energy R&D (FutureGen)..........................  ...............        -108,000          -88,000          -88,000          +20,000
Transfer to Fossil Energy R&D(Fuels & Power Systems)...............  ...............  ...............          -5,000           -5,000           -5,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Clean Coal Technology.................................  ...............         -58,000          -58,000          -58,000   ...............

               FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Clean coal power initiative........................................          60,433           73,000           88,000          +27,567          +15,000
FutureGen..........................................................          54,000          108,000           88,000          +34,000          -20,000

Fuels and Power Systems:
    Innovations for existing plants................................          16,015   ...............          34,000          +17,985          +34,000
    Advanced integrated gasification combined cycle................          56,952           50,000           55,000           -1,952           +5,000
    Advanced turbines..............................................          20,000           22,000           25,000           +5,000           +3,000
    Carbon sequestration...........................................         100,000           79,077          132,000          +32,000          +52,923
    Fuels..........................................................          22,127           10,000           30,000           +7,873          +20,000
    Fuel cells.....................................................          63,352           62,025           65,025           +1,673           +3,000
    Advanced research..............................................          32,868           22,500           33,000             +132          +10,500
    U.S./China Energy and environmental center.....................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Fuels and power systems............................         311,314          245,602          374,025          +62,711         +128,423
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Coal...............................................         425,747          426,602          550,025         +124,278         +123,423

Natural Gas Technologies...........................................          12,000   ...............          20,000           +8,000          +20,000
Petroleum-Oil Technologies.........................................           2,700   ...............          10,000           +7,300          +10,000
Program direction..................................................         129,803          129,973          149,962          +20,159          +19,989
Plant and Capital Equipment........................................          12,000   ...............          13,000           +1,000          +13,000
Fossil energy environmental restoration............................           9,715            9,570           16,570           +6,855           +7,000
Import/export authorization........................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
Advanced metallurgical research....................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
Special recruitment programs.......................................             656              656              656   ...............  ...............
Cooperative research and development...............................  ...............  ...............           8,000           +8,000           +8,000
Congressionally directed technology deployments....................  ...............  ...............          39,900          +39,900          +39,900
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT................         592,621          566,801          808,113         +215,492         +241,312
                                                                    ====================================================================================
NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES.............................          21,316           17,301           21,301              -15           +4,000
ELK HILLS SCHOOL LANDS FUNDS.......................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE........................................         164,441          331,609          163,472             -969         -168,137
NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE.................................           5,000            5,325           12,825           +7,825           +7,500
ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION..................................          90,653          105,095          105,095          +14,442   ...............

                 NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

West Valley Demonstration Project..................................          78,591           54,395           78,895             +304          +24,500
Gaseous Diffusion Plants...........................................          66,860           38,120           38,120          -28,740   ...............
Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion, 02-U-101.................          52,179   ...............  ...............         -52,179   ...............
Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility (WA)...............................          34,843           10,342           10,342          -24,501   ...............
Small Sites........................................................         117,214           78,080           78,080          -39,134   ...............

Legacy management..................................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
Use of Prior year balances.........................................  ...............  ...............         -10,000          -10,000          -10,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP.....................         349,687          180,937          195,437         -154,250          +14,500
                                                                    ====================================================================================
    URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING FUND

Decontamination and decommissioning................................         536,806          553,509          573,509          +36,703          +20,000
Uranium/thorium reimbursement......................................          19,800           20,000   ...............         -19,800          -20,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, URANIUM ENRICHMENT D&D FUND........................         556,606          573,509          573,509          +16,903   ...............

Uranium sales and barter (scorekeeping adjustment).................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, UED&D FUND/URANIUM INVENTORY CLEANUP..................         556,606          573,509          573,509          +16,903   ...............

                              SCIENCE

High energy physics:
    Proton accelerator-based physics...............................         374,733          389,672          389,672          +14,939   ...............
    Electron accelerator-based physics.............................         104,127           79,763           79,763          -24,364   ...............
    Non-accelerator physics........................................          59,865           72,430           79,430          +19,565           +7,000
    Theoretical physics............................................          56,407           56,909           56,909             +502   ...............
    Advanced technology R&D........................................         156,654          183,464          183,464          +26,810   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, High energy physics...................................         751,786          782,238          789,238          +37,452           +7,000

Nuclear physics....................................................         410,646          453,619          453,619          +42,973   ...............
    Construction:
        07-SC-02 Electron beam ion source Brookhaven National                 5,000            4,200            4,200             -800   ...............
         Laboratory, NY............................................
        06-SC-01 Project engineering and design (PED) 12 GeV                  7,000           13,500           13,500           +6,500   ...............
         continuous electron beam accelerator facility upgrade,
         Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator facility (was
         project 07-SC-001), Newport News, VA......................
        06-SC-02 Project engineering and design (PED), Electron                 120   ...............  ...............            -120   ...............
         beam ion source, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Total, Nuclear physics.................................         422,766          471,319          471,319          +48,553   ...............

Biological and environmental research:
    Biological research............................................         349,097          393,773          467,196         +118,099          +73,423
    Climate change research........................................         134,398          138,124          138,124           +3,726   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Biological and environmental research.................         483,495          531,897          605,320         +121,825          +73,423

Basic energy sciences:
    Research:
        Materials sciences and engineering research................         898,481        1,093,219        1,106,979         +208,498          +13,760
        Chemical sciences, geosciences and energy biosciences......         226,740          283,956          283,956          +57,216   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Research.......................................       1,125,221        1,377,175        1,390,935         +265,714          +13,760

    Construction:
        08-SC-01 Advanced light source (ALS) user support building,  ...............          17,200           17,200          +17,200   ...............
         LBNL, CA..................................................
        08-SC-10 Project engineering and design (PED) Photon         ...............             950              950             +950   ...............
         ultrafast laser science and engineering (PULSE) building
         renovation, SLAC, CA......................................
        08-SC-11 Photon ultrafast laser science and engineering      ...............           6,450            6,450           +6,450   ...............
         (PULSE) building renovation, SLAC, CA.....................
        07-SC-06 Project engineering and design (PED) National                3,000           45,000           45,000          +42,000   ...............
         Synchrotron light source II (NSLS-II).....................
        07-SC-12 Project engineering and design (PED) Advanced                1,500   ...............  ...............          -1,500   ...............
         light source user building, LBNL..........................
        05-R-320 LINAC coherent light source (LCLS)................         101,000           51,356           51,356          -49,644   ...............
        05-R-321 Center for functional nanomaterials (BNL).........          18,864              366              366          -18,498   ...............
        04-R-313 The molecular foundry (LBNL)......................             257   ...............  ...............            -257   ...............
        03-SC-002 Project engineering & design (PED) SLAC..........             161   ...............  ...............            -161   ...............
        03-R-313 Center for Integrated Nanotechnology..............             247   ...............  ...............            -247   ...............
        99-E-334 Spallation neutron source (ORNL)..................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Construction...................................         125,029          121,322          121,322           -3,707   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Basic energy sciences.............................       1,250,250        1,498,497        1,512,257         +262,007          +13,760

Advanced scientific computing research.............................         283,415          340,198          334,898          +51,483           -5,300
Fusion energy sciences program.....................................         318,950          427,850          427,850         +108,900   ...............

Science laboratories infrastructure:
    Laboratories facilities support:
        Infrastructure support.....................................           1,520            1,520            1,520   ...............  ...............
        General plant projects.....................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............

    Construction:
        07-SC-05 Physical science facilities, PNNL.................          10,000   ...............  ...............         -10,000   ...............
         07-SC-04 Science laboratories infrastructure project                 8,908   ...............  ...............          -8,908   ...............
         engineering and design (PED)..............................
         04-SC-001 Project engineering and design (PED), various     ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
         locations.................................................
        03-SC-001 Science laboratories infrastructure MEL-001                10,131           63,529           73,529          +63,398          +10,000
         Multiprogram energy laboratory infrastructure projects,
         various locations.........................................
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, Construction.................................          29,039           63,529           73,529          +44,490          +10,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, Laboratories facilities support..............          30,559           65,049           75,049          +44,490          +10,000

    Oak Ridge landlord.............................................           5,079            5,079            5,079   ...............  ...............
    Excess facilities disposal.....................................           6,348            8,828            8,828           +2,480   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Science laboratories infrastructure...................          41,986           78,956           88,956          +46,970          +10,000

Safeguards and security............................................          75,830           76,592           76,592             +762   ...............
Workforce development for teachers and scientists..................           7,952           11,000           11,000           +3,048   ...............

Science program direction:
    Field offices..................................................          95,716          104,193          104,193           +8,477   ...............
    Headquarters...................................................          70,753           80,741           80,741           +9,988   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Science program direction.............................         166,469          184,934          184,934          +18,465   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Science............................................       3,802,899        4,403,481        4,502,364         +699,465          +98,883
                                                                    ====================================================================================
Less security charge for reimbursable work.........................          -5,605           -5,605           -5,605   ...............  ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      TOTAL, SCIENCE...............................................       3,797,294        4,397,876        4,496,759         +699,465          +98,883
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                       NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Repository program.................................................          33,566          127,780          129,380          +95,814           +1,600
Program direction..................................................          65,640           74,674           74,674           +9,034   ...............
Integrated spent fuel recycling....................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      TOTAL, NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL................................          99,206          202,454          204,054         +104,848           +1,600
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                   ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

Office of Environment, Safety and Health (non-defense).............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
Program direction..................................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH........................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............

Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program administrative          ...............           8,390            8,390           +8,390   ...............
 operations........................................................

