```

[Senate Report 109-84]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                       Calendar No. 130
109th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                     109-84

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

 
               ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2006

                                _______
                                

                 June 16, 2005.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                   [To accompany H.R. 2419]

    The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 2419) 
making appropriations for energy and water development for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, 
favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass. deg.
    The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the 
bill (H.R. 2419) making appropriations for energy and water 
development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and 
for other purposes, reports the same to the Senate with an 
amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.

Amount in new budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2006

Total of bill as reported to the Senate................. $31,245,000,000
Amount of 2005 appropriations...........................  29,832,280,000
Amount of 2006 budget estimate..........................  29,746,728,000
Amount of House allowance...............................  29,746,000,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to--
    2005 appropriations.................................  +1,412,720,000
    2006 budget estimate................................  +1,498,272,000
    House allowance.....................................  +1,499,000,000

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Purpose..........................................................     4
Summary of Estimates and Recommendations.........................     4
Title I--Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army:
    Corps of Engineers--Civil:
        General Investigations...................................    14
        Construction, General....................................    33
        Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries.........    52
        Operation and Maintenance, General.......................    57
        Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies....................    91
        Regulatory Program.......................................    91
        Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program..........    91
        General Expenses.........................................    92
        General Provisions--Corps of Engineers--Civil............    93
Title II--Department of the Interior:
    Central Utah Project Completion Account......................    95
    Bureau of Reclamation:
        Water and Related Resources..............................    95
        Central Valley Project Restoration Fund..................   109
        California Bay-Delta Restoration.........................   109
        Policy and Administration................................   110
    General Provisions--Department of the Interior...............   110
Title III--Department of Energy:
    Energy Supply and Conservation...............................   116
        Office of Electricity Delivery Energy Reliability........   125
        Nuclear Energy Programs..................................   127
        Environment, Safety, and Health..........................   132
        Fossil Energy Research and Development...................   132
        Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves...................   134
        Elk Hills School Lands Fund..............................   135
        Strategic Petroleum Reserve..............................   135
        Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.......................   135
        Energy Information Administration........................   136
    Non-defense Environmental Cleanup............................   137
    Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund..   138
    Science......................................................   139
        High Energy Physics......................................   141
        Nuclear Physics..........................................   141
        Biological and Environmental Research....................   142
        Basic Energy Sciences....................................   145
    Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund..................................   148
    Departmental Administration..................................   150
    Inspector General............................................   150
    Atomic Energy Defense Activities:
        National Nuclear Security Administration:
            Weapons Activities...................................   152
            Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.....................   166
            Naval Reactors.......................................   170
            Office of the Administrator..........................   171
        Environmental and Other Defense Activities:
            Defense Environmental Cleanup........................   172
            Other Defense Activities.............................   175
            Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal.......................   177
            Power Marketing Administrations:
                Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power 
                  Administration.................................   179
                Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power 
                  Administration.................................   179
                Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and 
                  Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration.   179
            Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Salaries and 
              Expenses...........................................   180
    General Provisions--Department of Energy.....................   208
Title IV--Independent Agencies:
    Appalachian Regional Commission..............................   210
    Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board......................   210
    Delta Regional Authority.....................................   211
    Denali Commission............................................   211
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission................................   211
        Office of Inspector General..............................   212
    Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.........................   213
    Tennessee Valley Authority Office of the Inspector General...   213
Title V--General Provisions......................................   214
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of 
  the 
  Senate.........................................................   215
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules 
  of the 
  Senate.........................................................   216
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of 
  the 
  Senate.........................................................   216
Budgetary Impact Statement.......................................   226

                                PURPOSE

    The purpose of this bill is to provide appropriations for 
the fiscal year 2006 beginning October 1, 2005, and ending 
September 30, 2006, 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 2006 budget estimates for the bill total 
$31,245,000,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The 
recommendation of the Committee totals $31,245,000,000. This is 
$1,498,272,000 above the budget estimates and $1,412,720,000 
over the enacted appropriation for the current fiscal year.

                         Subcommittee Hearings

    The Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water held 
four sessions in connection with the fiscal year 2006 
appropriation bill. Witnesses included officials and 
representatives of the Federal agencies under the 
subcommittee's jurisdiction.
    The subcommittee received numerous statements and letters 
from Members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, 
Governors, State and local officials and representatives, and 
hundreds of private citizens of all walks of life throughout 
the United States. Information, both for and against many 
items, was presented to the subcommittee. The recommendations 
for fiscal year 2006 therefore, have been developed after 
careful consideration of available data.

                         Votes in the Committee

    By a vote of 28 to 0 the Committee on June 16, 2005, 
recommended that the bill, as amended, be reported to the 
Senate.

                 TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

                              INTRODUCTION

    In 1802, responding to the need for engineering talent to 
support both the defense of the young United States and its 
civilian infrastructure, President Thomas Jefferson proposed a 
body of engineers within the U.S. Army, readily available to 
tackle assignments of national importance. To train them, he 
opened the first engineering school in the United States--the 
U.S. Military Academy at West Point, NY.
    In the two centuries since, the expertise the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers has gained, especially in water resources, 
has led administrations and Congress to assign it missions in 
navigation, flood control, shore protection, hydropower, water 
supply, recreation, and, most recently, environmental 
stewardship, cleanup and restoration work. The public has also 
relied on the Corps to respond rapidly with engineering 
services when disaster strikes.
    Still, the question has often arisen why the Army of today 
carries out a Civil Works mission that appears, at first 
glance, far removed from its primary mission of deterring and 
winning wars. In fact, in the past 80 years there have been at 
least eight proposals to transfer the Civil Works mission to 
other Government agencies. All have been rejected after more 
careful consideration.
    The Army has traditionally relied on its Civil Works 
mission to train combat engineers, and to complement and 
augment its warfighting competencies, providing the capability 
to respond to situations across the spectrum of conflict. 
Specifically, Civil Works provides the Army:
  --A force in being of about 24,000 engineers and other 
        professionals, familiar with the Army culture and 
        responsive to the chain of command. The program 
        provides attractive careers and professional challenges 
        to maintain this force. This is a no cost asset to the 
        Army until needed for warfighting.
  --Established relationships with Federal, State and local 
        officials, and with the Nation's engineering and 
        construction industries--a force multiplier of hundreds 
        of thousands. ``On the shelf'' contracts are available 
        for emergencies.
  --Deployability.--Corps members engaged in Civil Works 
        activities are available where needed. Today scores of 
        Civil Works personnel are deployed in Afghanistan and 
        Iraq. Specialists in such activities as real estate 
        were sent before the main force to secure needed 
        facilities. Meanwhile, Corps ``tele-engineering'' 
        systems link combat commanders to Corps labs and other 
        stateside experts for immediate on-the-ground feedback.
  --Support to Combat Forces.--Corps of Engineers knowledge of 
        beach dynamics helps determine sites for landings over 
        the shore, while expertise in soil mechanics determines 
        the best routes for armored vehicles with technologies 
        developed in the Civil Works program. Corps' work on 
        winter navigation helps the Army cross frozen rivers--
        and was a major factor in its crossing of the Sava 
        River in Bosnia. Its experience with roller compacted 
        concrete for dams was used for runways and hardstands. 
        Civil Works experience with harbors allows the Army to 
        build ports to support U.S. forces in places such as 
        Somalia where facilities are primitive to non-existent.
  --Expertise in natural and cultural resources, water quality, 
        flood plain management or toxic waste control, helping 
        the Army comply with more than 70 Federal environmental 
        statutes, and a breadth of experience and workload in 
        dozens of specialized fields that would not otherwise 
        be possible.
  --A Power Projection Platform.--Nearly all military equipment 
        deployed overseas passes through ports maintained by 
        the Civil Works program. So do most Navy ships. Corps 
        flood control projects also play a role in force 
        projection by protecting key highway and rail links.
  --International Goodwill.--Army Engineers experienced in 
        Civil Works play a major role in infrastructure in 
        developing nations. They help to improve economic 
        conditions and strengthen democratic institutions in 
        these nations; allow the Army a presence in politically 
        sensitive areas; and foster good will through contact 
        between governments and armed forces. Today Corps 
        personnel are working in more than 90 nations around 
        the world. In most of these nations, no other U.S. 
        forces are present.
    Army management of the Nation's water resources, in turn, 
benefits the program and the Nation in a number of ways:
  --Responsiveness.--Corps members and contractors are 
        available to deploy, often within hours, wherever the 
        need arises. This was dramatically demonstrated in the 
        aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Civil 
        Works personnel were on the scene within hours. Corps 
        vessels operated a ferry service taking survivors to 
        New Jersey and bringing rescue workers into the city. 
        Corps personnel assisted with rescue and recovery 
        operations. Structural engineers evaluated which 
        buildings were safe for re-entry. The 249th Engineer 
        Battalion (Prime Power) provided the expertise 
        necessary to set up emergency generators that had New 
        York's financial district back in business the 
        following Monday. The Corps also developed the plan for 
        disposal of debris from ``Ground Zero'' and managed the 
        Staten Island disposal site so that 1.35 million tons 
        of material were safely disposed of months ahead of 
        schedule and $55,000,000 under budget.
  --A Bias For Action.--A unique mix of Army officers with a 
        ``can do'' attitude working alongside world class 
        engineering and scientific civilian expertise makes the 
        Corps arguably the most positive and proactive agency 
        in the Federal Government.
  --National Security Consideration in Planning for 
        Infrastructure.--The Corps recently completed security 
        assessments for more than 300 of its key projects. It 
        also led the establishment in March 2002 of The 
        Infrastructure Security Partnership [TISP], bringing 
        together government and private organizations 
        representing about 1.6 million engineers and other 
        professionals to focus on securing the infrastructure 
        necessary to maintain normal American life. Corps 
        ``hardening'' measures, meanwhile, were credited with 
        saving hundreds of lives in the 9/11 attack on the 
        Pentagon.
  --Impartiality in Recommendations for Projects, Permits, 
        Etc.--Administrations and Congresses rely on the Corps 
        to base investment recommendations on the best 
        engineering, economic and environmental science 
        available, not political considerations.
  --Concentration of Water Resources Expertise in One Agency.--
        The Corps, with the great majority of its civil works 
        personnel located throughout the 50 States rather than 
        in Washington, DC, is unique in the world in that it 
        provides a common arena for water resources issues in 
        the United States to be debated and solutions vetted. 
        Governments of other countries study the Corps as they 
        begin to understand the need for integrated solutions 
        and seek to build the capability to achieve them by 
        combining previously separate agency responsibilities. 
        The Corps provides synergy among various uses of water, 
        balance among uses and geographic areas, and the 
        ability to plan water resources for watersheds as a 
        whole instead of single projects for specific 
        locations. Water resource planners and the public are 
        increasingly coming to understand that water problems 
        cannot be considered in isolation--the solution to one 
        problem often generates others. Uses and protection of 
        water resources cannot be separated, but require an 
        integrated, watershed approach. Having different 
        agencies in charge of water resource uses would 
        guarantee conflicts among uses, while having all uses 
        under the auspices of one agency is a major step in 
        creating a balanced, holistic approach to the Nation's 
        water needs--a step that was taken 200 years ago.

                    FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET OVERVIEW

    The fiscal year 2006 budget request for the Corps of 
Engineers is composed of $4,332,000,000 in new budgetary 
authority and $181,000,000 in offsetting collections from the 
Power Marketing Authorities for a total program of 
$4,513,000,000. The Committee is unable to take advantage of 
the offsetting collections due to budgetary scoring impacts and 
therefore rejects this proposal for the fourth year in a row.
    The Committee recommends a total of $5,298,000,000 for the 
Corps of Engineers, an increase of $612,452,000 from fiscal 
year 2005 enacted levels (adjusted for one-time emergency 
spending of $372,400,000). The Committee recommendation is 
$966,000,000 above the request. The Committee recommendation 
provides for a robust planning program as well as providing 
significant increases to the construction and operation and 
maintenance accounts. Unfortunately, even with this large 
increase the Committee recommendation falls short of what is 
actually needed to provide efficient levels of funding for all 
on-going work.
    The Corps' budget proposal is a departure from previous 
years. This budget is the first to be developed as a full 
business line program prioritization and then cross-walked to 
the traditional accounts summary. Projects compete in each of 
the three main mission areas (Flood Damage Reduction, 
Navigation and Environmental Restoration) and are classified as 
follows:
  --Coastal Navigation,
  --Inland Navigation,
  --Flood Damage reduction,
  --Storm Damage reduction,
  --Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, and
  --Other (including all major rehabilitation and Hydropower).
    Categories 1-4 comprise 70 percent or more of the 
Construction, General Program; Category 5 is 25 percent or 
less; and Category 6 is 5 percent or more. Projects were ranked 
on two performance criteria--Remaining Benefits to Remaining 
Costs Ratio or effective use of resources to address 
significant ecological problems. Lower ranking projects are 
proposed for contract deferral, suspension or termination. The 
budget proposed another new shore protection policy, the fourth 
in 4 years. Additionally, the budget proposed repealing the 
current continuing contract language and replacing it with new 
multiple year contracting. Finally, the budget included a 
proposal that $200,000,000 of the construction funds should be 
contingent upon Congress accepting the administration's 
budgetary prioritization criteria.
    The Committee is disappointed that the administration has 
included another ``new'' beach policy. Beaches are the leading 
tourist destination in the United States. California beaches 
alone receive nearly 600 million tourist visits annually. This 
is more tourist visits than to all of the lands controlled by 
the National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management 
combined. Beach tourists contribute $260,000,000,000 to the 
U.S. economy and $60,000,000,000 in Federal taxes. Last year 
Congress provided legislation that beach policies will not be 
changed except by congressional direction. Congress has 
repeatedly demonstrated that the current beach policy is 
satisfactory. The Committee has attempted to provide sufficient 
funding for a number of the most critical shore protection 
projects.