                    DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

Administrative operations:
    Salaries and expenses:
        Office of the Secretary....................................           5,429            5,787            5,787             +358   ...............
        Board of Contract Appeals..................................             147   ...............  ...............            -147   ...............
        Chief Financial Officer....................................          38,044           40,260           40,260           +2,216   ...............
        Management.................................................          54,161           63,939           63,939           +9,778   ...............
        Human capital management...................................          22,107           28,161           28,161           +6,054   ...............
        Chief Information Officer..................................          39,172           47,502           47,502           +8,330   ...............
        Congressional and intergovernmental affairs................           4,813            4,762            4,762              -51   ...............
        Economic impact and diversity..............................           5,477            5,649            5,649             +172   ...............
        General Counsel............................................          23,202           30,076           30,076           +6,874   ...............
        Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
        Policy and international affairs...........................          15,054           18,948           18,948           +3,894   ...............
        Public affairs.............................................           4,493            3,860            3,860             -633   ...............
        Loan guarantee office......................................           7,000   ...............  ...............          -7,000   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Salaries and expenses..........................         219,099          248,944          248,944          +29,845   ...............

Program support:
    Minority economic impact.......................................             677              834              834             +157   ...............
    Policy analysis and system studies.............................             389              625              625             +236   ...............
    Environmental policy studies...................................             558              531              531              -27   ...............
    Climate change technology program (prog. supp).................             501            1,066            1,066             +565   ...............
    Cybersecurity and secure communications........................          43,075           35,184           35,184           -7,891   ...............
    Corporate management information program.......................          22,825           28,421           28,421           +5,596   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Program support....................................          68,025           66,661           66,661           -1,364   ...............

Competitive sourcing initiative (A-76).............................           2,464            1,770   ...............          -2,464           -1,770
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Administrative operations.............................         289,588          317,375          315,605          +26,017           -1,770

Cost of work for others............................................          74,243           91,991           91,991          +17,748   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Departmental Administration........................         363,831          409,366          407,596          +43,765           -1,770
                                                                    ====================================================================================
Funding from other defense activities..............................         -86,999          -99,000          -99,000          -12,001   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Departmental administration (gross)...................         276,832          310,366          308,596          +31,764           -1,770
                                                                    ====================================================================================
Miscellaneous revenues.............................................        -123,000         -161,818         -161,818          -38,818   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION (net).....................         153,832          148,548          146,778           -7,054           -1,770
                                                                    ====================================================================================
Office of Inspector General........................................          41,819           47,732           47,732           +5,913   ...............

                  ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

              NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

                         WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Life extension program:
    B61 Life extension program.....................................          58,302           63,115           63,115           +4,813   ...............
    W76 Life extension program.....................................         193,566          175,571          175,571          -17,995   ...............
    W80 Life extension program.....................................          12,491   ...............  ...............         -12,491   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Life extension program.............................         264,359          238,686          238,686          -25,673   ...............

Stockpile systems:
    B61 Stockpile systems..........................................          67,879           75,091           75,091           +7,212   ...............
    W62 Stockpile systems..........................................           2,075            2,153            2,153              +78   ...............
    W76 Stockpile systems..........................................          62,481           69,238           69,238           +6,757   ...............
    W78 Stockpile systems..........................................          38,667           38,991           38,991             +324   ...............
    W80 Stockpile systems..........................................          36,558           32,372           32,372           -4,186   ...............
    B83 Stockpile systems..........................................          24,412           25,012           25,012             +600   ...............
    W84 Stockpile systems..........................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
    W87 Stockpile systems..........................................          63,098           57,147           57,147           -5,951   ...............
    W88 Stockpile systems..........................................          41,024           46,713           46,713           +5,689   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Stockpile systems..................................         336,194          346,717          346,717          +10,523   ...............

Reliable replacement warhead.......................................          35,846           88,769           66,000          +30,154          -22,769
Weapons dismantlement and disposition..............................          75,000           52,250           52,250          -22,750   ...............

Stockpile services:
    Production support.............................................         258,722          284,979          284,979          +26,257   ...............
    Research and development support...............................          68,245           33,329           33,329          -34,916   ...............
    Research and development certification and safety..............         194,998          181,984          181,984          -13,014   ...............
    Management, technology, and production.........................         166,928          205,576          205,576          +38,648   ...............
    Responsive infrastructure......................................          25,430           14,946   ...............         -25,430          -14,946
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Stockpile services.................................         714,323          720,814          705,868           -8,455          -14,946
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Directed stockpile work...............................       1,425,722        1,447,236        1,409,521          -16,201          -37,715

Campaigns:
    Science campaign:
        Primary assessment technologies............................          54,844           63,527           63,527           +8,683   ...............
        Test readiness.............................................          14,644   ...............  ...............         -14,644   ...............
        Dynamic materials properties...............................          84,238           98,014           98,014          +13,776   ...............
        Advanced radiography.......................................          36,387           30,995           30,995           -5,392   ...............
        Secondary assessment technologies..........................          80,345           80,539           80,539             +194   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Science campaigns..............................         270,458          273,075          273,075           +2,617   ...............

    Engineering campaign:
        Enhanced surety............................................          26,666           24,803           44,803          +18,137          +20,000
        Weapons system engineering assessment technology...........          21,102           19,691           19,691           -1,411   ...............
        Nuclear survivability......................................          15,962            8,813            8,813           -7,149   ...............
        Enhanced surveillance......................................          87,533           80,614           80,614           -6,919   ...............

        Microsystem and engineering science applications (MESA),              4,603            7,630            7,630           +3,027   ...............
         other project costs.......................................

        Construction: 01-D-108 Microsystem and engineering science            6,920           11,198           11,198           +4,278   ...............
         applications (MESA), SNL, Albuquerque, NM.................
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, MESA.........................................          11,523           18,828           18,828           +7,305   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, Engineering campaign.........................         162,786          152,749          172,749           +9,963          +20,000

Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield campaign:
    Ignition.......................................................          78,827           97,537           97,537          +18,710   ...............
    Support of stockpile programs..................................           5,872   ...............  ...............          -5,872   ...............
    NIF diagnostics, cryogenics and experimental support...........          45,959           67,935           58,792          +12,833           -9,143
    Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion.......................           9,584           10,440           10,440             +856   ...............
    University grants/other ICF support............................          12,186   ...............  ...............         -12,186   ...............
    Joint program in high energy density laboratory plasmas........  ...............           3,213           12,356          +12,356           +9,143
    Facility operations and target production......................          53,796           86,083          132,970          +79,174          +46,887
    Inertial fusion technology.....................................          26,412   ...............  ...............         -26,412   ...............
    NIF demonstration program......................................         143,438          136,912          136,912           -6,526   ...............
    High-energy petawatt laser development.........................           2,213   ...............  ...............          -2,213   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................         378,287          402,120          449,007          +70,720          +46,887

    Construction: 96-D-111 National ignition facility, LLNL........         111,419           10,139           10,139         -101,280   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Inertial confinement fusion........................         489,706          412,259          459,146          -30,560          +46,887

Advanced simulation and computing..................................         611,973          585,738          610,738           -1,235          +25,000
Pit manufacturing and certification:
    W88 pit manufacturing..........................................         152,709          155,838          155,838           +3,129   ...............
    W88 pit certification..........................................          55,536           45,999           45,999           -9,537   ...............
    Pit manufacturing capability...................................          34,147           54,479           54,479          +20,332   ...............
    Pit campaign support activities at NTS.........................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
    Consolidated plutonium center: other project cost..............  ...............          24,914   ...............  ...............         -24,914
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Pit manufacturing and certification................         242,392          281,230          256,316          +13,924          -24,914

Readiness campaign:
    Stockpile readiness............................................          21,964           18,924           18,924           -3,040   ...............
    High explosives and weapon operations..........................          19,256            9,835            9,835           -9,421   ...............
    Non-nuclear readiness..........................................          31,139           25,592           25,592           -5,547   ...............
    Advanced design and production technologies....................          51,609           33,587           33,587          -18,022   ...............

    Tritium readiness..............................................          77,745           73,231           73,231           -4,514
    Construction: 98-D-125 Tritium extraction facility, SR.........  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Tritium readiness..................................          77,745           73,231           73,231           -4,514   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Readiness campaign.................................         201,713          161,169          161,169          -40,544   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Campaigns.............................................       1,979,028        1,866,220        1,933,193          -45,835          +66,973

Readiness in technical base and facilities (RTBF):
    Operations of facilities.......................................       1,150,141        1,159,305        1,126,409          -23,732          -32,896
    Program readiness..............................................          75,167           71,466           71,466           -3,701   ...............
    Material recycle and recovery..................................          69,982           69,962           64,962           -5,020           -5,000
    Containers.....................................................          20,130           19,184           19,184             -946   ...............
    Storage........................................................          35,285           35,133           25,133          -10,152          -10,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Readiness in technical base and fac................       1,350,705        1,355,050        1,307,154          -43,551          -47,896

Construction:
    08-D-801 High pressure fire loop (HPFL) Pantex, TX.............  ...............           7,000            7,000           +7,000   ...............
    08-D-802 High explosive pressing facility Pantex Plant,          ...............          25,300           25,300          +25,300   ...............
     Amerillo, TX..................................................
    08-D-804 TA-55 Reinvestment project Los Almos National           ...............           6,000            6,000           +6,000   ...............
     Laboratory (LANL).............................................
    08-D-805 Classified Vault Los Almos National Laboratory (LANL).  ...............  ...............          45,000          +45,000          +45,000
    07-D-140 Project engineering and design (PED), various           ...............           2,500            2,500           +2,500   ...............
     locations.....................................................
    07-D-220 Radioactive liquid waste treatment facility upgrade     ...............          26,672           26,672          +26,672   ...............
     project, LANL.................................................
    06-D-140 Project engineering and design (PED), various                   16,577           23,862           23,862           +7,285   ...............
     locations.....................................................
    06-D-402 NTS replace fire stations 1 & 2 Nevada Test Site, NV..          13,919            6,719            6,719           -7,200   ...............
    06-D-403 Tritium facility modernization Lawrence Livermore                7,926   ...............  ...............          -7,926   ...............
     National Laboratory, Livermore, CA............................
    06-D-404 Building remediation, restoration, and upgrade, Nevada  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
     Test Site, NV.................................................
    05-D-140 Project engineering and design (PED), various                    9,615            7,000            7,000           -2,615   ...............
     locations.....................................................
    05-D-401 Building 12-64 production bays upgrades, Pantex plant,  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
     Amarillo, TX..................................................
    05-D-402 Berylium capability (BEC) project, Y-12 National                 7,494   ...............  ...............          -7,494   ...............
     security complex, Oak Ridge, TN...............................
    04-D-103 Project engineering and design (PED), various                    3,478   ...............  ...............          -3,478   ...............
     locations.....................................................
    04-D-125 Chemistry and metallurgy facility replacement project,          53,422           95,586           95,586          +42,164   ...............
     Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM................
    04-D-128 TA-18 mission relocation project, Los Alamos                    24,197           29,455           29,455           +5,258   ...............
     Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM....................................
    03-D-103 Project engineering and design (PED), various                   14,161   ...............  ...............         -14,161   ...............
     locations.....................................................
    01-D-103 Project engineering and design (PED), various                    1,565   ...............  ...............          -1,565   ...............
     locations.....................................................
    01-D-124 HEU materials facility, Y-12 plant, Oak Ridge, TN.....         110,182           77,000           77,000          -33,182   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Construction.......................................         262,536          307,094          352,094          +89,558          +45,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Readiness in technical base and facilities............       1,613,241        1,662,144        1,659,248          +46,007           -2,896

Facilities and infrastructure recapitalization program.............         123,750          231,023          200,023          +76,273          -31,000
    Construction:
        08-D-601 Mercury highway, Nevada Test Site, NV.............  ...............           7,800            7,800           +7,800   ...............
        08-D-602 Portable water system upgrades Y-12 Plant, Oak      ...............          22,500           22,500          +22,500   ...............
         Ridge, TN.................................................
        07-D-253 TA 1 heating systems modernization (HSM) Sandia             14,500           13,000           13,000           -1,500   ...............
         National Laboratory.......................................
        06-D-160 Project engioneering and design (PED), various               2,700   ...............  ...............          -2,700   ...............
         locations.................................................
        06-D-601 Electrical distribution system upgrade, Pantex               6,429            2,500            2,500           -3,929   ...............
         Plant, Amarillo, TX.......................................
        06-D-602 Gas main and distribution system upgrade, Pantex             3,145            1,900            1,900           -1,245   ...............
         Plant, Amarillo, TX.......................................
        06-D-603 Steam plant life extension project (SLEP), Y-12             17,811           15,020           15,020           -2,791   ...............
         National Security Complex, Oak Ridge, TN..................
        05-D-160 Facilities and infrastructure recapitalization               1,048   ...............  ...............          -1,048   ...............
         program project engineering design (PED), various
         locations.................................................
        05-D-601 Compressed air upgrades project (CAUP), Y-12,       ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
         National security complex, Oak Ridge, TN..................
        05-D-602 Power grid infrastructure upgrade (PGIU), Los       ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
         Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM................
        05-D-603 New master substation (NMSU), SNL.................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Construction...................................          45,633           62,720           62,720          +17,087   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Facilities and infrastructure recapitalization             169,383          293,743          262,743          +93,360          -31,000
           program.................................................

Secure transportation asset:
    Operations and equipment.......................................         134,777          130,845          130,845           -3,932   ...............
    Program direction..............................................          74,760           84,801           84,801          +10,041   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Secure transportation asset...........................         209,537          215,646          215,646           +6,109   ...............

Nuclear weapons incident response..................................         133,514          161,748          161,748          +28,234   ...............

Environmental projects and operations: Long term stewardship.......  ...............          17,518           17,518          +17,518   ...............
Safeguards and security:
    Defense nuclear security.......................................         656,653          721,318          733,318          +76,665          +12,000
    Cybersecurity..................................................         104,505          102,243          102,243           -2,262   ...............
    Construction:
        08-D-701 Nuclear materials S&S upgrade project Los Almos     ...............          49,496           49,496          +49,496   ...............
         National Laboratory.......................................
        05-D-170 Project engineering and design (PED), various       ...............           8,000            8,000           +8,000   ...............
         locations.................................................
        Material security and consolidation project, Idaho National  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
         Lab, ID...................................................
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Construction...................................  ...............          57,496           57,496          +57,496   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Defense nuclear security.......................         761,158          881,057          893,057         +131,899          +12,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Safeguards and security........................         761,158          881,057          893,057         +131,899          +12,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Weapons activities.............................       6,291,583        6,545,312        6,552,674         +261,091           +7,362

Less security charge for reimbursable work.........................         -33,000          -34,000          -34,000           -1,000   ...............
Transfer to Office of the Administrator............................          17,000   ...............  ...............         -17,000   ...............
Congressionally directed technology deployments....................  ...............  ...............          37,350          +37,350          +37,350

Use of prior year balances.........................................  ...............  ...............         -67,000          -67,000          -67,000
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES....................................       6,275,583        6,511,312        6,489,024         +213,441          -22,288
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                  DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Nonproliferation and verification, R&D.............................         262,467          265,252          305,252          +42,785          +40,000
    Construction:
        07-SC-05 Physical Science Facility, Pacific Northwest                 4,220   ...............          17,000          +12,780          +17,000
         National Laboratory, Richland, WA.........................
        06-D-180 06-01 Project engineering and design [PED]                   3,700   ...............  ...............          -3,700   ...............
         National Security Laboratory, PNNL........................
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Nonproliferation & verification R&D............         270,387          265,252          322,252          +51,865          +57,000

Nonproliferation and international security........................         128,911          124,870          210,870          +81,959          +86,000
    International nuclear materials protection and cooperation.....         472,730          371,771          391,771          -80,959          +20,000
    Global initiatives for proliferation prevention................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
    HEU transparency implementation................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
    Elimination of weapons-grade plutonium production program......         225,754          181,593          152,593          -73,161          -29,000

Fissile materials disposition:
    U.S. surplus materials disposition.............................         159,273          148,842          148,842          -10,431   ...............
    Russian surplus materials disposition..........................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
    U.S. uranium disposition.......................................  ...............          66,843           66,843          +66,843   ...............

    Construction:
        99-D-141 Pit disassembly and conversion facility, Savannah           48,289           60,000           60,000          +11,711   ...............
         River, SC.................................................
         99-D-143 Mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility, Savannah           262,500          333,849          390,849         +128,349          +57,000
         River, SC.................................................
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Construction...................................         310,789          393,849          450,849         +140,060          +57,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Fissile materials disposition.....................         470,062          609,534          666,534         +196,472          +57,000

Global threat reduction initiative.................................         115,495          119,626          185,626          +70,131          +66,000
International nuclear fuel bank....................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation...................       1,683,339        1,672,646        1,929,646         +246,307         +257,000

Use of prior year balances--Russian Surplus Fissile Materials        ...............  ...............         -57,000          -57,000          -57,000
 Disposition program...............................................
Use of prior year balances--Fissile Materials Disposition MOX        ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
 construction line.................................................
Use of prior year balances for Emergency Supplemental for fiscal     ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
 year 1999 (H.R. 4328, Public Law 105-277).........................
Supplemental Appropriations--Public Law 110-28 (emergency).........         135,000   ...............  ...............        -135,000   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION......................       1,818,339        1,672,646        1,872,646          +54,307         +200,000
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                           NAVAL REACTORS

Naval reactors development.........................................         734,283          765,519          765,519          +31,236   ...............
Transfer to Nuclear Energy.........................................          13,365   ...............  ...............         -13,365   ...............
    Construction:
        08-D-901 Shipping and receiving and warehouse complex        ...............           9,000            9,000           +9,000   ...............
         (SRWC), BAPL..............................................
        08-D-190 Project engineering and design Expended Core        ...............             550              550             +550   ...............
         Facility M-290 recovering discharge station, Naval Reactor
         Facility, ID..............................................
        07-D-190 Materials research technology complex (MRTC)......           1,485              450              450           -1,035   ...............
        06-D-901 Central office building II........................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
        Transfer to Nuclear Energy.................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
        05-N-900 Materials development facility building,                     1,287   ...............  ...............          -1,287   ...............
         Schenectady, NY...........................................
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Construction.......................................           2,772           10,000           10,000           +7,228   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Naval reactors development............................         750,420          775,519          775,519          +25,099   ...............

Program direction..................................................          31,380           32,700           32,700           +1,320   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      TOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS........................................         781,800          808,219          808,219          +26,419   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
Office of the Adminstrator:
    Office of the Administrator....................................         340,291          394,656          394,656          +54,365   ...............
        Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation...........................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
        All other Office of the Administrator......................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
    HBCU contribution from NNSA....................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
    Use of prior year balances.....................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
    ES & H transfer................................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR...........................         340,291          394,656          394,656          +54,365   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      TOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION..............       9,216,013        9,386,833        9,564,545         +348,532         +177,712
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                   DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Closure Sites......................................................         468,063           42,437           55,937         -412,126          +13,500

Hanford Site:
    2012 Completion projects.......................................         425,204          413,038          443,463          +18,259          +30,425
    2035 Completion projects.......................................         410,112          464,042          506,913          +96,801          +42,871
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Hanford Site..........................................         835,316          877,080          950,376         +115,060          +73,296

Office of River Protection:
    Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.......................         690,000          690,000          690,000   ...............  ...............
    Tank Farm activities...........................................         277,127          273,443          325,972          +48,845          +52,529
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Office of River Protection............................         967,127          963,443        1,015,972          +48,845          +52,529

Idaho National Laboratory: Operating expenses......................         495,904          391,226          420,126          -75,778          +28,900
    Construction:
        06-D-401, Sodium bearing waste treatment project, ID.......          31,000          112,800          112,800          +81,800   ...............
        04-D-414, Sodium bearing waste treatment facility, PED ID..  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Idaho National Laboratory.........................         526,904          504,026          532,926           +6,022          +28,900

NNSA...............................................................         306,509          271,130          361,663          +55,154          +90,533
Oak Ridge Reservation..............................................         203,862          179,284          179,284          -24,578   ...............