    The Committee has chosen to reject all of these budget 
proposals. The Committee believes that this is no way to run a 
robust national infrastructure program. The Corps needs to 
seriously reexamine its ``business line'' budget model. The 
Corps program has always been a ``big tent'' where all aspects 
of water resource development were jointly discussed and 
budgeted. The business line approach segregates these interests 
and promotes discord among various water resource interests. 
There is already evidence of some ``business lines'' attempting 
to find ways to take funding from ``business lines'' with 
smaller constituent bases. This lack of unity will further the 
downward spiral of recent budget proposals.
    The Committee believes that the budget proposal's blind 
emphasis on remaining benefits to remaining costs ratios to 
determine funding priorities is misplaced. The strict adherence 
to the metric of Remaining Benefit to Remaining Cost Ratio to 
the exclusion of all other possible metrics that could have 
been utilized such as widespread project net benefits, 
inclusion of system-wide values, acknowledgement of regional 
benefits, recognition of a wider set of benefits over a longer 
planning period than just 1 year, calculations using other 
interest rates that are more in accordance with the projects 
authorizations, as well as the GI metric of 3.0 RBRCR for the 
PED projects, is indeed narrow.
    Also, funding only the ``highest potential return'' studies 
to the detriment of many other studies that provide a future 
vision or address far-reaching problems while not yet showing 
any BCR data, can also be considered ``penny wise and pound 
foolish.'' These studies still add value and importance and 
have a place in the problem solving needs of the overall 
Nation's water community.
    While this process may have led to a very focused 
performance-based set of final projects to study, design and 
construct, the metrics used led to a very skewed set of results 
with a few strong regional winners and many losers. 
Consideration of a more encompassing set of factors including 
those mentioned above, as well as a number still under 
development, would have provided a more comprehensive set of 
projects, yet continuing to deliver needed, effective, national 
water benefits.
    These ratios provide a ``snapshot'' view of a project. They 
tell you nothing of the relative value of one project to 
another, projects in rural areas with fewer beneficiaries are 
penalized and no consideration is given to the 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 the ratios skewed 
the projects to certain areas of the country.
    The program proposed in the budget is very unbalanced among 
planning, construction and maintenance. The planning program is 
decimated. The proposed program slows down the number of 
projects reaching construction by limiting funding for new 
study phases. The planning program is vital to a healthy Corps 
of Engineers; without a steady supply of new studies, 
eventually there will be no new construction projects, and then 
the Corps would gradually become an operation and maintenance 
organization with no real national capabilities. There is no 
shortage of water resource needs in the country today, and the 
Corps needs to maintain a robust planning program to be able to 
continue to address these needs.
Continuing Contracts
    The Corps needs flexibility to manage their program. Unlike 
building a hospital or a barracks or a post office where the 
site is relatively contained, flood free, and accessible, water 
resource projects are constructed in physically challenging 
locations. By their nature, these projects involve large 
mobilization costs and great uncertainties. The Corps of 
Engineers has been tasked with providing hundreds of water 
infrastructure projects in challenging locations throughout the 
country. Historically, the Corps has done an outstanding job of 
managing these great water resource projects and has provided 
the water infrastructure that has greatly contributed to our 
economic security.
    One of the greatest tools that the Corps of Engineers has 
for managing its nationwide water resources infrastructure 
program is the ability to award multiyear continuing contracts. 
When an agency is managing, literally, hundreds of construction 
projects throughout the country, problems are inevitable. These 
can range from flood, to drought, to funding shortfalls, to 
unanticipated hazardous wastes encountered in the construction 
site, or discovery of unanticipated cultural resources. Any one 
of these items can bring a project to a temporary halt or slow 
construction. By the same token, projects can be accelerated 
due to mild winters or below average flows on a river allowing 
a longer construction season with more work to be done and more 
funds to be utilized.
    Water resources projects, because of the nature of the work 
involved, are funded on an incremental annual basis. As far 
back as 1922, the Congress recognized the need for flexibility 
in management and execution of the Civil Works program and 
provided the Army Corps of Engineers with legislation that 
allowed the use of continuing contracts for specifically 
authorized projects. In a 1977 decision, the Comptroller 
General confirmed that the authority found in the 1922 law 
constituted an exception to the Anti-deficiency Act. 
Accordingly, the Corps has had the discretion to use continuing 
contracts to execute any of its specifically authorized water 
resources projects since at least 1977.
    In the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (33 U.S.C. 
Sec. 2331), the Congress enacted another provision of law 
relating to continuing contracts. This legislation requires the 
Corps to award a continuing contract for a water resources 
project for which initiation of construction has occurred, but 
for which sufficient funds are not available to complete the 
project. The statute defines initiation of construction as the 
date of the enactment of an appropriations act in which the 
project receives funds from either the Construction, General, 
Operation and Maintenance, General or Flood Control, 
Mississippi River and Tributaries lump sum appropriations. 
Since Congress rarely appropriates sufficient funds for each 
project, the practical effect of the statute is that it 
requires the use of continuing contracts for the majority of 
civil works water resource projects.
    Continuing contracts allow the Corps to award large 
construction elements of a project to take advantage of the 
economies of scale available to construction contractors. 
Allowing these large construction elements to be managed over 
several years without requiring contracts to be fully funded 
before construction begins affords the Corps the ability to 
more efficiently manage multiple construction contracts. 
Multiyear funding, and the ability to reprogram funds, are 
tools that have allowed the Corps to maximize scarce resources 
to try to do as much as possible with the resources available 
to them; they also left the Corps open to charges that it has 
put contractors in charge of managing its funds.
    The Congress has expressed its concerns in the past that 
Corps of Engineers construction projects may have used the 
continuing contracts clause and the ability to reprogram funds 
to award some construction contracts that may not have been 
fiscally prudent in light of current budget realities. However, 
many of these construction contracts were awarded when surplus 
funds were available allowing reprogramming of funds to make up 
for budget shortfalls. This process has resulted in most 
surplus funds being expended, leaving the Corps with very 
little flexibility to cover the financial obligations of the 
construction contracts. As a result, an increased number of 
reprogrammings are necessary to satisfy as many of the Corps' 
financial obligations as possible.
    In the Conference Report accompanying the fiscal year 2005 
Consolidated Appropriations Act (House Report 108-792), the 
Congress expressed its belief that the Corps had made great 
strides in resolving these financial issues by applying more 
stringent controls on financial obligations allowed on 
continuing contracts and allowed the Corps to continue to 
resolve the situation. The Congress also cautioned the Corps 
that it must regain control of all aspects of program execution 
and execute the program which Congress appropriates. The 
Committee believes that the Corps has made progress in 
tightening controls on the use of continuing contracts. For 
example, these types of contracts have traditionally been 
executed at a district level. However, the decision has been 
elevated to Corps headquarters on whether or not to award a 
continuing contract. The Committee sees this as an appropriate 
but temporary necessity and expects continuing contracts to 
remain a generally available contracting tool for program 
execution.
    The continuing contract clause has adequate controls to 
limit the future obligations of the Federal Government. The 
Committee expects the Corps to utilize these controls to limit 
Government exposure. The Committee expects the Corps to develop 
specific execution guidance to control and manage the 
implementation of continuing contracts, consistent with law and 
prudent fiscal policy, and to carry out the Civil Works program 
accordingly.
Reprogramming
    The Committee expects the Corps to execute the Civil Works 
program following 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 allow the Corps 
ample flexibility to manage the program and to utilize excess 
funds as they become available on a particular project to move 
the entire program forward. With this flexibility comes a 
responsibility to insure that appropriated funds are available 
for projects when necessary. The Committee expects the Corps to 
develop specific execution guidance to control and manage the 
reprogramming of funds, which is consistent with law and 
prudent fiscal policy, and to carry out the Civil Works program 
accordingly. As there were some ambiguities in the 
reprogramming guidance provided with the fiscal year 2005 
Omnibus Report, the Committee has elected to redraft that 
guidance and present it here.
    Reprogramming is also to be used in very benign, fiscally 
responsible ways. The Corps financial management system uses 
thousands of work item codes to supply funding for everything 
from purchasing a screwdriver to ordering a computer to buying 
a miter gate for a lock and dam. As the Government cannot fund 
purchases in arrears, adequate funding estimates must be 
supplied into these work items prior to purchases being made. 
Rarely are these estimates an exact match for these purchases. 
Often funding is left in these work items that must be cleaned 
up at the end of the fiscal year. The remaining funds from 
these accounts must be reprogrammed to other accounts in order 
to be used. These remaining funds can range from a few pennies 
to thousands of dollars. The same is true when a cost shared 
project is completed with a local sponsor. A final accounting 
must be made and all of the old work items must be cleaned out 
in order to dispose of leftover project funding.
Reprogramming Guidance
    A reprogramming action may not be used to eliminate or 
initiate a program, project or activity.
    General Investigations.--Reprogramming a cumulative total 
of up to 25 percent of the total General Investigations 
appropriation funding is permitted. Such reprogramming between 
studies and programs within the preceding limitation are 
permitted without approval of either House of Congress. 
However, the Chief of Engineers shall provide a quarterly 
report to both House and Senate Appropriations Committees of 
all reprogrammings for individual studies or programs with 
increases in excess of $250,000 but less than or equal to 
$500,000. Approval of both House and Senate Appropriations 
Committees is required for cumulative reprogramming increases 
greater than $500,000. Restoration of all savings and slippage 
shall not count toward the cumulative total. The Committee does 
not object to reprogramming up to $50,000 to any continuing 
study or program that did not receive an appropriation in the 
current year. All funds used to source reprogrammings described 
above should be surplus to current year needs for that effort. 
For the purpose of this section, the cumulative total is 
derived by summing the net increases of reprogrammings for only 
the gaining projects or programs.
    Construction, General.--Reprogramming a cumulative total of 
up to 15 percent of the total Construction, General 
appropriation funding is permitted. Such reprogramming between 
projects and programs within the preceding limitation are 
permitted without approval of either House of Congress. 
However, the Chief of Engineers shall provide a quarterly 
report to both House and Senate Appropriations Committees of 
all reprogrammings for individual projects or programs with 
increases in excess of $4,000,000 but less than or equal to 
$7,000,000. Approval of both House and Senate Appropriations 
Committees is required for cumulative reprogramming increases 
greater than $7,000,000. Restoration of all savings and 
slippage and prior year revocations shall not count toward the 
cumulative total. The Committee does not object to the 
restoration of prior year revocations or the additional 
reprogramming of up to $500,000 to any continuing project or 
program that did not receive an appropriation in the current 
year. All funds used to source reprogrammings described above 
should be surplus to current year needs for that effort. For 
the purpose of this section, the cumulative total is derived by 
summing the net increases of reprogrammings for only the 
gaining projects or programs.
    Operations and Maintenance.--Unlimited reprogramming 
authority is granted in order for the Corps to be able to 
respond to emergencies. The Chief of Engineers must notify the 
House and Senate Appropriations Committees as soon as 
practicable of these emergency situations. For all other 
situations, reprogramming a cumulative total of up to 50 
percent of the total Operations and Maintenance appropriation 
funding is permitted. Such reprogramming between projects and 
programs within the preceding limitation are permitted without 
approval of either House of Congress. However, the Chief of 
Engineers shall provide a quarterly report to both House and 
Senate Appropriations Committees of all reprogrammings for 
individual projects or programs with increases in excess of 
$5,000,000 but less than or equal to $10,000,000. Approval of 
both House and Senate Appropriations Committees is required for 
cumulative reprogramming increases greater than $10,000,000. 
All funds used to source reprogrammings described above should 
be surplus to current year needs for that effort. For the 
purpose of this section, the cumulative total is derived by 
summing the net increases of reprogrammings for only the 
gaining projects or programs.
    Mississippi River and Tributaries.--The Corps should follow 
the same reprogramming guidelines for the General 
Investigations, Construction, 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 appropriated funding 
level between FUSRAP projects without Committee approval. 
Restoration of prior year reprogramming amounts shall not count 
towards the cumulative total.

                   EXECUTIVE DIRECTION AND MANAGEMENT

    The Committee is extremely disappointed in the general lack 
of leadership being exhibited by the Chief of Engineers, the 
Director of Civil Works and the Assistant Secretary of the Army 
(Civil Works) in execution of the Civil Works program. The 
Corps of Engineers has been provided clear guidance on program 
execution in a number of Acts of Congress over the years and is 
provided annual direction and guidance through the Energy and 
Water Appropriations Act. The ASA[CW] provides the Chief of 
Engineers advice about policy matters and is generally the 
political spokesperson for the administration's policies; 
however, the Chief of Engineers is responsible for carrying out 
the program. The Chief of Engineers receives his orders from 
the Army Chief of Staff and those orders flow through him to 
the Director of Civil Works and through the rest of the Civil 
Works hierarchy to carry out those orders. The Committee 
expects the Chief of Engineers to prepare management and 
execution plans in accordance with this guidance and to 
aggressively carry out those plans. The Committee has twice 
reminded the Chief of Engineers, in writing, of his obligations 
to execute the program for fiscal year 2005 contained in the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005 (Public Law 108-447). 
The Committee also directed that all guidance provided by the 
Congress should be adhered to in carrying out his 
responsibilities. It is a simple matter to determine the 
consensus judgments of the Congress as to how executive branch 
programs should be administered. All one must do is look at the 
law and the accompanying reports as enacted. Any other 
congressional guidance should be viewed as suggestive and 
weighed in context with guidance that the Congress provided. 