Savannah River site:
    2012 Completion projects: Oerating expenses....................         244,626   ...............  ...............        -244,626   ...............

    Construction:
        04-D-423 Container surveillance capability in 235F.........  ...............          31,000           31,000          +31,000   ...............
        04-D-414 Project Engineering and Design, 105-K.............           2,935   ...............  ...............          -2,935   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, 2012 accelerated completions...................         247,561           31,000           31,000         -216,561   ...............

    2035 Completion projects:
        Operating expenses.........................................         300,524          495,071          495,071         +194,547   ...............
        Construction: 08-D-414 Project engineering and design        ...............          15,000            9,000           +9,000           -6,000
         Plutonium Vitrification Facility, VL......................
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, 2035 accelerated completions...................         300,524          510,071          504,071         +203,547           -6,000

    Tank Farm Activities: Radioactive liquid tank waste stabil &            513,809          524,018          524,018          +10,209   ...............
     disposition...................................................

        Construction:
            05-D-405, Salt waste processing facility...............  ...............         131,000          131,000         +131,000   ...............
            04-D-408, Glass waste storage building #2..............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
            03-D-414, Salt waste processing facility PED SR........          51,500           10,001           10,001          -41,499   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, Tank farm activities.......................         565,309          665,019          665,019          +99,710   ...............

    Nuclear material Stabilization and Disposition.................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Savannah River site...................................       1,113,394        1,206,090        1,200,090          +86,696           -6,000

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant: Operating expenses....................         228,818          219,739          250,739          +21,921          +31,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant...........................         228,818          219,739          250,739          +21,921          +31,000

Program direction..................................................         294,516          309,760          309,760          +15,244   ...............
Program support....................................................          38,031           33,146           41,946           +3,915           +8,800
Safeguards and Security............................................         275,920          273,381          273,581           -2,339             +200
Technology development.............................................          21,389           21,389           55,106          +33,717          +33,717
Uranium enrichment D&D fund contribution...........................         452,000          463,000          463,000          +11,000   ...............
Material consolidation.............................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
Legacy Management..................................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
Canyons and Pu Vitrification office................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN UP........................       5,731,849        5,363,905        5,690,380          -41,469         +326,475
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                      OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Health, safety and security:
    Health, safety and security....................................  ...............         329,305          329,305         +329,305   ...............
    Program direction..............................................  ...............         100,043          100,043         +100,043   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Health, safety and security...........................  ...............         429,348          429,348         +429,348   ...............

Office of Security and Safety Performance Assurance:
    Nuclear safeguards and security................................         196,546   ...............  ...............        -196,546   ...............
    Security investigations........................................          40,531   ...............  ...............         -40,531   ...............
    rogram direction...............................................          76,818   ...............  ...............         -76,818   ...............
    Use of prior year balances.....................................  ...............            -990   ...............  ...............            +990
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Office of Security and Safety Performance Assurance         313,895             -990   ...............        -313,895             +990

Environment, safety and health (Defense)...........................          60,304   ...............  ...............         -60,304   ...............
    Program direction--EH..........................................          20,076   ...............  ...............         -20,076   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Environment, safety & health (Defense).............          80,380   ...............  ...............         -80,380   ...............

    Office of Legacy Management:
        Legacy management..........................................          19,733          148,063          148,563         +128,830             +500
        Program direction..........................................          11,202           11,000           11,000             -202   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Office of Legacy Management....................          30,935          159,063          159,563         +128,628             +500

    Nuclear energy:
        Infrastructure:
            Idaho facilities management............................          15,923   ...............  ...............         -15,923
            Idaho sitewide safeguards and security.................          75,949           75,949           75,949   ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, Infrastruture..............................          91,872           75,949           75,949          -15,923   ...............

        Program direction..........................................          30,844   ...............  ...............         -30,844   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Nuclear energy.................................         122,716           75,949           75,949          -46,767   ...............

    Defense related administrative support.........................          86,999           99,000           99,000          +12,001   ...............
    Office of Hearings and Appeals.................................           4,349            4,607            4,607             +258   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Other Defense Activities...........................         639,274          766,977          768,467         +129,193           +1,490
                                                                    ====================================================================================
    Less security charge for reimbursable work.....................          -3,003           -3,003           -3,003   ...............  ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES..............................         636,271          763,974          765,464         +129,193           +1,490
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                   DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Defense nuclear waste disposal.....................................         346,500          292,046          242,046         -104,454          -50,000
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES......................      15,930,633       15,806,758       16,262,435         +331,802         +455,677
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                  POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

                 SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance:
    Purchase power and wheeling....................................          47,198           62,215           62,215          +15,017   ...............
    Program direction..............................................           5,602            6,463            6,463             +861   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Operation and maintenance..........................          52,800           68,678           68,678          +15,878   ...............

Less alternative financing (PPW)...................................         -14,485          -13,802          -13,802             +683   ...............
Offsetting collections.............................................         -32,713          -48,413          -48,413          -15,700   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION.....................           5,602            6,463            6,463             +861   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                 SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance:
    Operating expenses.............................................           5,604           11,978           11,978           +6,374   ...............
    Purchase power and wheeling....................................          12,400           45,000           45,000          +32,600   ...............
    Program direction..............................................          20,782           22,214           22,214           +1,432   ...............
    Construction...................................................           3,612            4,300            4,300             +688   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Operation and maintenance..........................          42,398           83,492           83,492          +41,094   ...............

Less alternative financing (for program direction).................  ...............            -877             -877             -877   ...............
Less alternative financing (for O&M)...............................  ...............          -6,304           -6,304           -6,304   ...............
Less alternative financing (PPW)...................................          -9,400          -10,000          -10,000             -600   ...............
Less alternative financing (Const.)................................  ...............            -869             -869             -869   ...............
Offsetting collections.............................................          -3,000          -35,000          -35,000          -32,000   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION.....................          29,998           30,442           30,442             +444   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                 WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance:
    Construction and rehabilitation................................          60,205           62,915           62,915           +2,710   ...............
    Operation and maintenance......................................          45,734           53,271           53,271           +7,537   ...............
    Purchase power and wheeling....................................         427,931          425,254          475,254          +47,323          +50,000
    Program direction..............................................         147,748          157,304          157,304           +9,556   ...............
    Utah mitigation and conservation...............................           6,633            7,167            7,167             +534   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Operation and maintenance..........................         688,251          705,911          705,911          +17,660   ...............

Less alternative financing (for O&M)...............................          -2,058          -11,971           -5,000           -2,942           +6,971
Less alternative financing (for Const.)............................         -17,177          -47,915          -30,690          -13,513          +17,225
Less alternative financing (for Program direction).................          -5,054          -15,804          -10,000           -4,946           +5,804
Less alternative financing (for PPW)...............................        -148,931         -166,552         -166,552          -17,621   ...............
Offsetting collections (Public Law 108-477 and Public Law 109-103).        -279,000         -258,702         -308,702          -29,702          -50,000
Offsetting collections (Public Law 98-381).........................          -3,705           -3,937           -3,937             -232   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION.....................         232,326          201,030          231,030           -1,296          +30,000
                                                                    ====================================================================================
         FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

Operation and maintenance..........................................           2,665            2,500            2,500             -165   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      TOTAL, POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS.......................         270,591          240,435          270,435             -156          +30,000
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Federal energy regulatory commission...............................         221,902          255,425          255,425          +33,523   ...............
FERC revenues......................................................        -221,902         -255,425         -255,425          -33,523   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      GRAND TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY............................      24,228,203       24,762,713       25,898,485       +1,670,282       +1,135,772
          (Total amount appropriated)..............................     (24,093,203)     (24,911,713)     (26,057,485)     (+1,964,282)     (+1,145,772)
          (Emergency appropriations)...............................        (135,000)  ...............  ...............       (-135,000)  ...............
          (Rescissions)............................................  ...............       (-149,000)       (-159,000)       (-159,000)        (-10,000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    The following list of general provisions is recommended by 
the Committee. The recommendation includes several provisions 
which have been included in previous Energy and Water 
Appropriations Acts and new provisions as follows:
    Section 301. Language is included under section 301 to 
prohibit the use of funds to make payments for a noncompetitive 
management and operating contract unless certain conditions 
have been met.
    Section 302. Language is included under section 302 which 
prohibits the use of funds for severance payments under the 
worker and community transition program under section 3161 of 
Public Law 102-484.
    Section 303. Language is included under section 303 to 
prohibit the augmentation of several payments under section 
3161 of Public Law 102-484 unless a reprogramming request is 
submitted to Congress.
    Section 304. Language is included under section 304, which 
prohibits the use of funds in this act to initiate a request 
for proposal of 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.
    Section 305. Language is included in section 305, which 
permits the transfer and merger of unexpended balances of prior 
appropriations with appropriation accounts established in this 
bill.
    Section 306. Language is included that prohibits the use of 
funds by the Bonneville Power Administration to enter into 
energy efficiency contracts outside its service area.
    Section 307. This section establishes certain notice and 
competition requirements for Department of Energy user 
facilities.
    Section 308. Language is included specifically authorizing 
intelligence activities pending enactment of the fiscal year 
2008 Intelligence Authorization Act.
    Section 309. Language is included in section 309 regarding 
laboratory directed research and development activities.
    Section 310. Language is included in section 312 
prohibiting the Department of Energy to modify a ratemaking 
policy by changing the interest rate on future obligation for 
the Southeastern, Southwest, and Western Area Power 
Administrations. The Committee rejects a pending proposal to 
require Southeastern Power Administration, Southwestern Power 
Administration, and the Western Area Power Administration to 
apply the interest rate charged Government corporations for new 
investment and instead instructs the Secretary to apply the 
yield rate for all new investment in hydroelectric plant. The 
average yield shall be computed as the average during the 
fiscal year of the daily bid prices. The Committee has 
consistently opposed the use of budget gimmicks carried in the 
budget request that will increase rates paid by power 
customers. The Committee recommends the Department of Energy 
heed this direction and refrain from requesting new regulations 
to modify ratemaking procedures for Southeastern Power 
Administration, Southwestern Power Administration, and the 
Western Area Power Administration.
    Section 311. The Committee has included a provision related 
to the Use Permit at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
    Section 312. The Committee has included a provision related 
to Bonneville Power Administration.
    Section 313. The Committee has included a provision related 
to the Strategic Petroleum Preserve.

                                TITLE IV

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                    Appalachian Regional Commission

Appropriations, 2007....................................     $64,858,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................      65,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      75,000,000

    Established in 1965, the Appalachian Regional Commission is 
an economic development agency composed of 13 Appalachian 
States and a Federal co-chair appointed by the President. For 
fiscal year 2008, the Committee recommends the budget request 
of $75,000,000 for the ARC, of which $5,597,000 is for salaries 
and expenses and $64,087,000 is for area development and 
$5,316,000 is for local development districts.
    Area Development and Technical Assistant Program funds are 
used to increase job opportunities and income, improve 
education and health, strengthen infrastructure, and for the 
Appalachian Highway System. Such funds are allocated by 
formula, with assistance targeted to the most distressed and 
underdeveloped areas.
    Local Development Districts Program funds assist local 
governments in promoting sustainable community and economic 
development in the Appalachian region.
    The Committee recognizes the importance of trade and 
investment opportunities to the Appalachian Region and is 
encouraged by the findings in a report that Appalachian firms 
could 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 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.

                Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007....................................     $21,914,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................      22,499,000
Committee recommendation................................      22,499,000

    For fiscal year 2008, the Committee recommends $22,499,000, 
the same as the President's request, for the Defense Nuclear 
Facilities Safety Board. This Board is responsible for 
evaluating the implementation of standards for design, 
construction, operation, and decommissioning of the Department 
of Energy's defense nuclear facilities. Based on these 
evaluations, the Board makes specific recommendations to the 
Secretary of Energy to ensure that both public and employee 
heath and safety are protected.

                        Delta Regional Authority

Appropriations, 2007....................................     $11,888,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................       6,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      12,000,000

    For the Delta Regional Authority, the Committee recommends 
$12,000,000. The Delta Regional Authority was established to 
assist the eight State Mississippi Delta Region in obtaining 
basic infrastructure, transportation, skills training, and 
opportunities for economic development. The Government 
Accountability Office recently reported that the DRA has a 
commendable record in the percentage of funds spent in rural 
America, and the Committee recognizes the DRA's role in 
bettering this underserved area of the Nation.

                           Denali Commission

Appropriations, 2007....................................     $49,509,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................       1,800,000
Committee recommendation................................      31,800,000

    The Denali Commission is a Federal-State partnership 
responsible for promoting infrastructure development, job 
training, and other economic development services in rural 
areas throughout Alaska. For fiscal year 2008, the Committee 
recommends $31,800,000.

                     Nuclear Regulatory Commission


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007....................................    $816,639,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................     908,409,000
Committee recommendation................................     910,559,000

                                REVENUES

Appropriations, 2007....................................    $659,328,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................    -757,720,000
Committee recommendation................................    -757,720,000

                           NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2007....................................    $157,311,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................     150,689,000
Committee recommendation................................     152,839,000

    The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission for fiscal year 2008 is $910,559,000, an increase of 
$2,150,000 over the budget request. This amount is offset by 
estimated revenues of $757,720,000 resulting in a net 
appropriation of $152,839,000.
    The Committee provides an additional $2,150,000 to support 
enhancing foreign regulators' programs to enhance security over 
radioactive sources. The Commission should continue to 
coordinate its efforts with those at the Department of State 
and the Department of Energy.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                          GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2007....................................      $8,285,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................       8,144,000
Committee recommendation................................       8,744,000

                                REVENUES

Appropriations, 2007....................................      $7,410,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................      -7,330,000
House allowance.........................................      -7,330,000
Committee recommendation................................      -7,870,000

                           NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2007....................................        $875,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................         814,000
Committee recommendation................................         874,000

    The Committee recommends $8,744,000, an increase of 
$600,000 over the budget request. The additional funds will 
provide the Office of Inspector General with the necessary 
resources to provide effective oversight of the agency's new 
licensing activities while fulfilling its statutory 
responsibilities under the Chief Financial Officers Act of 
1990, and the Federal Information Security Management Act of 
1992. The Committee also recommends that the current no year 
authority of the Office of Inspector General be retained. The 
Office of Inspector General, as an administrative entity, is 
fully integrated into the administrative processes at the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission to include its accounting, pay, 
and travel system, as well as other infrastructure support 
systems. In addition, the proposed two year funding authority 
could limit the continuity of the Inspector General's 
oversight.

                  Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

Appropriations, 2007....................................      $3,591,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................       3,621,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,621,000

    The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board was established to 
evaluate the scientific and technical validity of the 
Department of Energy's nuclear waste disposal program. The 
Board reports its findings no fewer than two times a year to 
Congress and to the Secretary of Energy. For fiscal year 2008, 
the Committee recommends $3,621,000.

Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation 
                                Projects

Appropriation, 2007.....................................................
Budget estimate, 2008...................................      $2,322,000
Committee recommendation................................       2,322,000

    The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural 
Gas Transportation Projects was established as an independent 
agency in the Executive Branch on December 13, 2006, pursuant 
to the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act of 2004. The Committee 
recommends $2,322,000, the same as the budget request.

                       Tennessee Valley Authority


                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                          GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2007....................................................
Budget estimate, 2008...................................     $15,100,000
Committee recommendation................................................

              OFFSET FROM TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY FUND

Appropriations, 2007....................................................
Budget estimate, 2008...................................    -$15,100,000
Committee recommendation................................................

    The Committee recommendation does not include the 
administration's proposal to establish a congressionally funded 
Office of the Inspector General to oversee the Tennessee Valley 
Authority. In recent years, the TVA has funded the requests of 
the TVA-IG office out of power revenues and receipts. This 
process has worked well, and the Committee sees no compelling 
reason to change that mechanism for funding the TVA-IG.

                GeneraL Provision, Independent Agencies

    The following general provision is recommended by the 
Committee.
    Section 401. The Committee has included a provision related 
to the Tennessee Valley Authority.

                                TITLE V

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

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

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

    Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on 
general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment 
to the House bill ``which proposes an item of appropriation 
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing 
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously 
passed by the Senate during that session.''
    The Committee recommends funding for the following programs 
or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal 
year 2006:
    The US Army Corps of Engineers: General Investigations; 
Construction, General; Mississippi River and Tributaries; 
Operations and Maintenance; Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial 
Action Program;
    Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation;
    Water and Related Resources;
    Department of Energy: Energy Conservation and Supply 
Activities:
    Office of Fossil Energy: Fossil Energy R&D, Clean Coal, 
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Research;
    Health, Safety and Security;
    Non-Defense Environmental Management;
    Office of Science;
    Department of Administration;
    National Nuclear Security Administration: Weapons 
Activities; Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation; Naval Reactors; 
Office of the Administrator;
    Defense Environmental Management, Defense Site Acceleration 
Completion;
    Other Defense Activities;
    Defense Nuclear Waste Fund;
    Office of Security and Performance Assurance;
    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission;
    Power Marketing Administrations: Southeastern, 
Southwestern, Western Area; and
    Energy Information Administration.

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

    Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on June 28, 2007, 
the Committee ordered reported en bloc: an original bill (S. 
1745) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and 
Justice, science, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2008, and authorized the chairman of the 
committee or the chairman of the subcommittee to offer the text 
of the Senate bill as a committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to the House companion measure; an original bill (S. 
1751) making appropriations for energy and water development 
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
2008, and for other purposes, and authorized the chairman of 
the committee or the chairman of the subcommittee to offer the 
text of the Senate bill as a committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute to the House companion measure; and H.R. 2764, 
making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign 
operations, and related programs for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, with an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute; with each bill subject to 
amendment and subject to the budget allocations, by a recorded 
vote of 28-1, a quorum being present. The vote was as follows:
        Yeas                          Nays
Chairman Byrd                       Mr. Brownback
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson
Ms. Landrieu
Mr. Reed
Mr. Lautenberg
Mr. Nelson
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Stevens
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. Allard
Mr. Alexander

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

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

TITLE 16--CONSERVATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



CHAPTER 12A--TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Sec. 831a. Membership, operation, and duties of the Board of Directors

(a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(f) Compensation

    (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (2) Adjustments in stipends
            The amount of the [stipend under paragraph 
        (1)(A)(i)] stipends under paragraph (1)(A) shall be 
        adjusted by the same percentage, at the same time and 
        manner, and subject to the same limitations as are 
        applicable to adjustments under section 5318 of title 
        5.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



CHAPTER 19B--WATER RESOURCES PLANNING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SUBCHAPTER IV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Sec. 1962d-5a. Reimbursement to States

(a) Combination of reimbursement of installation costs and 
            reduction in contributions; single project 
            limitation