The Committee expects the Chief of Engineers regain control and 
leadership over the Corps of Engineers and the Civil Works 
program immediately.

                         GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

Appropriations, 2005....................................\1\ $143,344,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................      95,000,000
House allowance.........................................     100,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     180,000,000

\1\ Excludes emergency appropriations of $400,000.

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

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

BREWTON AND EAST BREWTON, AL           189    ..........  ..............  ..........           189    ..........
VILLAGE CREEK, JEFFERSON               253    ..........  ..............  ..........           253    ..........
 COUNTY (BIRMINGHAM
 WATERSHED).................

           ALASKA

AKUTAN HARBOR, AK...........  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........  ..............         500
ATKA HARBOR, AK.............  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           200    ..........
ALASKA REGIONAL PORTS, AK...  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
ANCHORAGE HARBOR DEEPENING,   ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........         1,000    ..........
 AK.........................
BARROW COASTAL STORM DAMAGE   ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           800    ..........
 DEEPENING, AK..............
CRAIG HARBOR, AK............  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
DELONG MOUNTAIN HARBOR, AK..  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           490           760
EKLUTNA WATERSHED, AK.......  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
HAINES HARBOR, AK...........  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           300    ..........
HOMER HARBOR MODIFICATION,    ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
 AK.........................
KENAI RIVER BLUFF EROSION,AK  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           500    ..........
KETCHIKAN HARBOR, AK........  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
KLANOCK HARBOR, AK..........  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
KNIK BRIDGE CROSSING, AK....  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........         1,000    ..........
KOTZEBUE SMALL BOAT HARBOR,   ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           500    ..........
 AK.........................
LITTLE DIOMEDE HARBOR, AK...  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           400    ..........
MATANUSKA RIVER WATERSHED,    ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
 AK.........................
MCGRATH, AK.................  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           300    ..........
MEKORYUK HARBOR, AK.........  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           200    ..........
PORT GRAHAM, AK.............  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           200    ..........
PORT LIONS HARBOR, AK.......  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
SAINT GEORGE HARBOR           ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
 IMPROVEMENT, AK............
UNALAKLEET, AK..............  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           500    ..........
UNALASKA, AK................  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100           500
VALDEZ HARBOR EXPANSION, AK.  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
WHITTIER BREAKWATER,AK......  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
YAKUTAT HARBOR, AK..........           300    ..........  ..............  ..........           300    ..........

           ARIZONA

PIMA COUNTY, AZ.............           488    ..........           488    ..........           488    ..........
RILLITO RIVER, PIMA COUNTY,   ..............         618  ..............         618  ..............         618
 AZ.........................
RIO SALADO OESTA, SALT        ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           475    ..........
 RIVER, AZ..................
SANTA CRUZ RIVER, GRANT RD             400    ..........           400    ..........           400    ..........
 TO FT LOWELL RD, AZ........
SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE    ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........  ..............         100
 LAS IGLESIAS, AZ...........
VA SHLY-AY AKIMEL SALT RIVER  ..............         400  ..............         500  ..............         400
 RESTORATION, AZ............

          ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS CREEK, AR.......           200    ..........  ..............  ..........           200    ..........
LITTLE RIVER COUNTY (OGDEN    ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........  ..............         100
 LEVEE), AR.................
NORTH LITTLE ROCK, DARK       ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........  ..............         200
 HOLLOW, AR.................
PINE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR......  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........  ..............         400
RED RIVER NAVIGATION STUDY,   ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........  ..............         400
 SW ARKANSAS, AR............
SOUTHWEST ARKANSAS, AR......  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           200    ..........
WHITE RIVER BASIN                    1,000    ..........           900    ..........         1,000    ..........
 COMPREHENSIVE, AR AND MO...
WHITE RIVER MINIMUM FLOWS,    ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........  ..............         100
 AR.........................
WHITE RIVER NAVIGATION TO     ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........  ..............         100
 NEWPORT, AR................

         CALIFORNIA

ALISO CREEK MAINSTEM, CA....           350    ..........           450    ..........           350    ..........
ARANA GULCH WATERSHED, CA...           100    ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
ARROYO SECO WATERSHED, CA...  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           300    ..........
BALLONA CREEK ECOSYSTEM       ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           450    ..........
 RESTORATION, CA............
BOLINAS LAGOON, CA..........  ..............  ..........           200    ..........           200    ..........
CALIFORNIA COASTAL SEDIMENT            600    ..........           900    ..........           600    ..........
 MASTER PLAN, CA............
CARPINTERIA SHORELINE STUDY,  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           200    ..........
 CA.........................
CITY ON INGLEWOOD, CA.......  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           275    ..........
CITY OF NORWALK, CA.........  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           160    ..........
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CA...  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           200    ..........
COAST OF CA, SOUTH COAST      ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           300    ..........
 REGION (LA COUNTY).........
COYOTE CREEK, CA............           100    ..........           100    ..........           100    ..........
COYOTE DAM, CA..............  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           250    ..........
DESERT HOT SPRINGS, CA......  ..............  ..........           200    ..........  ..............  ..........
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER       ..............  ..........         1,000    ..........  ..............  ..........
 DISTRICT, CA...............
ESTUDILLO CANAL, CA.........           600    ..........           900    ..........           600    ..........
GRAYSON AND MURDERER'S        ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           200    ..........
 CREEK, CA..................
HAMILITON CITY, CA..........  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........  ..............         750
HUMBOLT BAY LONG TERM SHOAL   ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           250    ..........
 MGMT, CA...................
LAGUNA CREEK WATERSHED......  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           200    ..........
LAGUNA DE SANTA ROSA, CA....           300    ..........           400    ..........           300    ..........
LAGUNA CREEK, CA............  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           900    ..........
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE            600    ..........         1,300    ..........           600    ..........
 AREA, CORNFIELDS, CA.......
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA......           850    ..........           850    ..........           850    ..........
MALIBU CREEK WATERSHED, CA..           167    ..........  ..............  ..........           167    ..........
MATILIJA DAM, CA............  ..............         800  ..............       1,100  ..............         800
MORRO BAY ESTUARY...........  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........  ..............         348
MUGU LAGOON, CA.............            82    ..........            82    ..........            82    ..........
NAPA RIVER SALT MARSH         ..............  ..........  ..............         250  ..............  ..........
 RESTORATION, CA............
NAPA VALLEY WATERSHED                  500    ..........           500    ..........  ..............  ..........
 MANAGEMENT, CA.............
OCEAN BEACH, SANFRANCISCO,    ..............  ..........           350    ..........  ..............  ..........
 CA.........................
ORANGE COUNTY SAMP..........  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           169    ..........
PAJARO RIVER AT WATSONVILLE,  ..............         477  ..............       1,000  ..............         477
 CA.........................
PENINSULA BEACH, CA.........           308    ..........           308    ..........           308    ..........
REDWOOD CITY NAVIGATION       ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           250    ..........
 CHANNEL, CA................
RUSSIAN RIVER ECOSYSTEM                400    ..........           600    ..........           400    ..........
 RESTORATION, CA............
SACRAMENTO--SAN JOAQUIN                200    ..........  ..............  ..........           900    ..........
 DELTA, DELTA ISLANDS AND
 LEVEES CA..................
SAN BERNARDO LAKES AND        ..............  ..........  ..............         250  ..............  ..........
 STREAMS, CA................
SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE, CA..           188    ..........           188    ..........           188    ..........
SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHORELINE,   ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           200    ..........
 CA.........................
SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK, CA..           200    ..........           300    ..........           200    ..........
SAN JACINTO RIVER, CA.......  ..............  ..........            50    ..........  ..............  ..........
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY REGION,    ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
 CA.........................
SAN JUAN CREEK, SOUTH ORANGE  ..............  ..........           350    ..........           350    ..........
 COUNTY, CA.................
SAN PABLO BAY WATERSHED, CA.           300    ..........           600    ..........           300    ..........
SANTA ANA RIVER AND                    900    ..........         1,400    ..........           900    ..........
 TRIBUTARIES, BIG BEAR LAKE,
 CA.........................
SANTA CLARA RIVER WATERSHED,  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           500    ..........
 CA.........................
SANTA ROSA CREEK ECOSYSTEM             400    ..........           400    ..........           400    ..........
 RESTORATION, CA............
SOLANA-ENCINITAS SHORELINE,   ..............  ..........  ..............         750  ..............  ..........
 CA.........................
SONOMA CREEK AND                       300    ..........  ..............  ..........           300    ..........
 TRIBUTARIES, CA............
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO                    600    ..........           600    ..........           800    ..........
 SHORELINE, CA..............
SUN VALLEY WATERSHED, CA....  ..............  ..........           100    ..........           250    ..........
SUTTER COUNTY, CA...........           361    ..........           361    ..........           361    ..........
TAHOE BASIN, CA AND NV......  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........  ..............       1,720
THE COYOTE CREEK--LOWER SAN            500    ..........           500    ..........           500    ..........
 GABRIEL WATERSHED, CA......
UPPER PENITENCIA CREEK, CA..           628    ..........           628    ..........           628    ..........
VENTURA AND SANTA BARBARA,    ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           200    ..........
 CA.........................
WESTMINSTER, EAST GARDEN               650    ..........           650    ..........           650    ..........
 GROVE, CA..................
WEST STANISLAUS COUNTY,       ..............  ..........           200    ..........  ..............  ..........
 ORESTIMBA CREEK, CA........
WILDCAT AND SAN PABLO         ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           150    ..........
 CREEKS, CA.................
WILSON AND OAK GLEN CREEKS,   ..............  ..........           400    ..........  ..............  ..........
 SAN BERNADINO COUNTY, CA...

          COLORADO

ADAMS COUNTY, CO............           300    ..........  ..............  ..........           300    ..........
CACHE LA POUDRE, CO.........           316    ..........  ..............  ..........           316    ..........
CHATFIELD, CHERRY CREEK AND            276    ..........  ..............  ..........           276    ..........
 BEAR CREEK RESERVOIRS, CO..
FOUNTAIN CREEK AND            ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           250    ..........
 TRIBUTARIES, CO............
SOUTH BOULDER CREEK, CO.....  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
ROARING FORK RIVER, BASALT,   ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........            50    ..........
 CO.........................

         CONNECTICUT

MYSTIC SEAPORT HARBOR, CT...  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........

          DELAWARE

DELAWARE RIVER BASIN          ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           250    ..........
 COMPREHENSIVE, DE, NJ, NY,
 PA.........................
DELAWARE CANAL ENVIRONMENTAL  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
 RESTORATION, DE............

           FLORIDA

DAYTONA BEACH SHORES,         ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           325    ..........
 VOLUSIA COUNTY, FL.........
EGMONT KEY SHORELINE          ..............  ..........           200    ..........  ..............  ..........
 STABILIZATION, FL..........
LIDO KEY SARASOTA COUNTY, FL  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           250    ..........
MILE POINT, FL..............  ..............  ..........           500    ..........           235    ..........
PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL..  ..............  ..........           125    ..........           250    ..........
ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FL........  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           225    ..........
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FL........  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           200    ..........
ST. PETERSBURG HARBOR, FL...  ..............  ..........  ..............         500  ..............  ..........
WALTON COUNTY, FL...........  ..............  ..........           200           500  ..............  ..........

           GEORGIA

ALLATOONA LAKE, GA..........           750    ..........  ..............  ..........           750    ..........
AUGUSTA, GA.................           200    ..........           200           100           200    ..........
INDIAN, SUGAR, ENTRENCHMENT            680    ..........  ..............  ..........           680    ..........
 AND FEDERAL PRISON CREEKS..
LONG ISLAND, MARSH AND JOHNS           676    ..........  ..............  ..........           676    ..........
 CREEKS, GA.................
NORTH BEACH, GA.............  ..............  ..........           100    ..........  ..............  ..........
SAVANNAH HARBOR ECOSYSTEM              400    ..........  ..............  ..........           400    ..........
 RESTORATION, GA............
SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION,    ..............         800  ..............         800  ..............         800
 GA.........................
TYBEE ISLAND NORTH BEACH      ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           250    ..........
 SHORE PROTECTION PROJECT,
 GA.........................

            GUAM

HAGATNA RIVER FLOOD CONTROL,           100    ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
 GUAM.......................

           HAWAII

ALA WAI CANAL, OAHU, HI.....           400    ..........           600    ..........           600    ..........
BARBERS POINT HARBOR          ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           200    ..........
 MODIFICATION, OAHU, HA.....
KAHUKU, HI..................           250    ..........  ..............  ..........           250    ..........
KAWAIHAE DEEP DRAFT HARBOR    ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           225    ..........
 MODIFICATIONS, HI..........
LAUPAHOEHOE HARBOR PROJECT,   ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           200    ..........
 HI.........................
MOANALUA STREAM FLOOD DAMAGE  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
 REDUCTION, HI..............
NAWILIWILI HARBOR             ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           225    ..........
 MODIFICATION, KAUAI, HI....
WAILUPE STREAM, OAHU, HI....  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           860    ..........
WEST MAUI WATERSHED           ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           300    ..........
 RESTORATION PROJECT, HI....

            IDAHO

BOISE RIVER, BOISE, ID......  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           200    ..........

            IOWA

CLEAR LAKE WATERSHED, IA....  ..............  ..........           400    ..........  ..............  ..........
DES MOINES AND RACCOON        ..............  ..........  ..............         100  ..............         400
 RIVERS, IA.................
FOURMILE CREEK WATERSHED, IA  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
GRAND RIVER BASIN COMP        ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
 STUDY, IA AND MO...........

          ILLINOIS

DES PLAINES RIVER, ILLINOIS,  ..............  ..........           200    ..........  ..............       1,200
 PHASE 2, IL................
ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN                 1,160    ..........         1,160    ..........         1,160    ..........
 RESTORATION, IL............
ILLINOIS RIVER ECOSYSTEM               350    ..........           350    ..........           350    ..........
 RESTORATION, IL............
KEITH CREEK, ROCKFORD, IL...             2    ..........  ..............  ..........             2    ..........
UPPER MISSISSIPPI             ..............  ..........           200    ..........  ..............  ..........
 COMPREHENSIVE, IL..........
PEORIA RIVERFRONT             ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........  ..............         250
 DEVELOPMENT, IL............
UPPER MISS AND ILLINOIS NAV   ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........  ..............      20,000
 IMPROVEMENTS, IL, IA, MN,
 MO, WI.....................
UPPER MISS RVR COMP PLAN,     ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........  ..............         500
 IL, IA MN, MO, AND WI......
WOOD RIVER LEVEE, IL........  ..............  ..........  ..............         185  ..............  ..........

           INDIANA

INDIANA HARBOR, IN..........         1,000    ..........           300    ..........           300    ..........
ROCKY RIPPLE, FLOOD DAMAGE    ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
 REDUCTION PROJECT, IN......

           KANSAS

BRUSH CREEK BASIN, KS AND MO  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           175    ..........
MANHATTAN, KS...............  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           155    ..........
MISSOURI RIVER DEGRADATION    ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........         1,000    ..........
 STUDY, KS AND MO...........
TOPEKA, KS..................           100    ..........           100    ..........           100    ..........
UPPER ARKANSAS RIVER, KS....  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
UPPER TURKEY CREEK, KS......  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           300    ..........
WALNUT AND WHITEWATER RIVER            200    ..........           200    ..........           200    ..........
 WATERSHEDS, KS.............

          KENTUCKY

BARREN RIVER LAKE, GLASGOW,   ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
 KY.........................
GREENUP LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO   ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           450    ..........
 RIVER, KY AND OH...........
LICKING RIVER, KY...........  ..............  ..........           200    ..........  ..............  ..........
METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE,               130    ..........           130    ..........           130    ..........
 JEFFERSON COUNTY, KY.......
METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE,               132    ..........           132    ..........           132    ..........
 SOUTHWEST, KY..............
SALT LICK CREEK, KY.........  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........

          LOUISIANA

AMITE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES   ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           425    ..........
 ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA..
AMITA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES,  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           275    ..........
 BAYOU MANCHAC, LA..........
ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS           585    ..........  ..............  ..........           585    ..........
 CHENE, BOEUF AND BLACK, LA.
BAYOU SORREL LOCK, LA.......  ..............       1,500  ..............       1,500  ..............       1,500
BOSSIER PARISH, LA..........  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           150    ..........
CALCASIEU LOCK, LA..........  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           450    ..........
CALCASIEU RIVER BASIN, LA...           612    ..........  ..............  ..........           612    ..........
CALCASIEU RIVER PASS SHIP              700    ..........           700    ..........           700    ..........
 CHANNEL ENLARGEMENT, LA....
CROSS LAKE WATER SUPPLY       ..............  ..........           200    ..........  ..............  ..........
 ENHANCEMENT, LA............
GRAND BAYOU, PLAQUEMINES      ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
 PARISH, LA.................
HURRICANE PROTESCTION, LA...  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           250    ..........
J. BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
 STUDY, LA..................
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA               5,000    ..........  ..............  ..........         5,000    ..........
 ECOSYST REST, LA (SCIENCE
 AND TEC....................
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA              15,000    ..........  ..............  ..........        15,000    ..........
 ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA..
PLAQUEMINES PARISH URBAN      ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           250    ..........
 FLOOD CONTROL, LA..........
PORT OF IBERIA..............  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           750    ..........
ST. BERNARD PARISH URBAN               656    ..........  ..............  ..........           636    ..........
 FLOOD CONTROL, LA..........
ST. CHARLES PARISH URBAN      ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           450    ..........
 FLOOD CONTROL, LA..........
WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LA.  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           150    ..........
WEST PEARL NAVIGATION, LA     ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
 AND MS.....................
WEST SHORE LAKE               ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           250    ..........
 PONCHARTRAIN, LA...........

            MAINE

SEARSPORT HARBOR, ME........  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           250    ..........

          MARYLAND

ANACOSTIA RIVER AND           ..............  ..........           400    ..........  ..............  ..........
 TRIBUTARIES, MD AND DC.....
ANACOSTIA RIVER AND                    180    ..........  ..............  ..........           180    ..........
 TRIBUTARIES, PG COUNTY
 LEVEE, MD &................
BALTIMORE METRO WTR RES-      ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           500    ..........
 PATAPSCO AND BACK RIVERS,
 MD.........................
CHESAPEAKE BAY COMPREHENSIVE  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           200    ..........
 PLAN, MD...................
CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINE,              525    ..........         1,000    ..........           525    ..........
 MARYLAND COASTAL MANAGEMENT
CHES BAY SHORELINE--SEDI      ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           900    ..........
 BUDG, MODEL................
EASTERN SHORE, MID                     500    ..........           500    ..........           500    ..........
 CHESAPEAKE BAY ISLAND, MD..
MIDDLE POTOMAC RIVER GREATER  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           500    ..........
 SENECA/MUDDY BRANCH, MD....

        MASSACHUSETTS

BLACKSTONE RIVER WATERSHED             170    ..........  ..............  ..........           170    ..........
 RESTORATION, MA AND RI.....
COASTAL MASSACHUSETTS         ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
 ECOSYSTEM REST, MA.........
BOSTON HARBOR (45-FOOT                 650    ..........  ..............  ..........           650    ..........
 CHANNEL), MA...............

          MICHIGAN

DETROIT RIVER MASTERPLAN, MI  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           150    ..........
DETROIT RIVER SEAWALL         ..............  ..........           200    ..........  ..............  ..........
 IMPROVEMENTS, MI...........
GREAT LAKES NAV SYST STUDY,            315    ..........         2,400    ..........           315    ..........
 MI, IL, IN, MN, NY, OH, PA.
ROUGE RIVER SUPPLEMENTAL      ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           200    ..........
 STUDY, MI..................

          MINNESOTA

BLUE EARTH RIVER ECOSYSTEM    ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           160    ..........
 RESTORATION, MN, SD, IA, ND
CROOKSTON...................  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           125    ..........
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED     ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           150    ..........
 UMR LAKE ITASCA TO L&D 2,
 MN.........................
MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN, MN     ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           200    ..........
 AND SD.....................
RED RIVER OF THE NORTH        ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           200    ..........
 BASIN, MN, ND, SD,&
 MANITOBA CN................
ROSEAU RIVER, MN............  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           244    ..........
WILD RICE RIVER, MN.........  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           200    ..........

         MISSISSIPPI

HANCOCK COUNTY SEAWALL                 308    ..........  ..............  ..........           308    ..........
 RESTORATION, MS............
PEARL RIVER WATERSHED, MS...  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           650    ..........
SHEAR'S CREEK AND DOWNTOWN    ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           500    ..........
 DRAINAGE STUDY, MS.........

          MISSOURI

KANSAS CITYS, MO AND KS.....           500    ..........           500    ..........           500    ..........
LITTLE BLUE RIVER BASIN,      ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
 JACKSON COUNTY, MO.........
MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM,           350    ..........  ..............  ..........           350    ..........
 UNITS L455 AND R460-471, MO
RIVER DES PERES, MO.........  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           200    ..........
SPRINGFIELD, MO.............           250    ..........           250           500           250    ..........
ST. LOUIS FLOOD PROTECTION,   ..............         609  ..............         609  ..............         609
 MO.........................
ST. LOUIS MISSISSIPPI                  150    ..........  ..............  ..........           150    ..........
 RIVERFRONT, MO AND IL......
ST. LOUIS, MO (WATERSHED)...           400    ..........  ..............  ..........           400    ..........
SWOPE PARK INDUSTRIAL AREA,   ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........  ..............         200
 KANSAS CITY, MO............
WEARS CREEK, JEFFERSON CITY,           150    ..........  ..............  ..........           150    ..........
 MO.........................

           MONTANA

YELLOWSTONE RIVER CORRIDOR,            800    ..........  ..............  ..........         1,000    ..........
 MT.........................

          NEBRASKA

LOWER PLATTE RIVER AND                 131    ..........  ..............  ..........           131    ..........
 TRIBUTARIES, NE............
SALT CREEK WATERSHED,         ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
 LINCOLN, NE................

           NEVADA

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING, NV   ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           500    ..........
 AND CA.....................
TRUCKEE MEADOWS, NV.........  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........  ..............       3,500

        NEW HAMPSHIRE

MERRIMACK RIVER WATERSHED              200    ..........           200    ..........           200    ..........
 STUDY, NH AND MA...........
PISCATAQUA RIVER AND          ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........            50    ..........
 PORTSMOUTH HARBOR, NH......

         NEW JERSEY

HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY,               300    ..........           800    ..........           300    ..........
 HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS, NJ.
HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY,               400    ..........         1,000    ..........           400    ..........
 LOWER PASSAIC RIVER, NJ....
LOWER SADDLE RIVER, BERGON    ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           250    ..........
 COUNTY, NJ.................
MANASQUAN INLET TO BARNEGAT   ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........  ..............         200
 INLET, NJ..................
NJ INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY      ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........            75    ..........
 ENV. RESTORATION, NJ.......
NJ SHORELINE ALTERNATIVE      ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           150    ..........
 LONG-TERM NOURISHMENT, NJ..
NEW JERSEY SHORE PROTECTION,           400    ..........           400    ..........           400    ..........
 HEREFORD TO CAPE MAY INLE..
PASSAIC RIVER, HARRISON, NJ.  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........  ..............         375
PECKMAN RIVER BASIN, NJ.....  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           375    ..........
RAHWAY RIVER BASIN, NJ......  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           175    ..........
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK    ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           200    ..........
 BAY, HIGHLANDS, NJ.........
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK    ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           200    ..........
 BAY, KEYPORT, NJ...........
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK             100    ..........           100    ..........           100    ..........
 BAY, LEONARDO, NJ..........
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK    ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........  ..............         125
 BAY, UNION BEACH, NJ.......
SHREWSBURY RIVER AND          ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           125    ..........
 TRIBUTARIES, NJ............
SOUTH RIVER, RARITAN RIVER    ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........  ..............         375
 BASIN, NJ..................
STONY BROOK, MILLSTONE RIVER  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           250    ..........
 BASIN, NJ..................
UPPER ROCKWAY RIVER, NJ.....  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........  ..............         250

         NEW MEXICO

EAST MESA, LAS CAUCES, NM...  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           400    ..........
ESPANOLA VALLEY, RIO GRANDE            250    ..........           250    ..........           500    ..........
 AND TRIBUTARIES, NM........
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE BOSQUE, NM           250    ..........           250    ..........           250    ..........
RIO GRANDE BASIN, NM, CO,     ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           250    ..........
 AND TX.....................
SANTA FE, NM................  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           250    ..........
SOUTHWEST VALLEY FLOOD        ..............  ..........  ..............         180  ..............         500
 DAMAGE REDUCTION,
 ALBBUQUERGUE, NM...........

          NEW YORK

BRONX RIVER BASIN, NY.......           250    ..........           500    ..........           250    ..........
BUFFALO RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL            200    ..........  ..............  ..........           200    ..........
 DREDGING, NY...............
EAST RIVERS SEAWALLS, NY....  ..............  ..........           175    ..........  ..............  ..........
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK, NIAGRA   ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           125    ..........
 COUNTY, NY.................
FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY..  ..............  ..........  ..............         170  ..............  ..........
HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY,               400    ..........           600    ..........           400    ..........
 GOWANUS CANAL, NY..........
HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, NY            800    ..........         1,000    ..........           800    ..........
 AND NJ.....................
JAMAICA BAY, MARINE PARK AND  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........            50    ..........
 PLUMP BEACH, NY............
LAKE CHAMPLAIN CANAL          ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........            50    ..........
 DISPERSAL BARRIER, NY AND
 VT.........................
LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR, NY.....  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
MONTAUK POINT, NY...........  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND,             30    ..........            30    ..........            30    ..........
 ASHAROKEN, NY..............
NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND,   ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
 BAYVILLE, NY...............
ONONDAGA LAKE, NY...........           200    ..........         1,500    ..........           200    ..........
SAW MILL RIVER, NY..........  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
SOUTH SHORE OF STATEN         ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
 ISLAND, NY.................
UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER       ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
 BASIN, CATAONK CREEK, NY...

       NORTH CAROLINA

BOUGUE BANKS, NC............  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           150    ..........
CAPE FEAR RIVER LOCKS AND     ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           300    ..........
 DAM, NC....................
CURRITUCK SOUND, NC.........           300    ..........  ..............  ..........           300    ..........
NEUSE RIVER BASIN, NC.......           260    ..........  ..............  ..........           260    ..........
SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL   ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           350    ..........
 BEACH, NC..................

            OHIO

COLUMBUS METROPOLITAN AREA,             53    ..........  ..............  ..........            53    ..........
 OH.........................
EUCLID LAKEFRONT, HARBOR      ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
 TOWN, OH...................
OHIO RIVERFRONT, CINCINNATI,  ..............  ..........  ..............         500  ..............  ..........
 OH.........................
WESTERN LAKE ERIE BASIN, OH,           560    ..........           650    ..........           560    ..........
 IN, AND MI.................

          OKLAHOMA

GRAND LAKE COMPREHENSIVE      ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
 STUDY, OK..................
GRAND (NEOSHO) RIVER BASIN,   ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           300    ..........
 OK, KS, MO, AND AR.........
OOLOGAH LAKE WATERSHED, OK             328    ..........           328    ..........           328    ..........
 AND KS.....................