    The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of 
Engineers, may, when he determines it to be in the public 
interest, enter into agreements providing for reimbursement to 
States or political subdivisions thereof for work to be 
performed by such non-Federal public bodies at water resources 
development projects authorized for construction under the 
Secretary of the Army and the supervision of the Chief of 
Engineers. Such agreements may provide for reimbursement of 
installation costs incurred by such entities or an equivalent 
reduction in the contributions they would otherwise be required 
to make, or in appropriate cases, for a combination thereof. 
The amount of Federal reimbursement, including reductions in 
contributions, for a single project shall not exceed $5,000,000 
or 1 percent of the total project cost, whichever is greater; 
except that the amount of actual Federal reimbursement, 
including reductions in contributions, for such project may not 
exceed [$5,000,000] $7,000,000 in any fiscal year.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1990, PUBLIC LAW 101-640

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS


SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

    (a) * * *
            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (10) McAlpine Lock and Dam, Indiana and Kentucky.--
        The project for navigation, McAlpine Lock and Dam, 
        Indiana and Kentucky: Report of the Chief of Engineers, 
        dated June 29, 1990, at a total cost of [$219,600,000] 
        $430,000,000, with a first Federal cost of 
        [$219,600,000]$430,000,000. The Federal share of costs 
        of construction of the project is to be paid one-half 
        from amounts appropriated from the general fund of the 
        Treasury and one-half from amounts appropriated from 
        the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


 RECLAMATION PROJECTS AUTHORIZATION AND ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1992, PUBLIC 
LAW 102-575

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



   TITLE XXXV--THREE AFFILIATED TRIBES AND STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE 
              EQUITABLE COMPENSATION PROGRAM, NORTH DAKOTA


SEC. 3501. SHORT TITLE.

    This title may be cited as the `Three Affiliated Tribes and 
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Act'.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 3507. STANDING ROCK SIOUX INDIAN RESERVATION.

    (a) * * *
    (b) Specific.--There is authorized to be appropriated, in 
addition to any other amounts authorized by this title, or any 
other law, to the Secretary of the Interior [$4,660,000] 
$12,660,000 for use by the Secretary of the Interior in 
carrying out irrigation projects for the Standing Rock Sioux 
Tribe.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



               TITLE II--GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS


SEC. 219. ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (f) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            [(71) Coronado, california.--$10,000,000 is 
        authorized for wastewater infrastructure, Coronado, 
        California.]
            (71) Coronado, california.--
                    (A) $10,000,000 is authorized for 
                wastewater infrastructure, Coronado, 
                California.
                    (B) The Federal Share may be in the form of 
                grants or reimbursements of project costs 
                incurred by the non-Federal sponsor for work 
                performed by the non-Federal sponsor before or 
                after the execution of a project cooperation 
                agreement, if the Secretary determines that 
                such work is integral to the project.
                    (C) The Secretary is authorized to credit 
                towards the non-Federal share of project costs 
                the costs incurred by the non-Federal sponsor 
                for work performed by the non-Federal sponsor 
                before or after the execution of a project 
                cooperation agreement, if the Secretary 
                determines that such work is integral to the 
                project.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


  YAVAPAI-PRESCOTT INDIAN TRIBE WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT OF 1994, 
PUBLIC LAW 103-434

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



TITLE VIII--MNI WICONI RURAL WATER SUPPLY PROJECT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 813. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    Section 10 of the Act (102 Stat. 2571) is amended to read 
as follows:

``SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    ``(a) Planning, Design, and Construction.--There are 
authorized to be appropriated $263,241,000 for the planning, 
design, and construction of the Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply 
System, the Rosebud Sioux Rural Water Supply System, the Lower 
Brule Sioux Rural Water Supply System, the West River Rural 
Water Supply System, and the Lyman-Jones Rural Water Supply 
System described in sections 3, 3A, 3B, and 4. Such funds are 
authorized to be appropriated only through the end of the year 
[2003] 2013. The funds authorized to be appropriated by the 
first sentence of this section, less any amounts previously 
obligated for the Systems, may be increased or decreased by 
such amounts as may be justified by reason of ordinary 
fluctuations in development costs incurred after October 1, 
1992, as indicated by engineering costs indices applicable for 
the type of construction involved.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1996, PUBLIC LAW 104-303

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS


SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (5) San lorenzo river, california.--
                    (A) In General._The project for flood 
                control, San Lorenzo River, California: Report 
                of the Chief of Engineers, dated June 30, 1994, 
                at a total cost of $21,800,000, with an 
                estimated Federal cost of $10,900,000 and an 
                estimated non-Federal cost of $10,900,000 and 
                habitat restoration, at a total cost of 
                $4,050,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
                $3,040,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
                $1,010,000.
                    (B) Credit Toward Non-Federal Share.--The 
                Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal 
                share of the project the costs expended by non-
                Federal interests for the replacement and 
                reconstruction of the Soquel Avenue Bridge, if 
                the Secretary determines that the work is 
                integral to the project.
                    (C) Maximum Amount of Credit.--The credit 
                under paragraph (B) may not exceed $2,000,000.
                    (D) Limitation of Total Project Cost.--The 
                Secretary shall not include the costs to be 
                credited under paragraphs (B) and (C) in total 
                project costs in determining the amounts of the 
                Federal and non-Federal contributions.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 227. SHORE PROTECTION.

    (a) * * *

``SEC. 5. NATIONAL SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT AND 
                    DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

    ``(a) Establishment of Erosion Control Program.--The 
Secretary shall establish and conduct a national shoreline 
erosion control development and demonstration program for a 
period of [7] 12 years beginning on the date that funds are 
made available to carry out this section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1999, PUBLIC LAW 106-53

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 514. MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVERS ENHANCEMENT PROJECT.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
to be appropriated to pay the Federal share of the cost of 
carrying out this section $30,000,000 [for the period of fiscal 
years 2000 and 2001.] per year, and that authority shall extend 
until Federal fiscal year 2015.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 582. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR COLUMBIA AND SNAKE 
                    RIVERS SALMON SURVIVAL.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    ``(c) Management of Predation on Columbia/Snake River 
System Native Fishes.--
            ``(1) Nesting avian predators.--In conjunction with 
        the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the 
        Interior, and consistent with a management plan to be 
        developed by the United States Fish and Wildlife 
        Service, the Secretary shall carry out methods to 
        reduce nesting populations of avian predators on dredge 
        spoil islands in the Columbia River under the 
        jurisdiction of the Secretary.
            ``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is 
        authorized to be appropriated [$1,000,000] $2,000,000 
        to carry out research and development activities under 
        this subsection.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 520. NAVAJO RESERVATION, ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO, AND UTAH.

    (a) * * *
    (b) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of 
activities carried out under this section shall be 75 percent. 
Funds made available under the Indian Self-Determination and 
Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.) may be used by 
the Navajo Nation in meeting the non-Federal share of the cost 
of the activities. The local match for the funds appropriated 
for flood plain delineation on the Navajo reservation in 
Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah may be provided as in-kind 
services.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[SEC. 594. OHIO.] SEC. 594. OHIO AND NORTH DAKOTA.

    (a) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary shall 
establish a program to provide environmental assistance to non-
Federal interests in [Ohio.] Ohio and North Dakota.
    (b) Form of Assistance.--Assistance under this section 
maybe in the form of design and construction assistance for 
waterrelatedenvironmental infrastructure and resource 
protection anddevelopment projects in [Ohio,] Ohio and North 
Dakota, including projects for--

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorizedto 
be appropriated to carry out this section [$240,000,000.] 
$240,000,000 for Ohio and $100,000,000 for North Dakota.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004, PUBLIC LAW 108-
137

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                                TITLE I


                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL


                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY


Corps of Engineers-Civil

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

CORPS OF ENGINEERS-CIVIL

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    Sec. 117. Section 595 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 383; 117 Stat. 142) is amended--

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (4) in subsection (h), by striking ``2001--'' and 
        all that follows and inserting ``2001 $25,000,000 for 
        each of Idaho, Montana, [New Mexico, and rural Utah] 
        and New Mexico and $50,000,000 for Rural Utah, to 
        remain available until expended.''.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE II

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



General Provisions

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    [Sec. 209. Endangered Species Collaborative Program. (a) 
Using funds previously appropriated, the Secretary of the 
Interior, acting through the Commissioner of the Bureau of 
Reclamation and the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, 
for purposes of improving the efficiency and expediting the 
efforts of the Endangered Species Act Collaborative Program 
Workgroup, is directed to establish an executive committee of 
seven members consisting of--
            [(1) one member from the Bureau of Reclamation;
            [(2) one member from the Fish and Wildlife Service; 
        and
            [(3) one member at large representing each of the 
        following seven entities (selected at the discretion of 
        the entity in consultation with the Bureau of 
        Reclamation and the Fish and Wildlife Service) 
        currently participating as signatories to the existing 
        Memorandum of Understanding:
                    [(A) other Federal agencies;
                    [(B) State agencies;
                    [(C) municipalities;
                    [(D) universities and environmental groups;
                    [(E) agricultural communities;
                    [(F) Middle Rio Grande Pueblos (Sandia, 
                Isleta, San Felipe, Cochiti, Santa Ana, and 
                Santo Domingo); and
                    [(G) Middle Rio Grande Conservancy 
                District.
    [(b) Formation of this Committee shall not occur later than 
45 days after enactment of this Act.
    [(c) Fiscal year 2004 appropriations shall not be obligated 
or expended prior to approval of a detailed spending plan by 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
    [(d) The above section shall come into effect within 180 
days of enactment of this Act, unless the Bureau of 
Reclamation, in consultation with the above listed parties, has 
provided an alternative workgroup structure which has been 
approved by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.]
    Sec. 210. Tularosa Basin National Desalination Research 
Facility. (a) Desalination Demonstration and Development.--
Pursuant to section 4(a) of Public Law 104-298; 110 Stat. 3622 
(October 11, 1996), the Secretary may hereafter conduct or 
contract for the design, construction, [testing and operation] 
and testing of the Tularosa Basin National Desalination 
Research Facility.
    (b) The Tularosa Basin National Desalination Research 
Facility is hereafter exempt from all provisions of section 7 
of Public Law 104-298; 110 Stat. 3622 (October 11, 1996). The 
Federal share of the cost of the Tularosa Basin National 
Desalination Research Facility may be up to 100 percent, 
including the cost of design, construction, operation, 
maintenance, repair and rehabilitation.
    (c) The Secretary shall enter into an agreement with New 
Mexico State University for the operations, maintenance, and 
the administration of research activities undertaken at the 
Tularosa Basin National Desalination Research Facility. 
Operation and maintenance shall occur at full Federal cost and 
title to the facility shall remain in the United States.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005, PUBLIC LAW 108-335

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    [Sec. 345. The project for the Chicago Sanitary and Ship 
Canal Dispersal Barrier, Illinois, initiated under section 1135 
of Public Law 99-662, is authorized at a total cost of 
$9,100,000 with a Federal cost of $6,825,000 and a non-Federal 
cost of $2,275,000.]
    Sec. 345. There are authorized to be appropriated such sums 
as are necessary to carry out the Barrier II project of the 
project for the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal 
Barrier, Illinois, initiated pursuant to section 1135 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005, PUBLIC LAW 109-58

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



TITLE IX--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 999H. FUNDING.

    (a) Oil and Gas Lease Income.--[For each of fiscal years]
            (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph 
        (2), for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2017, from 
        any Federal royalties, rents, and bonuses derived from 
        Federal onshore and offshore oil and gas leases issued 
        under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 
        1331 et seq.) and the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 
        181 et seq.) which are deposited in the Treasury, and 
        after distribution of any such funds as described in 
        subsection (c), $50,000,000 shall be deposited into the 
        Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and 
        Other Petroleum Research Fund (in this section referred 
        to as the ``Fund''). [For purposes of this]
            (2) Strategic petroleum reserve.--For fiscal year 
        2008 the Secretary of Energy shall direct not more than 
        $25,000,000 from Federal royalties, rents, and bonuses 
        described in paragraph (1) shall be used to carry out 
        land acquisition activities for the Strategic Petroleum 
        Reserve required under section 301(e)(1).
            (3) Definition of royalties.--In this section, the 
        term ``royalties'' excludes proceeds from the sale of 
        royalty production taken in kind and royalty production 
        that is transferred under section 27(a)(3) of the Outer 
        Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1353(a)(3)).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006, PUBLIC LAW 109-
103

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                                TITLE I


                       CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL


                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY


Corps of Engineers--Civil

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



GENERAL PROVISIONS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    [Sec. 108. None of the funds made available in title I of 
this Act may be used to award any continuing contract or to 
make modifications to any existing continuing contract that 
commits an amount for a project in excess of the amount 
appropriated for such project pursuant to this Act: Provided, 
That the amounts appropriated in this Act may be modified 
pursuant to the authorities provided in section 101 of this Act 
or through the application of unobligated balances for such 
project.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    Sec. 121. [(a) The Secretary of the Army may carry out and 
fund projects to comply with the 2003 Biological Opinion 
described in section 205(b) of the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447; 118 Stat. 2949) 
as amended by subsection (b) and may award grants and enter 
into contracts, cooperative agreements, or interagency 
agreements with participants in the Endangered Species Act 
Collaborative Program Workgroup referenced in section 209(a) of 
the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2004 
(Public Law 108- 137; 117 Stat. 1850) in order to carry out 
such projects. Any project undertaken under this subsection 
shall require a non-Federal cost share of 25 percent, which may 
be provided through in-kind services or direct cash 
contributions and which shall be credited on a programmatic 
basis instead of on a project-by-project basis, with 
reconciliation of total project costs and total non-Federal 
cost share calculated on a three year incremental basis. Non-
Federal cost share that exceeds that which is required in any 
calculated three year increment shall be credited to subsequent 
three year increments.] (a) The Secretary of the Army may carry 
out and fund planning studies, watershed surveys and 
assessments, or technical studies at 100 percent Federal 
expense to accomplish the purposes of the 2003 Biological 
Opinion described in section 205(b) of the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447; 118 
Stat. 2949) as amended by subsection (b) and the collaborative 
program long-term plan. In carrying out a study, survey, or 
assessment under this subsection, the Secretary of the Army 
shall consult with Federal, State, tribal and local 
governmental entities, as well as entities participating in the 
Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program 
referred to in section 205 of the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act, 2008. The Secretary of the Army may also 
provide planning and administrative assistance to the Middle 
Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program, which 
shall not be subject to cost sharing requirements with non-
Federal interests.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [Sec. 134. Project Modification. (a) In General.--The 
project for flood damage reduction, environmental restoration, 
recreation, Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas, authorized by 
section 101(b)(14) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1999 (113 Stat. 280-281) is modified--
            [(1) to deauthorize the ecosystem restoration 
        portion of the project that consists of approximately 
        90 acres of land located between Randol Mill and the 
        Union Pacific East/West line; and
            [(2) to authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
        design and construct an ecosystem restoration project 
        on lands identified in subsection (c) that will provide 
        the same or greater level of national ecosystem 
        restoration benefits as the portion of the project 
        described in paragraph (1).
    [(b) Credit Toward Federal Share.--The Secretary of the 
Army shall credit toward the Federal share of the cost of the 
modified project the costs incurred by the Secretary to carry 
out the project as originally authorized under section 
101(b)(14) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 
Stat. 280). The non-Federal interest shall not be responsible 
for reimbursing the Secretary for any amount credited under 
this subsection.
    [(c) Comparable Property.--Not later than 6 months after 
the date of enactment of this Act, the City of Arlington, 
Texas, shall identify lands, acceptable to the Secretary of the 
Army, amounting to not less than 90 acres within the City, 
where an ecosystem restoration project may be constructed to 
provide the same or greater level of National ecosystem 
restoration benefits as the land described in subsection 
(a)(1).]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR DEFENSE, THE GLOBAL WAR 
ON TERROR, AND HURRICANE RECOVERY, 2006, PUBLIC LAW 109-234

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                                TITLE II


FURTHER HURRICANE DISASTER RELIEF AND RECOVERY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                               CHAPTER 3


                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL


                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY


Corps of Engineers--Civil

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                              CONSTRUCTION

    For an additional amount for ``Construction'' for necessary 
expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane Katrina and 
other hurricanes of the 2005 season, $549,400,000, to remain 
available until expended, of which up to $20,200,000 may be 
used to reduce the risk of storm damage to the greater New 
Orleans metropolitan area, at full Federal expense, by 
restoring the surrounding wetlands through measures to begin to 
reverse wetland losses in areas affected by navigation, oil and 
gas, and other channels and through modification of the 
Caernarvon Freshwater Diversion structure or its operations; at 
least $495,300,000 shall be used consistent with the cost-
sharing provisions under which the projects were originally 
constructed to raise levee heights where necessary and 
otherwise enhance the existing Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity 
project and the existing West Bank and Vicinity project to 
provide the levels of protection necessary to achieve the 
certification required for participation in the National Flood 
Insurance Program under the base flood elevations current at 
the time of this [construction: Provided,] : Provided, That the 
Secretary of the Army, in implementing projects and measures in 
the New Orleans metropolitan area required to achieve 
certification for participation in the National Flood Insurance 
Program as directed in Public Law 109-234 shall include all 
authorized features of the Southeast Louisiana Flood Control 
project and related internal pumping requirements as integral 
elements of the comprehensive protection system for the area 
and shall complete all authorized work for the Southeast 
Louisiana project concurrently and integrally with other area 
projects: Provided further, That the amount provided under this 
heading is designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to 
section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent 
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006: Provided 
further, That $1,500,000 shall be for the North Padre Island, 
Texas project: Provided further, That $30,400,000 is available 
for flood control work in the Sacramento, California, Area: 
Provided further, That $2,000,000 shall be provided at full 
Federal expense for the Hawaii Water Systems Technical 
Assistance Program.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                                            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 budget totals for
 2008: Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development:
    Mandatory.........................................  ..............  ...........              1          \1\1
    Discretionary.....................................         32,273        32,273         33,229     \1\33,083
Projections of outlays associated with the
 recommendation:
    2008..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............    \2\19,905
    2009..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............        9,152
    2010..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............        2,747
    2011..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............          203
    2012 and future years.............................  ..............  ...........  ..............           98
Financial assistance to State and local governments                NA           111             NA            19
 for  2008............................................

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 2007 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
                                                                        YEAR 2008
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                         Senate Committee recommendation
                                                                                                                             compared with (+ or -)
                                Item                                       2007       Budget estimate     Committee    ---------------------------------
                                                                      appropriation                     recommendation        2007
                                                                                                                         appropriation   Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                     Corps of Engineers--Civil
Investigations.....................................................         162,916           90,000          172,147           +9,231          +82,147
    Rescission.....................................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
    Emergency appropriations.......................................           8,165   ...............  ...............          -8,165   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Investigations........................................         171,081           90,000          172,147           +1,066          +82,147

Construction.......................................................       2,336,368        1,523,000        2,059,474         -276,894         +536,474
    Rescission.....................................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
    Emergency appropriations.......................................          36,500   ...............  ...............         -36,500   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Construction..........................................       2,372,868        1,523,000        2,059,474         -313,394         +536,474

Mississippi River and tributaries..................................         396,565          260,000          375,000          -21,565         +115,000
Operations and Maintenance.........................................       1,973,347        2,471,000        2,291,971         +318,624         -179,029
    Emergency appropriations.......................................           3,000   ...............  ...............          -3,000   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Operations and Maintenance............................       1,976,347        2,471,000        2,291,971         +315,624         -179,029

Regulatory program.................................................         159,273          180,000          180,000          +20,727   ...............
FUSRAP.............................................................         138,672          130,000          140,000           +1,328          +10,000
Flood control and coastal emergencies..............................  ...............          40,000           50,000          +50,000          +10,000
    Emergency appropriations.......................................       1,561,000   ...............  ...............      -1,561,000   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Flood control and coastal emergencies.................       1,561,000           40,000           50,000       -1,511,000          +10,000

Expenses...........................................................         167,250          177,000          175,000           +7,750           -2,000
Office of Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)............           3,979   ...............           4,500             +521           +4,500
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Total, title I, Department of Defense--Civil.................       6,947,035        4,871,000        5,448,092       -1,498,943         +577,092
          Appropriations...........................................      (5,338,370)      (4,871,000)      (5,448,092)       (+109,722)       (+577,092)
          Emergency appropriations.................................      (1,608,665)  ...............  ...............     (-1,608,665)  ...............
          Rescissions..............................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

              Central Utah Project Completion Account

Central Utah project construction..................................          31,351           40,404           40,404           +9,053   ...............
Fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation.........             937              976              976              +39   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................          32,288           41,380           41,380           +9,092   ...............