RED RIVER BRUSH MGMT ABOVE    ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
 DENISON DAM, TX AND OK.....
SE OKLAHOMA STUDY, OK.......  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........            80    ..........
SPAVINAW CREEK WATERSHED, OK  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           133    ..........
 AND AR.....................
WASHITA RIVER BASIN, OK.....  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
WISTER LAKE WATERSHED, OK...  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........

           OREGON

AMAZON CREEK, OR............           264    ..........           264    ..........           264    ..........
LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER                   300    ..........  ..............  ..........           300    ..........
 ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR
 AND WA.....................
WALLA WALLA RIVER WATERSHED,           500    ..........           600    ..........  ..............  ..........
 OR AND WA..................
WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN        ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
 REVIEW, OR.................
WILLAMETTE RIVER                       325    ..........  ..............  ..........           325    ..........
 ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, OR.
WILLAMETTE RIVER FLOODPLAIN            436    ..........           436    ..........           436    ..........
 RESTORATION, OR............

        PENNSYLVANIA

BLOOMSBURG, PA..............  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
CHRISTINA RIVER WATERSHED,    ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           300    ..........
 PA, DE, AND MD.............
MAHONING RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL           250    ..........  ..............  ..........           250    ..........
 DREDGING, PA...............
SCHUYLKILL RIVER BASIN                 250    ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
 ESTUARINE, PA..............
SCHUYLKILL RIVER BASIN,                200    ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
 WISSAHICKON CREEK BASIN, PA
SUSQUEHANNA AND DELAWARE      ..............  ..........           170    ..........  ..............  ..........
 RIVER BASINS, PA...........
UPPER OHIO NAVIGATION STUDY,  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........         2,550    ..........
 PA.........................

         PUERTO RICO

GUYANES RIVER, YABUCOA, PR..  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........

       SOUTH CAROLINA

COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON      ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
 HARBOR, SC.................
EDISTO ISLAND, SC...........           100    ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
PAWLEYS ISLAND,SC...........  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........  ..............         181
REEDY RIVER, SC.............           300    ..........  ..............  ..........           300    ..........
SANTEE DELTA ENVIRONMENTAL    ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
 RESTORATION, SC............

        SOUTH DAKOTA

JAMES RIVER, SD AND ND......  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           600    ..........

          TENNESSEE

MILL CREEK WATERSHED,                  450    ..........  ..............  ..........           450    ..........
 DAVIDSON COUNTY, TN........

            TEXAS

ABILENE, TX (BRAZOS RIVER     ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           200    ..........
 BASIN).....................
BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR,                2,500    ..........         2,000    ..........  ..............  ..........
 BROWNSVILLE CHANNEL, TX....
BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBS, TX   ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........            50    ..........
 (MAINSTEM).................
BUFFALO BAYOU AND             ..............  ..........           100    ..........  ..............  ..........
 TRIBUTARIES, TX............
CEDAR BAYOU, TX.............  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
COLONIAS-LWR RIO GRANDE       ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
 BASIN ALONG TEX-MEX BORDORS
FREEPORT HARBOR, TX.........           500    ..........           750    ..........           750    ..........
GIWW, BRAZOS RIVER TO PORT    ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
 O'CONNOR, TX...............
GIWW, HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS   ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
 RIVER, TX (REALIGNMENTS)...
GIWW, HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS   ..............         500  ..............         500  ..............         500
 RIVER, TX..................
GIWW, PORT O'CONNOR TO CORPS  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           700    ..........
 CHRISTIE BAY, TX...........
GIWW, VICINITY OF PORT        ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           700    ..........
 ISABEL, TX.................
GREENS BAYOU, TX............  ..............  ..........  ..............         150  ..............  ..........
GUADALUPE AND SAN ANTONIO              300    ..........         1,000    ..........           300    ..........
 RIVER BASINS, TX...........
HARRIS GULLY, TX............  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           500    ..........
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN,            300    ..........           400    ..........         1,000    ..........
 TX.........................
LOWER GUADALUPE AND SAN       ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
 ANTONIO RIVERS, TX.........
MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX..  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           200    ..........
MIDDLE BRAZOS RIVER, TX.....           300    ..........           400    ..........           300    ..........
NECHES RIVER BASIN, TX......           500    ..........  ..............  ..........           500    ..........
NUECES RIVER AND                       500    ..........           575    ..........           500    ..........
 TRIBUTARIES, TX............
RAYMONDVILLE DRAIN, TX......  ..............  ..........  ..............         300  ..............         450
RESACAS AT BROWNSVILLE, TX..           150    ..........  ..............  ..........           150    ..........
RIO GRANDE BASIN, TX........            50    ..........            50    ..........           250    ..........
SABINE--NECHES WATERWAY, TX.           419    ..........           800    ..........           419    ..........
SABINE PASS TO GALVESTON               788    ..........           788    ..........           788    ..........
 BAY, TX....................
SPARKS ARROYO COLONIA, EL              198    ..........           198    ..........           198    ..........
 PASO COUNTY, TX............
TEXAS CITY CHANNEL (50-FOOT   ..............         900  ..............         900  ..............         900
 PROJECT), TX...............
UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN,             700    ..........         1,000    ..........           700    ..........
 TX.........................

            UTAH

VIRGIN AND SEVIER             ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
 WATERSHEDS, UT.............

          VIRGINIA

AIWW BRIDGES AT DEEP CREEK,   ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           104    ..........
 VA.........................
CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINE                40    ..........  ..............  ..........            40    ..........
 EROSION, MATHEWS COUNTY, VA
DISMAL SWAMP AND DISMAL                150    ..........           150    ..........           150    ..........
 SWAMP CANAL, VA............
ELIZABETH RIVER BASIN, ENV             200    ..........  ..............  ..........           200    ..........
 RESTORATION, VA (PHASE II).
ELIZABETH RIVER, HAMPTON      ..............         500  ..............  ..........  ..............         500
 ROADS, VA..................
FOUR MILE RUN RESTORATION,    ..............  ..........           800    ..........  ..............  ..........
 VA.........................
JOHN H KERR DAM AND                    600    ..........  ..............  ..........           600    ..........
 RESERVOIR, VA AND NC
 (SECTION 216)..............
LYNNHAVEN RIVER BASIN, VA...           400    ..........           400    ..........           400    ..........
MIDDLE POTOMAC RIVER BASIN,   ..............  ..........           800    ..........  ..............  ..........
 CAMERON/HOLMES RUN, VA.....
NEW RIVER BASIN, CLAYTOR               200    ..........           200    ..........           200    ..........
 LAKE STATE PARK, VA........
NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS,  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
 CRANEY ISLAND, VA..........
PHILPOTT LAKE, VA...........  ..............  ..........           200    ..........  ..............  ..........
POWELL RIVER WATERSHED, VA..           400    ..........  ..............  ..........           400    ..........
VICINITY OF WILLOUGHBY SPIT,  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           400    ..........
 VA.........................

         WASHINGTON

CENTRALIA, WA...............  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........            50    ..........
CHEHALIS RIVER BASIN, WA....           340    ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
ELLIOT BAY SEWALL, WA.......  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........         1,500    ..........
COLUMBIA RIVER AT BAKER BAY,  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           150    ..........
 WA.........................
LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL,            470    ..........           470    ..........  ..............  ..........
 WA.........................
PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE MARINE           470    ..........           500    ..........         1,500    ..........
 HABITAT RESTORATION, WA....
SKAGIT RIVER,WA.............  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           600    ..........
SKOKOMISH RIVER, WA.........  ..............  ..........           200    ..........  ..............  ..........

        WEST VIRGINIA

CHERRY RIVER BASIN, WV......  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
LITTLE KANAWHA RIVER, WV....           110    ..........  ..............  ..........           110    ..........
PARKERSBURG/VIENNA            ..............  ..........  ..............         400  ..............  ..........
 RIVERFROUNT PARK, WV.......

          WISCONSIN

BARABOO RIVER, WI...........  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           135    ..........
FOX RIVER, WI...............  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           200    ..........
KENOSHA HARBOR, WI..........  ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           100    ..........
ST. CROIX RIVER, WI.........  ..............  ..........           120    ..........           120    ..........
ST. CROIX RIVER RELOCATION    ..............  ..........           500    ..........  ..............  ..........
 OF ENDANGERED MUSSELS, WI..

           WYOMING

BEAR RIVER FEASIBILITY        ..............  ..........  ..............  ..........           200    ..........
 STUDY, WY..................

        MISCELLANEOUS

COASTAL FIELD DATA                   1,875    ..........         1,875    ..........         6,375    ..........
 COLLECTION.................
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STUDIES..            94    ..........            94    ..........            94    ..........
FLOOD DAMAGE DATA...........           248    ..........           248    ..........           248    ..........
FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT               5,625    ..........         5,625    ..........         8,935    ..........
 SERVICES...................
HYDROLOGIC STUDIES..........           300    ..........           300    ..........           300    ..........
INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES.           300    ..........           300    ..........           300    ..........
NATIONAL SHORELINE..........           375    ..........           375    ..........           375    ..........
OTHER COORDINATION PROGRAMS.         3,899    ..........  ..............  ..........         4,300    ..........
AMERICAN HERITAGE RIVERS....  ..............  ..........           150    ..........  ..............  ..........
CALFED......................  ..............  ..........            94    ..........  ..............  ..........
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM......  ..............  ..........            75    ..........  ..............  ..........
COORDINATION WITH OTHER       ..............  ..........           246    ..........  ..............  ..........
 WATER RESOURCES AGENCIES...
FERC LICENSING..............  ..............  ..........           150    ..........  ..............  ..........
GULF OF MEXICO..............  ..............  ..........           131    ..........  ..............  ..........
INTERAGENCY AND               ..............  ..........           113    ..........  ..............  ..........
 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT......
INTERAGENCY WATER RESOURCE    ..............  ..........           750    ..........  ..............  ..........
 DEVELOPMENT................
INVENTORY OF DAMS...........  ..............  ..........           222    ..........  ..............  ..........
LAKE TAHOE..................  ..............  ..........            94    ..........  ..............  ..........
NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM....  ..............  ..........            75    ..........  ..............  ..........
NORTH AMERICAN WATERFOWL      ..............  ..........            75    ..........  ..............  ..........
 MANAGEMENT PLAN............
PACIFIC NORTHWEST FOREST      ..............  ..........            75    ..........  ..............  ..........
 CASE.......................
SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS AND    ..............  ..........         1,649    ..........  ..............  ..........
 REPORTS....................
PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO               4,650    ..........         4,650    ..........         7,550    ..........
 STATES.....................
PRECIPITATION STUDIES                  225    ..........           225    ..........           225    ..........
 (NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE).
REMOTE SENSING/GEOGRAPHIC              152    ..........           152    ..........           152    ..........
 INFORMATION SYSTEM SUPPORT.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT....        22,000    ..........        19,643    ..........        34,500    ..........
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL                78    ..........            78    ..........            78    ..........
 INFORMATION CENTERS........
STREAM GAGING (U.S.                    600    ..........           600    ..........           600    ..........
 GEOLOGICAL SURVEY).........
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS......           375    ..........           375    ..........           375    ..........
TRI-SERVICE CADD/GIS                   402    ..........           402    ..........           402    ..........
 TECHNOLOGY CENTER..........
REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED          -20,911    ..........  ..............  ..........       -40,126    ..........
 SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE.......
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, General                87,896         7,104        88,597        12,362       138,662        41,338
       Investigations.......
                                        95,000
                                        100,000
                                        180,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Knik Bridge Crossing, AK.--The Committee has included 
$1,000,000 to initiate this technical study of the Federal 
channel.
    Kotzebue Harbor, AK.--The Committee has provided $500,000 
to initiate this technical study to improve safety at the 
harbor.
    Little Diomede Harbor, AK.--The Committee has included 
$400,000 to initate the technical study of navigation 
improvements.
    Little River County (Ogden Levee), AR.--The Committee has 
included $100,000 to initiate Preconstruction Engineering and 
Design [PED] studies. It is the Committee's understanding that 
Federal interest has been previously determined and that this 
project should proceed directly to PED.
    Pine Mountain Dam, AR.--$400,000 is provided to continue 
the General Reevaluation Report for the authorized project.
    Red River Navigation, Southwest Arkansas, AR and LA.--The 
Committee has included $400,000 to complete feasibility and 
initiate PED.
    White River Minimum Flows, AR and MO.--The Committee 
recognizes the importance of providing minimum flows from 
various Corps projects as vital to aquatic ecosystem 
restoration efforts along the river. However, the Committee 
understands that there are serious issues that need to be 
resolved prior to significant progress being made on this 
project. Therefore, the Committee has provided $100,000 to 
allow the Corps to continue to negotiate these contentious 
issues with the local sponsor.
    Coyote, CA.--$100,000 has been provided for this new 
reconnaissance study as provided in the budget request.
    Napa Valley Watershed Management, CA.--The Committee has 
deleted funding for this study as local interests have 
indicated a desire to terminate the study in fiscal year 2005.
    Orange County Special Area Management Plan [SAMP], CA.--
$169,000 has been provided to complete the SAMP.
    San Joaquin Valley Area, CA.--The Committee has provided 
$100,000 to initiate a reconnaissance study of the San Joaquin 
Valley in California (consisting of Stanislaus, Madera, Merced, 
Fresno, Kings, Tulare, and Kern Counties).
    Tahoe Basin, CA and NV.--$1,700,000 has been provided for 
continuation of PED.
    Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Environmental Restoration, 
DE.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for this 
reconnaissance study.
    Daytona Beach Shores, Volusia County, FL.--The Committee 
has provided $325,000 to continue the feasibility study.
    Tybee Island, GA.--$250,000 has been included to continue 
this storm damage reduction project.
    Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers, IA.--$400,000 has been 
included PED.
    Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers Navigation 
Improvements, IL, IA, MN, MO, and WI.--The Committee recognizes 
the importance of modernizing our Nation's waterways and has 
provided $20,000,000 for the continued PED on this important 
project.
    Rocky Ripple, IN.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for 
this feasibility study.
    Missouri River Degradation Study, KS and MO.--The Committee 
has provided $1,000,000 to initiate this study to investigate 
the scour problems and degradation of the riverbed.
    Salt Lick Creek, KY.--$100,000 is provided for this 
reconnaissance study.
    Louisiana Coastal Area, LA.--The Committee recognizes the 
tremendous value of these coastal wetlands to the Nation. Much 
of our national oil and gas infrastructure is protected by 
these wetlands which are being lost at an alarming rate. The 
Committee has provided the full budget request of $20,000,000 
to further studies to determine ways to stop and reverse 
wetland loss.
    Pearl River Navigation, LA and MS.--The committee has 
provided $100,000 for reconnaissance studies directed towards 
deauthorization of this outdated project and to determine 
appropriate disposal of project facilities.
    Great Lakes Navigation Study, MI, IL, IN, MN, NY, OH, PA, 
and WI.--$315,000 has been provided to continue this study. 
These funds 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 2006, 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.
    Pearl River Watershed, MS.--$650,000 is provided to 
complete the feasibility study.
    St. Louis Watershed, MO.--The Committee has included the 
budget request for this new reconnaissance study.
    Salt Creek Watershed, Lincoln, NE.--The Committee has 
provided $100,000 for this reconnaissance study.
    Truckee Meadows, NV.--The Committee has provided $3,500,000 
to continue PED for this important flood control project and 
encourages the Corps to complete the necessary studies as soon 
as possible.
    Piscataqua River and Portsmouth Harbor, NH.--$50,000 is 
provided to initiate the feasibility study.
    East Mesa, Las Cruces, NM.--The Committee has included 
$400,000 to pursue flood control and safety studies associated 
with aging flood control structures.
    Espanola Valley, Rio Grande and Tributaries, NM.--The 
Committee has provided an additional $250,000 to accelerate 
development of the environmental programs and other activities 
associated with the Espanola diversion project consistent with 
the cost-share agreement signed May 2005.
    Rio Grande Basin, NM, CO & TX.--The Committee has provided 
$250,000 for the feasibility study.
    Santa Fe, NM.--The Committee has provided $250,000 to 
continue on-going projects.
    SW Valley Flood Damage Reduction, Albuquerque, NM.--The 
Committee has provided $500,000 toward completion of this 
project.
    Upper Ohio Navigation Study, PA.--The Committee has 
provided $2,550,000 for this navigation feasibility study.
    Lower Colorado River, TX.--The Committee has provided 
$1,000,000 to continue the feasibility study.
    Neches River Basin, TX.--The Committee has provided 
$500,000 for this new reconnaissance study as proposed in the 
budget request.
    Virgin and Sevier Watersheds, UT.--The Committee has 
provided $100,000 for a reconnaissance study to investigate 
solutions to the devastating floods that recently occurred in 
these watersheds.
    AIWW Bridges at Deep Creek, VA.--The Committee has provided 
$104,000 to complete the PED studies for this project.
    Coastal Field Data Collection.--The Committee has provided 
$6,375,000 for this program. Within the funds provided, 
$1,000,000 is for the Coastal Data Information Program, 
$1,000,000 is for the Southern California Beach Processes 
Study, $1,500,000 is for the Pacific Island Land Ocean Typhoon 
Experiment [PILOT] and $1,000,000 is for the Surge and Wave 
Island Modeling Studies [SWIMS].
    Other Coordination Studies.--The Committee has provided 
$4,300,000 for this program. Within the funds provided, 
$500,000 is to continue work associated with the Lake Tahoe 
Interagency Partnership.
    Flood Plain Management Services.--The Committee has 
provided $8,935,000 for this program. Within the funds 
provided, $1,000,000 is for Hurricane Evacuation Studies in HI; 
$1,250,000 for Livingston Parish, LA, GIS; $160,000 to complete 
the East Baton Rouge Parish, LA, GIS; $400,000 for Rancocas 
Creek, NJ; and $500,000 for the Navajo Nation, NM, Flood Plain 
Delineation.
    Planning Assistance to States.--The Committee has included 
$7,550,000 for the program. Within the funds provided $150,000 
is for the Delaware Recreation Supply and Demand study; 
$150,000 is for the Delaware Groundwater Investigation; 
$250,000 is for the Hilo Bay, HI, Water Quality Model; $100,000 
is for Lafayette/West Lafayette, IN; $400,000 is for the Rock 
Creek, KS, Basin Stormwater project; $350,000 is for the 
Assabet River, MA, Sediment Remediation Study; $1,000,000 is 
for New Mexico Photogrammetric Mapping; $100,000 for the 
Bartlesville, OK, Water Supply Study; $100,000 for the Mangum, 
OK, Lake Phase V study; $50,000 is for the Waccamaw River 
Watershed Modeling, SC; $50,000 is for the Surfside Beach, SC, 
Stormwater Drainage Study; and $200,000 is for the Memphis 
Riverfront Development, TN.
    Research and Development.--The Committee has provided 
$34,500,000 for the Corps R&D program. Within the funds 
provided, $1,000,000 is for Chesapeake Bay submerged aquatic 
vegetation research, $1,000,000 is for the National Cooperative 
Modeling Demonstration Program (model based negotiation process 
piloted by the Institute for Water Resources), and $3,500,000 
is provided for innovative technology demonstrations for urban 
flooding and channel restoration in New Mexico and Nevada. 
These demonstrations will be conducted in close coordination 
and cooperation with the Urban Water Research Program of the 
Desert Research Institute and the University of New Mexico. 
$750,000 is provided for the Southwest Urban Flood Damage 
Program research in New Mexico. $750,000 is provided for 
implementation of the Collaborative Planning and Management 
Demonstration Program within the Institute for Water Resources 
in collaboration with Sandia National Laboratories and the 
Idaho National Laboratory. An additional $5,000,000 has been 
provided to counter declining research and development budgets.

                         CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL

Appropriations, 2005..................................\1\ $1,781,720,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................   1,637,000,000
House allowance.........................................   1,900,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,086,664,000

\1\ Excludes emergency appropriations of $62,600,000.

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

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

                             ALABAMA

MOBILE HARBOR, AL...............................................  ..............           2,000  ..............
TUSCALOOSA, AL..................................................  ..............  ..............           4,000
WALTER F. GEORGE POWERPLANT, AL AND GA (MAJOR REHAB)............           4,121           3,915           4,121

                             ALASKA

AKUTAN HARBOR, AK...............................................  ..............  ..............           1,000
ALASKA COASTAL EROSION, AK......................................  ..............  ..............           2,400
BETHEL BANK STABILIZATION.......................................  ..............  ..............           5,000
CHIGNIK HARBOR, AK..............................................           2,000           1,900           2,000
COFFMAN COVE, AK................................................  ..............  ..............             600
DELONG MOUNTAIN HARBOR..........................................  ..............  ..............           3,000
DILLINGHAM EMERGENCY BANK STABILIZATION, AK.....................  ..............  ..............           4,000
FALSE PASS HARBOR, AK...........................................  ..............  ..............           7,000
HAINES HARBOR, AK...............................................  ..............  ..............           1,000
KAKE DAM, AK....................................................  ..............  ..............           5,000
NOME HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS, AK....................................  ..............  ..............          13,000
SAND POINT HARBOR, AK...........................................  ..............  ..............           6,000
ST. PAUL HARBOR, AK.............................................  ..............  ..............           8,000
UNALASKA HARBOR, AK.............................................  ..............  ..............           1,000

                             ARIZONA

NOGALES WASH, AZ................................................  ..............  ..............           4,500
RIO DE FLAG, AZ.................................................  ..............           2,500           4,000
RIO SALADO, PHOENIX AND TEMP REACHES, AZ........................  ..............           8,000           8,000
TRES RIOS, AZ...................................................  ..............           3,000           6,000
TUCSON, ARIZONA DRAINAGE AREA, AZ...............................  ..............          10,000           5,000

                            ARKANSAS

FOUCH BAYOU BASIN, LITTLE ROCK, AR..............................  ..............  ..............             800
MONTGOMERY POINT LOCK AND DAM, AR...............................          20,000          20,000          20,000
OZARK-JETA TAYLOR POWERHOUSE....................................  ..............  ..............           4,500
RED RIVER BELOW DENISON DAM, LA, AR, OK AND TX..................  ..............  ..............           4,000
RED RIVER EMERGENCY BANK PROTECTION, AR AND LA..................  ..............  ..............           6,000

                           CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CA....................................          28,960          28,960  ..............
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (COMMON FEATURES), CA..................  ..............  ..............           3,000
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM MODIFICATIONS), CA.........  ..............  ..............          15,850
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM MINI RAISE), CA............  ..............  ..............          12,000
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CA (EI)..................................  ..............  ..............             500
CORTE MADERA CREEK, CA..........................................  ..............             200             250
COYOTE AND BERRYESSA CREEKS, CA.................................  ..............  ..............             500
GUADALUPE RIVER, CA.............................................           5,600           5,600           5,600
HAMILTON AIRFIELD WETLANDS RESTORATION, CA......................          13,000          13,000          13,000
HARBOR/SOUTH BAYWATER RECYCLING PROJECTS, LOS ANGELES...........  ..............           4,000           4,000
KAWEAH RIVER, CA................................................           4,300           4,085           4,800
LOS ANGELES HARBOR MAIN CHANNEL DEEPENING, CA...................           2,700           2,700           2,732
LOWER WALNUT CREEK BASIN STUDY, CA..............................  ..............             250  ..............
MARYSVILLE/YUBA CITY LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA...................  ..............  ..............             372
MURRIETA CREEK, CA..............................................  ..............  ..............           5,000
NAPA RIVER, CA..................................................           6,000           6,000          16,000
OAKLAND HARBOR (50 FOOT PROJECT), CA............................          48,000          48,000          42,000
SACRAMENTO AREA, CA.............................................  ..............           6,000  ..............
SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION PROJECT, CA....................  ..............           6,300  ..............
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TO STOCKTON, CA...............................  ..............             250  ..............
SAN LORENZO RIVER, CA...........................................  ..............  ..............           1,000
SAN RAMON VALLY RECYCLED WATER, CA..............................  ..............  ..............           3,000
SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA....................................          50,000          61,650          42,500
SOUTH SACRAMENTO COUNTY STREAMS, CA.............................           2,852           2,852           5,000
SURFSIDE, SUNSET AND NEWPORT BEACHES, CA........................  ..............  ..............             400
STOCKTON METROPOLITIAN FLOOD CONTROL REIMBURSEMENT, CA..........           5,000           5,000           5,000
SUCCESS DAM, TULE RIVER, CA (DAM SAFETY)........................           8,000           8,000           8,000
UPPER GUDADALUPE RIVER, CA......................................  ..............  ..............           3,250
UPPER NEWPORT BAY ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA.....................  ..............           2,000           7,000
YUBA RIVER BASIN, CA............................................  ..............             200           1,200

                            DELAWARE

DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, ROOSEVELT INLET TO LEWES BEACH..........              10  ..............              60
DELAWARE COAST, BETHANY BEACH TO SOUTH BETHANY BEACH............  ..............  ..............           4,000
DELAWARE COAST, CAPE HENLOPEN TO FENWICK IS, DE.................  ..............           1,700           1,000
DELAWARE COAST PROTECTION, DE...................................  ..............  ..............             320
DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, BROADKILL BEACH, DE.....................  ..............  ..............             500
DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, PORT MAHON, DE..........................  ..............  ..............           1,000

                      DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WASHINGTON, DC AND VICINITY.....................................             400  ..............             400

                             FLORIDA

BREVARD COUNTY, PROTECTION, FL..................................  ..............             500             500
BROWARD COUNTY, REIMBURSEMENT, FL...............................  ..............           1,000  ..............
CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL............................................  ..............           1,500  ..............
CEDAR HAMMOCK/WARES CREEK, FL...................................  ..............  ..............           1,000
CENTRAL AND SOUTH FLORIDA, FL...................................  ..............  ..............          76,826
DADE COUNTY, FL.................................................  ..............  ..............           1,800
EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM PESTORATION..............  ..............  ..............          12,000
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS, FL.....................  ..............           1,300           3,000
FORT PIERCE BEACH, FL...........................................  ..............             200  ..............
HERBERT HOOVER DIKE, FL (MAJOR REHAB)...........................          16,900          16,055          16,900
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL (GRR)...................................  ..............  ..............             500
KISSIMMEE RIVER, FL.............................................  ..............  ..............          13,174
LEE COUNTY, FL..................................................  ..............             750           1,500
NASSAU COUNTY, SHORE PRTECTION, FL..............................  ..............           3,000  ..............
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL...........................................  ..............           2,450  ..............
PONCE DE LEON INLET.............................................  ..............  ..............           1,750
PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL......................................  ..............             500             500
SOUTH FLORIDA EVERGLADES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL..............         137,000         137,000  ..............
ST. LUCIE INLET, FL.............................................  ..............  ..............           2,000
TAMPA HARBOR, FL (GRR)..........................................  ..............  ..............             200
TAMPA HARBOR, BIG BEND, FL......................................           5,000           4,000           5,000
TAMPA HARBOR, SUTTON CHANNEL, FL................................  ..............           1,000  ..............