Program oversight and administration...............................           1,732            1,620            1,620             -112   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Central Utah project completion account...............          34,020           43,000           43,000           +8,980   ...............

                       Bureau of Reclamation

Water and related resources........................................         878,623          816,197          950,106          +71,483         +133,909
    Emergency appropriations.......................................          18,000   ...............  ...............         -18,000   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Water and related resources...........................         896,623          816,197          950,106          +53,483         +133,909

Central Valley project restoration fund............................          52,150           59,122           51,622             -528           -7,500
California Bay-Delta restoration...................................          36,648           31,750           40,750           +4,102           +9,000
Policy and administration..........................................          57,575           58,811           58,811           +1,236   ...............
Legislative proposal SJRRF.........................................  ...............          -7,500   ...............  ...............          +7,500
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Bureau of Reclamation.................................       1,042,996          958,380        1,101,289          +58,293         +142,909
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Total, title II, Department of the Interior..................       1,077,016        1,001,380        1,144,289          +67,273         +142,909
          Appropriations...........................................      (1,059,016)      (1,001,380)      (1,144,289)        (+85,273)       (+142,909)
          Emergency Appropriations.................................         (18,000)  ...............  ...............        (-18,000)  ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                  TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                          Energy Programs

Energy efficiency and renewable energy.............................       1,474,285        1,236,199        1,715,551         +241,266         +479,352
Electricity delivery and energy reliability........................         137,000          114,937          168,437          +31,437          +53,500

Nuclear energy.....................................................         482,191          801,703          720,558         +238,367          -81,145
    (Reallocation from Energy supply and conservation).............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
    (Reallocation from Nuclear nonproliferation)...................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
Office of Legacy Management........................................          33,187           35,104           35,104           +1,917   ...............

Clean coal technology:
    Deferral of unobligated balances, fiscal year 2005.............         257,000   ...............  ...............        -257,000   ...............
    Deferral of unobligated balances, fiscal year 2007.............        -257,000   ...............  ...............        +257,000   ...............
    Deferral of unobligated balances, fiscal year 2008.............  ...............         257,000          257,000         +257,000   ...............
    Deferral of unobligated balances, fiscal year 2009.............  ...............  ...............        -149,000         -149,000         -149,000
    Rescission, uncommitted balances...............................  ...............        -149,000   ...............  ...............        +149,000
    Transfer to Fossil Energy R&D..................................  ...............        -166,000         -166,000         -166,000   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Clean coal technology.................................  ...............         -58,000          -58,000          -58,000   ...............

Fossil Energy Research and Development.............................         592,621          400,801          642,113          +49,492         +241,312
    Transfer from Clean Coal Technology............................  ...............         166,000          166,000         +166,000   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Fossil Energy Research and Development.............         592,621          566,801          808,113         +215,492         +241,312

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves.............................          21,316           17,301           21,301              -15           +4,000
Strategic petroleum reserve........................................         164,441          331,609          163,472             -969         -168,137
Northeast home heating oil reserve.................................           5,000            5,325           12,825           +7,825           +7,500
Energy Information Administration..................................          90,653          105,095          105,095          +14,442   ...............
Non-defense environmental clean up.................................         349,687          180,937          195,437         -154,250          +14,500
    (Reallocation from Energy supply and conservation).............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
Uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund........         556,606          573,509          573,509          +16,903   ...............
Science............................................................       3,797,294        4,397,876        4,496,759         +699,465          +98,883
Nuclear Waste Disposal.............................................          99,206          202,454          204,054         +104,848           +1,600
Environment, safety and health (Reallocation from Energy supply and          27,841   ...............  ...............         -27,841   ...............
 conservation).....................................................

Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program.......................  ...............           8,390            8,390           +8,390   ...............
Departmental administration........................................         276,832          310,366          308,596          +31,764           -1,770
    Miscellaneous revenues.........................................        -123,000         -161,818         -161,818          -38,818   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Net appropriation..........................................         153,832          148,548          146,778           -7,054           -1,770

Office of the Inspector General....................................          41,819           47,732           47,732           +5,913   ...............

                  Atomic Energy Defense Activities

National Nuclear Security Administration:
    Weapons activities.............................................       6,275,583        6,511,312        6,489,024         +213,441          -22,288
    Defense nuclear nonproliferation...............................       1,683,339        1,672,646        1,872,646         +189,307         +200,000
        (Reallocation to Nuclear energy)...........................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
        Emergency appropriations...................................         135,000   ...............  ...............        -135,000   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Defense nuclear nonproliferation...............       1,818,339        1,672,646        1,872,646          +54,307         +200,000

    Naval reactors.................................................         781,800          808,219          808,219          +26,419   ...............
    Office of the Administrator....................................         340,291          394,656          394,656          +54,365   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, National Nuclear Security Administration...........       9,216,013        9,386,833        9,564,545         +348,532         +177,712

Defense environmental cleanup......................................       5,731,839        5,363,905        5,690,380          -41,459         +326,475
Other defense activities...........................................         636,271          763,974          765,464         +129,193           +1,490
Defense nuclear waste disposal.....................................         346,500          292,046          242,046         -104,454          -50,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities......................      15,930,623       15,806,758       16,262,435         +331,812         +455,677
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                  Power Marketing Administrations

Operation and maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration.......          38,315           54,876           54,876          +16,561   ...............
    Offsetting collection..........................................         -32,713          -48,413          -48,413          -15,700   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, O&M, Southeastern Power Administration.............           5,602            6,463            6,463             +861   ...............

Operation and maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration.......          32,998           65,442           65,442          +32,444   ...............
    Offsetting collection..........................................          -3,000          -35,000          -35,000          -32,000   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, O&M, Southwestern Power Administration.............          29,998           30,442           30,442             +444   ...............

Construction, rehabilitation, operation and maintenance, Western            515,031          463,669          493,669          -21,362          +30,000
 Area Power Administration.........................................
    Offsetting collection..........................................        -279,000         -258,702         -262,639          +16,361           -3,937
    Offsettting collection Colorado River Dam Fund.................          -3,705           -3,937   ...............          +3,705           +3,937
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, O&M, Western Area Power Administration.............         232,326          201,030          231,030           -1,296          +30,000

Falcon and Amistad operating and maintenance fund..................           2,665            2,500            2,500             -165   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Power Marketing Administrations.......................         270,591          240,435          270,435             -156          +30,000
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Salaries and expenses..............................................         221,902          255,425          255,425          +33,523   ...............
Revenues applied...................................................        -221,902         -255,425         -255,425          -33,523   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Total, title III, Department of Energy.......................      24,228,193       24,762,713       25,897,985       +1,669,792       +1,135,272
          Appropriations...........................................     (24,093,193)     (24,654,713)     (25,789,985)     (+1,696,792)     (+1,135,272)
          Emergency appropriations.................................        (135,000)  ...............  ...............       (-135,000)  ...............
          Rescissions..............................................  ...............       (-149,000)  ...............  ...............       (+149,000)
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                   TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Appalachian Regional Commission....................................          64,858           65,000           75,000          +10,142          +10,000
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board............................          21,914           22,499           22,499             +585   ...............
Delta Regional Authority...........................................          11,888            6,000           12,000             +112           +6,000
Denali Commission..................................................          49,509            1,800           31,800          -17,709          +30,000

Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
    Salaries and expenses..........................................         816,639          908,409          910,559          +93,920           +2,150
    Revenues.......................................................        -659,328         -757,720         -757,720          -98,392   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................         157,311          150,689          152,839           -4,472           +2,150

    Office of Inspector General....................................           8,285            8,144            8,744             +459             +600
    Revenues.......................................................          -7,410           -7,330           -7,870             -460             -540
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................             875              814              874               -1              +60
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Total, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.........................         158,186          151,503          153,713           -4,473           +2,210

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board...............................           3,591            3,621            3,621              +30   ...............
Tennessee Valley Authority: Office of Inspector General............  ...............          15,000   ...............  ...............         -15,000
    Offset.........................................................  ...............         -15,000   ...............  ...............         +15,000
Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas             ...............           2,322            2,322           +2,322   ...............
 Transportation Projects...........................................
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Total, title IV, Independent agencies........................         309,946          252,745          300,955           -8,991          +48,210
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Grand total..................................................      32,562,190       30,887,838       32,791,321         +229,131       +1,903,483
          Appropriations...........................................     (30,800,525)     (31,036,838)     (32,791,321)     (+1,990,796)     (+1,754,483)
          Emergency appropriations.................................      (1,761,665)  ...............  ...............     (-1,761,665)  ...............
          Rescission...............................................  ...............       (-149,000)  ...............  ...............       (+149,000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                   