                             GEORGIA

ATLANTA, GA (EI)................................................  ..............  ..............           2,000
BRUNSWICK, GA...................................................  ..............          19,100          19,100
BUFORD POWERHOUSE, GA (MAJOR REHAB).............................           5,812  ..............           5,812
HARTWELL LAKE POWERHOUSE, GA AND SC (MAJOR REHAB)...............             733             696             733
OATE CREEK, RICHMOND COUNTY, CA (DEF CORK)......................  ..............  ..............             500
TYBEE ISLAND, GA (LRR)..........................................  ..............  ..............              18
RICHARD B. RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND SC......................           1,300           1,300           1,300
THURMOND LAKE POWERHOUSE, GA AND SC (MAJOR REHAB)...............           5,700           5,415           5,700

                             HAWAII

HAWAII WATER MANAGEMENT, HI.....................................  ..............  ..............           2,000
IAO STREAM FLOOD CONTROL, MAUI, HI (DEF CORR)...................  ..............  ..............             500
KAUMALAPAU HARBOR, LANAI, HI....................................  ..............  ..............          13,000
KIKIAOLA SMALL BOAT HARBOR, KAUAI, HI...........................           3,550           3,550           3,550

                              IDAHO

RURAL IDAHO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, ID....................  ..............           2,000           5,500

                            ILLINOIS

CHAIN OF ROCKS CANAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL (DEF CORR)..........           5,495  ..............           5,495
CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIOR, IL...........  ..............  ..............           4,000
CHICAGO SHORELINE, IL...........................................          20,000          15,000          21,500
COOK COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, IL....................  ..............             500  ..............
DES PLAINES RIVER, IL...........................................  ..............           5,000           4,000
EAST ST. LOUIS, IL..............................................             760             722             760
EAST ST. LOUIS (INTERIOR FLOOD CONTROL), IL.....................  ..............  ..............             400
LOCK AND DAM 24, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL AND MO (MAJOR REH........           4,300           4,300           4,300
LOCK NO. 27, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL AND MO.......................  ..............  ..............           1,000
MADISON AND CLAIRE COUNTIES ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTUR.........  ..............           1,000  ..............
MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS, IL..............................  ..............          25,000          30,000
MELVIN PRICE L&D, IL AND MO.....................................  ..............  ..............             750
NUTWOOD DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICT, IL.........................  ..............  ..............             300
OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL AND KY....................          90,000          90,000          85,000
SOUTHERN ILLINIOS SHORELINE PROJECT, IL.........................  ..............             200  ..............
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION, IL, IA, MN, MO &...........          33,500          33,500          20,000
WOOD RIVER DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICT, IL......................  ..............             590  ..............

                             INDIANA

CALUMET REGION, ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, IN................  ..............           3,500  ..............
INDIANA HARBOR (CONFINED DISPOSAL FACILITY), IN.................           8,000           7,600           7,600
INDIANAN SHORELINE EROSION, IN..................................  ..............             500  ..............
INDIANA UNIVERSITY, SOUTH BEND PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE, IN............  ..............             715  ..............
INDIANAPOLIS COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW, IN........................  ..............             500  ..............
INDIANAPOLIS, WHITE RIVER (NORTH), IN...........................           3,200           3,040           3,040
JOHN T. MEYERS LOCK AND DAM, IN.................................  ..............             700  ..............
LITTLE CALAMET RIVER, IN........................................  ..............           6,500  ..............
LITTLE CALAMET RIVER BASIN, CADY MARSH DITCH, IN................  ..............           4,000  ..............
MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN (MAJOR REHAB).............................           4,481           4,257           4,257
OHIO RIVER GREENWAY PUBLIC ACCESS, IN...........................  ..............           3,100  ..............

                              IOWA

DAVENPORT, IA...................................................  ..............  ..............             400
DES MOINES AND RACCOON RIVERS, IA...............................  ..............  ..............             400
DES MOINES RECREATIONAL RIVER AND GREENBELT, IA.................  ..............           5,000           3,500
LOCK AND DAM 11, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IA (MAJOR REHAB)............           7,580           7,202           7,580
LOCK AND DAM 19, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IA (MAJOR REHAB)............          17,502          17,502          17,502
MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE RECOVERY, IA, KS, MO, MT, NE...          82,800          72,627          60,000
MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, IA, NE, KS, AND MO.................  ..............  ..............             750
PERRY CREEK, IA.................................................          10,000          10,000          10,000

                             KANSAS

ARKANSAS CITY, KS...............................................           2,619           2,619           2,619
TURKEY CREEK BASIN, KS AND MO...................................  ..............  ..............           4,000
TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS (DAM SAFETY)..............................          27,000          25,650          27,000

                            KENTUCKY

KENTUCKY LOCK AND DAM, TENNESSEE RIVER, KY......................  ..............          21,750          32,000
MCALPINE LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, KY AND IN...................          70,000          70,000          65,000
METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, POND CREEK, KY.........................           3,670           3,670           3,670
ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY (DAM SAFETY ASSURANCE).....................           2,500           2,375           2,500

                            LOUISIANA

ASCENSION PARISH, LA (EI).......................................  ..............  ..............             500
COMITE RIVER, LA................................................           6,254           6,254           6,254
EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LA (EI)................................  ..............  ..............             500
EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LA (FC)................................  ..............  ..............           1,000
GRAND ISLE AND VICINITY, LA.....................................  ..............  ..............             900
IBERIA PARISH, LA (EI)..........................................  ..............  ..............             500
INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL LOCK, LA..........................  ..............           9,038          15,000
J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA.................................           1,500           1,500          15,000
LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN AND VICINITY, LA (HURRICANE PROTECT..........           2,977           2,977           7,500
LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION)..............  ..............  ..............           1,000
LIVINGSTON PARISH, LA (EI)......................................  ..............  ..............             500
MISSISSIPPI RIVER SHIP CHANNEL, GULF TO BATON ROUGE.............  ..............  ..............             229
NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION)................  ..............  ..............           3,600
OUACHITA RIVER LEVEES, LA.......................................  ..............  ..............           1,000
SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA, LA.........................................          10,491          10,491          37,000
WEST BANK AND VICINITY, NEW ORLEANS, LA.........................          28,000          28,000          25,000

                            MARYLAND

ASSATEAGUE ISLAND, MD...........................................  ..............  ..............           1,020
ATLANTIC COAST OF MARYLAND, MD..................................  ..............  ..............           4,900
BALTIMORE METRO-WYNNS FALLS, MD.................................  ..............  ..............           3,000
CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD AND VA.......................  ..............           1,000           3,000
CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM, MD, VA AND PA.............  ..............  ..............           2,950
CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV.................................  ..............  ..............           1,200
JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD AND WV (DAM SAFETY)..................             400             380             400
POPLAR ISLAND, MD...............................................          13,400          13,400          13,400

                          MASSACHUSETTS

MUDDY RIVER ECOSYSTEM AND FLOOD DAMAGE, MA......................  ..............           1,500           1,500

                            MICHIGAN

GENESEE COUNTY, MI (KEARSLYE CREEK INTERCEPTOR).................  ..............  ..............             450
GEORGE W. KUHN DRAIN RETENTION FACILITY, MI.....................  ..............              50  ..............
GREAT LAKE FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION....................  ..............  ..............             500
NEGAUNEE, MI....................................................  ..............  ..............             464
SAULT ST. MARIE REPLACEMENT LOCK, MI............................  ..............           2,000  ..............

                            MINNESOTA

BRECKENRIDGE, MN................................................  ..............  ..............           1,500
L&D 3 NAVIGATION SAFETY AND EMBANKMENT REEVALUATION.............  ..............  ..............           2,000
MILLE LACS REGIONAL SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT, MN..................  ..............           1,500  ..............
NORTHEAST, MN...................................................  ..............           5,000  ..............

                           MISSISSIPPI

COASTAL MISSISSIPPI WETLANDS RESTORATION........................  ..............  ..............           2,500
DESOTO COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI WASTEWATER TREATMENT, MS.............  ..............           3,000          20,000
GULFPORT, MS....................................................  ..............  ..............           1,200
MISSISSIPPI, MS (EI)............................................  ..............  ..............          25,000
NATCHEZ, MS.....................................................  ..............  ..............             250
PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS...........................................  ..............  ..............           3,500

                            MISSOURI

BLUE RIVER BASIN, KANSAS CITY, MO...............................  ..............           4,000  ..............
BLUE RIVER CHANNEL, KANSAS CITY, MO.............................           5,000           5,000           5,000
BOIS BRULE, MO..................................................  ..............  ..............           2,413
CAPE GIRARDEAU (FLOODWALL), MO..................................  ..............             300  ..............
CHESTERFIELD, MO................................................  ..............  ..............           1,200
CLEARWATER LAKE, MO (MAJOR REHAB)...............................          22,000          22,000          22,000
MERAMEC RIVER BASIN, VALLEY PARK LEVEE, MO......................           7,582           7,582           7,582
MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS (REG WORKS), MO..........           4,000           3,800           3,800
MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVERS ENHANCEMENT, MO..........  ..............  ..............           1,750
STE GENEVIEVE, MO...............................................  ..............  ..............             550

                             MONTANA

FT. PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT.......................................  ..............  ..............             700
RURAL MONTANA, MT (EI)..........................................  ..............  ..............           5,000

                            NEBRASKA

ANTELOPE CREEK, LINCOLN, NE.....................................  ..............           1,000           3,250
MISSOURI NATIONAL RECREATIONAL RIVER, NE AND SD.................  ..............             648  ..............
SAND CREEK WATERSHED, NE........................................  ..............  ..............           4,000
WESTERN SARPY AND CLEAR CREEK, NE...............................  ..............  ..............           3,000

                             NEVADA

RURAL NEVADA, NV................................................  ..............  ..............          25,000
TAHOE BASIN RESTORATION, NV AND CA (EI).........................  ..............  ..............           5,200
TROPICANA AND FLAMINGO WASHES, NV...............................          13,000          13,000          18,000

                          NEW HAMPSHIRE

OTTER BROOK DAM, NH (DAM SAFETY)................................           1,430           1,359           1,430

                           NEW JERSEY

BARNEGAT INLET TO LITTLE EGG HARBOR INLET, NJ...................  ..............           5,000           5,000
CAPE MAY INLET TO LOWER TOWNSHIP, NJ............................           1,900           1,900           1,900
DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, OAKWOOD BEACH, NJ.......................  ..............  ..............             250
DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, DE AND NJ, REEDS BEACH TO PIERCE........  ..............  ..............           1,100
DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, DE AND NJ VILLAS AND VICINITY...........  ..............  ..............           2,450
DELAWARE RIVER MAIN CHANNEL, NJ, PA AND DE......................  ..............  ..............           3,000
GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET AND PECK BEACH, NJ.......................  ..............  ..............             600
HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS, NJ..............  ..............           1,500  ..............
LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAY POINT, NJ......................           7,000           5,500           7,000
MANASQUAN INLET TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ...........................  ..............             400  ..............
MOLLY ANN'S BROOK, NJ...........................................  ..............           3,000           1,500
PASSAIC RIVER BASIN FLOOD MANAGEMENT, NJ........................  ..............  ..............             500
PASSAIC RIVER PRESERVATION OF NATURAL STORAGE, NJ...............  ..............           3,000  ..............
PASSAIC RIVER STREAMBANK PRESERVATION, NJ(MINISH PARK)..........  ..............  ..............           3,000
RAMAPO RIVER AT OAKLAND, NJ.....................................  ..............  ..............           1,750
RAMAPO AND MAHWAH RIVERS, NEW JERSEY AND SUFFERN, NY............  ..............             250  ..............
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, NJ..............................  ..............  ..............             250
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, NJ (PORT MONMOUTH)..............  ..............  ..............           2,000
RARITAN RIVER BASIN GREEN BROOK SUB-BASIN, NJ...................  ..............           5,000           5,000
SANDY HOOK TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ................................  ..............  ..............           4,000
TOWNSENDS INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET, NJ...........................          11,600          11,600          11,600

                           NEW MEXICO

ACEQUIAS IRRIGATION SYSTEM, NM..................................           1,800  ..............           3,100
ALAMOGORDO, NM..................................................           4,200           4,200           4,200
CENTRAL NEW MEXICO, NM (EI).....................................  ..............  ..............           5,000
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE FLOOD PROTECTION, BERNALILLO TO BELE..........  ..............  ..............             600
NEW MEXICO, NM (EI).............................................  ..............  ..............           5,000
RIO GRANDE FLOODWY, SAN ACACIA TO BOSQUE APACHE, NM.............  ..............  ..............             700
SW VALLEY, ALBUQUERQUE, NM......................................  ..............  ..............             100

                            NEW YORK

ATLANTIC COAST OF LONG ISLAND, LONG ISLAND BEACH, NY............  ..............             200  ..............
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, NY..........................             800           1,000           2,500
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY AND NJ.......................         101,000         101,000          90,000
NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED, NY.....................................  ..............  ..............           1,000
ONONDAGA LAKE, NY...............................................  ..............           3,500  ..............
ORCHARD BEACH, NY...............................................  ..............             300  ..............

                         NORTH CAROLINA

BRUNSWICK COUNTY BEACHES, NC....................................  ..............             300             300
DARE COUNTY BECHES, NC..........................................  ..............  ..............           2,500
WEST ONSLOW BEACH AND RIVER INLET, NC...........................  ..............  ..............             600
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC...........................................          19,900          19,900          19,900
WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NC..........................................             890             890             890

                          NORTH DAKOTA

BUFORD-TRENTON IRRIGATION DISTRICT LAND ACQUISITION ND..........  ..............             500           1,500
GARRISON DAM AND POWER PLANT, ND (MAJOR REHAB)..................           3,582           3,403           3,582
GRAND FORKS, ND--EAST GRAND FORKS, MN...........................          40,000          35,000          40,000
MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION......................................  ..............  ..............             250
SHEYENNE RIVER, ND..............................................             550             523             550

                              OHIO

METROPOLITAN REGION OF CINCINNATI, DUCK CREEK, OH...............           1,650           1,568           1,650
OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE...............................  ..............          13,000  ..............

                            OKLAHOMA

CANTON LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY)....................................           6,000           6,000           6,000
ELM FORK, RED RIVER, OK (CHLORIDE CONTROL)......................  ..............  ..............             500
LAWTON, OK......................................................  ..............  ..............              50
TAR CREEK, OK...................................................  ..............  ..............           5,000
TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY)...........................           5,200           5,200           5,200
WEBBER FALLS LOCK AND DAM POWERHOUSE (MAJOR REHAB)..............  ..............  ..............           4,000

                             OREGON

BONNEVILLE POWERHOUSE PHASE II, OR AND WA (MAJOR REHAB).........           5,000           4,750           5,000
COLUMBIA RIVER CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS, OR AND WA..................          15,000          15,000          15,000
COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY FISHING ACCESS SITES, OR AND WA...........           4,000  ..............           4,000
ELK CREEK LAKE, OR..............................................             300  ..............             300
LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR AND WA...........  ..............  ..............           2,000
WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE CONTROL, OR........................           1,000             950           1,000

                          PENNSYLVANIA

EMSWORTH LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, PA (MAJOR REHAB)............          15,000          15,000          15,000
LOCKS AND DAMS 2, 3 AND 4, MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA................          50,800          50,800          46,000
NORTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA INFRASTRUCTURE, PA....................  ..............           2,600  ..............
PRESQUE ISLE, PA (PERMANENT)....................................  ..............  ..............             620
PROMPTON LAKE, PA...............................................           8,480           8,056           8,480
SAW MILL RIVER RUN, PA..........................................  ..............           1,000  ..............
SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE.........  ..............          10,000  ..............
SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA COBBS CREEK PARK PHILADELPHIA.........  ..............             310  ..............
SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TACONY CREEK, PA......................  ..............             500  ..............
THREE RIVERS WET WEATHER DEMO PROGRAM, PA.......................  ..............  ..............           1,000
WYOMING VALLEY, PA (LEVEE RAISING)..............................          10,496          10,496          10,496

                           PUERTO RICO

ARECIBO RIVER, PR...............................................           3,800           4,000           3,800
PORTUGUES AND BUCANA RIVERS, PR.................................          14,000          14,000          14,000
RIO PUERTO NUEVO, PR............................................          20,000          20,000          20,000

                          RHODE ISLAND

FOX POINT HURRICANE BARRIER, RI.................................  ..............  ..............             700

                         SOUTH CAROLINA

FOLLY BEACH, SC.................................................  ..............  ..............              80
LAKE MARION, SOUTH CAROLINA REGIONAL WATER AGENCY...............  ..............           6,000  ..............
MYRTLE BEACH, SC (RENOURISHMENT)................................  ..............  ..............             100
PAWLEYS ISLAND, SC..............................................  ..............  ..............           2,420

                          SOUTH DAKOTA

BIG SIOUX RIVER, SIOUX FALLS, SD................................  ..............  ..............           2,000
CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUX, SD...............  ..............  ..............           5,000
MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, SD..................................  ..............  ..............             100

                            TENNESSEE

CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TN............................................  ..............          10,000          10,000

                              TEXAS

BRAYS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX........................................          11,800          11,800          11,800
CLEAR CREEK, TX.................................................  ..............           1,500  ..............
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX.................................  ..............  ..............             523
DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, TX...................................  ..............           2,000          15,000
GRAHAM, TX (BRAZOS RIVER BASIN).................................  ..............  ..............           1,000
HOUSTON-GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS, TX.......................          24,800          26,000          35,000
HUNTING BAYOU, TX...............................................  ..............             500  ..............
JOHNSON CREEK, UPPER TRINITY BASIN, ARLINGTON, TX...............             500             500             500
LOWER SAN ANTONIO RIVER BASIN, TX...............................  ..............             300  ..............
NORTH PADRE ISLAND, PACKERY CHANNEL, TX.........................  ..............  ..............           5,438
RED RIVER BASIN CHLORIDE CONTROL, OK, TX, AR AND LA.............  ..............  ..............           1,500
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS RIVER CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, TX................  ..............           3,640           1,820
SIMS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX.........................................          18,000          15,000          15,000
WHITNEY LAKE POWERHOUSE, TX (MAJOR REHAB).......................  ..............  ..............           4,551

                              UTAH

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

                             VERMONT

BURLINGTON HARBOR, VT...........................................  ..............  ..............             500
LAKE CHAMPLAIN WATERSHED, VT....................................  ..............  ..............           2,000
VERMONT DAMS REMEDIATION, VT....................................  ..............  ..............             130

                            VIRGINIA

EMBREY DAM, VA..................................................  ..............  ..............           2,000
JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA.........................................  ..............  ..............           1,300
JOHN H. KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA AND NC (MAJOR REHAB).........          14,000          13,300          14,000
LAKE MERRIWEATHER, GOSHEN DAN AND SPILLWAY, VA..................  ..............  ..............           4,000
NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VA (DEEPENING).....................  ..............  ..............           4,295
ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, HEADWATERS AREA, VA..................           5,000           5,000           5,000
SANDBRIDGE, VA..................................................  ..............  ..............           4,000
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (HURRICANE PROTECTION).......................           4,000           4,000          11,395

                           WASHINGTON

CHEIF JOSEPH DAM GAS ABATEMENT, VA..............................  ..............  ..............           8,000
COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR, ID......................  ..............  ..............          85,000
COLUMBIA RIVER FISH RECOVERY, WA, OR AND ID.....................         102,000          90,000  ..............
DUNAMISH AND GREEN RIVER BASIN, WA..............................  ..............  ..............           2,500
HOWARD HANSON DAM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, WA.....................          14,100          14,100          14,100
LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE COMPENSATION, WA, OR........             900  ..............             900
MT ST. HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA..............................             360             360             660
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA (DAM SAFETY)...............................           4,400           4,400           4,400
PUGET SOUND AND ADJACENT WATERS RESTORATION.....................  ..............  ..............           2,000
SHOALWATER BAY, WA..............................................  ..............  ..............           2,000

                          WEST VIRGINIA

BLUESTONE LAKE, WV (DAM SAFETY).................................          21,500          20,425          21,500
CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA, WV.......................................  ..............             750  ..............
GREENBRIER RIVER BASIN, WV......................................  ..............  ..............           3,000
ISLAND CREEK AT LOGAN, WV.......................................  ..............  ..............             305
LEVISA AND TUG FORKS AND UPPER CUMBERLAND RIVER, WV, V..........  ..............          20,000          14,100
LOWER MUD RIVER, WV.............................................  ..............  ..............           1,250
MARMET LOCK, KANAWHA RIVER, WV..................................          68,830          68,830          73,500
ROBERT C. BYRD LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, WV AND OH.............             914             914             914
SOUTHERN WEST VIRIGINIA ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE............  ..............           1,000  ..............
WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD CONTROL, WV................  ..............           1,000  ..............
WINFIELD LOCKS AND DAM, KANAWHA RIVER, WV.......................           2,400  ..............           2,400

                            WISCONSIN

NORTHERN WISCONSIN, WI..........................................  ..............           9,000  ..............

                          MISCELLANEOUS

ABANDONED MINE RESTORATION......................................  ..............  ..............           1,705
AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (SECTION 206).....................          15,000          18,000          25,000
AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROGRAM...................................           3,000           4,500           4,500
BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL(SEC 204,SEC 207,SE..........           3,000           4,000           6,200
DAM SAFETY AND SEEPAGE/STABILITY CORRECTION PROGRAM.............          11,000          10,500          15,000
DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROGRAM....................          12,000           8,800          12,000
EMERGENCY STREAMBANK AND SHORELINE PROTECTION (SECTION..........           4,000           8,000          15,000
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION..........................................          21,000          21,000          21,000
ESTUARY RESTORATION PROGRAM (PUBLIC LAW 106-457)................           5,000  ..............           5,000
FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 205)............................          13,000          25,000          41,000
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--BOARD EXPENSE.....................              40              40              40
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--CORPS EXPENSE.....................             170             170             170
MITIGATION OF SHORE DAMAGES (SECTION 111).......................           1,500             500           2,000
PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT........          15,000          17,400          25,000
SHORE PROTECTION PROJECTS (SECTION 103).........................             500           1,000           7,000
SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT AND DEMO (SEC. 227).......  ..............  ..............           3,800
SNAGGING AND CLEARING PROJECTS (SECTION 208)....................             400             400             400
SMALL NAVIGATION PROJECTS, SECTION 107..........................  ..............           4,000          15,000
SUSPENSION FUND.................................................          80,000  ..............  ..............
TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM......................................  ..............  ..............             800
REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE..................          -1,441  ..............        -202,833
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, Construction General...............................       1,637,000       1,900,000       2,086,664
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tuscaloosa, AL.--The Committee has provided $4,000,000 for 
the relocation project at Tuscaloosa, AL.
    Akutan Harbor, AK.--The Committee has provided funding to 
initiate construction of this project.
    Alaska Coastal Erosion, AK.--The Committee has provided 
$2,400,000 for Alaska Coastal Erosion. The following 
communities are eligible recipients of these funds: Kivalina, 
Newtok, Shishmaref, Koyukuk, Barrow, Kaktovik, Point Hope, 
Unalakleet, and Bethel. Section 117 of Public Law 108-447 will 
apply to this project.
    Chignik Harbor, AK.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 
to complete the project.
    Coffman Cove, AK.--The Committee has provided funding to 
prepare the decision document for design of a dock system.
    Delong Mountain Harbor, AK.--The Committee has provided 
funding to complete the environmental documentation, plans and 
specifications and geotechnical investigations.
    Nome Harbor, AK.--The Committee has included $13,000,000 to 
continue construction of this project.
    Sand Point Harbor, AK.--The Committee has included 
$6,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
    St. Paul Harbor, AK.--The Committee has included $8,000,000 
to continue construction of this project.
    Rio Salado, Phoenix and Tempe Reaches, AZ.--The Committee 
has provided $8,000,000 for construction of this project. The 
Committee encourages the Corps to reprogram previously revoked 
funds in fiscal year 2006 to complete this project if possible.
    Ozark-Jeta Taylor Powerhouse, AR.--The Committee has 
provided $4,500,000 to continue the rehab of the powerhouse.
    Red River Below Denison Dam, AR, LA, OK and TX.--The 
Committee has provided $4,000,000 to continue levee 
rehabilitation work in Arkansas and Louisiana.
    Red River Emergency Bank Protection, AR and LA.--The 
Committee has provided $6,000,000 for bank stabilization along 
the Red River below Index, Arkansas.
    American River Watershed, CA.--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. However, for purposes of reprogramming actions, the 
three elements should be treated as a single project when 
considering the reprogramming guidance provided in an earlier 
section of this report.
    American River Watershed (Folsom Dam Miniraise), CA.--The 
Committee has provided $12,000,000. Within the funds provided, 
$7,000,000 is for construction of the bridge.
    Kaweah River, CA.--The Committee has provided $4,800,000 to 
complete this project.
    Oakland Harbor, CA.--The Committee has provided $42,000,000 
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 Mainstem, CA.--The Committee has provided 
$42,500,000 to continue construction of this project. No funds 
are included for the San Timoteo reach of the 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.
    Upper Guadalupe River, CA.--The Committee has included 
$3,500,000 to initiate construction of this project.
    Delaware Bay Coastline, Bethany Beach to South Bethany 
Beach, DE.--$4,000,000 is provided for construction of this 
shore protection project.
    Delaware Coast, Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island, DE.--The 
Committee has included $1,700,000 to continue construction of 
this project.
    Washington, DC and Vicinity, DC.--The Committee has 
provided $400,000 to initiate construction as proposed in the 
budget request.
    Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration, FL.--
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. However, for purposes of 
reprogramming actions, the Central and South Florida Project, 
the Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Project 
and the Kissimmee River Project should be treated as a single 
project when considering the reprogramming guidance provided in 
an earlier section of this report.
    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 sufficient current 
authorization exists for the Corps to fund this work. As the 
work involved primarily benefits Everglades National Park, 
budgeting for this work should be continued by the Interior 
Department as has been past practice. The Committee is unsure 
why this funding decision was made; however, much has been made 
of the increase in costs of the Modified Waters Delivery Plan 
since its authorization. The Committee understands that over 43 
percent of cost growth is due to the extraordinary increase in 
real estate values in the Miami-Dade area. Prices for land and 
houses have been rising as much as 5 percent per month over the 
last 2 years. Another significant cost increase has been due to 
overseas demand for cement and high fuel prices that have 
driven up construction costs.
    The other major contributor to the cost increase is the 
inclusion of bridge work for the Tamiami Trail. The 1992 design 
which Congress approved was based on a determination that 
existing culverts under the Trail could carry the flow expected 
for the Modified Waters Delivery Plan without overtopping the 
Tamiami Trail. Since then, the Corps has worked with the 
sponsor, the South Florida Water Management District, and the 
United States Geological Survey to determine actual capacities 
of these culverts based on actual conditions that exist. The 
Corps has also worked with the Florida Department of 
Transportation on ensuring a safe design for the roadway. Based 
on these analyses and design refinements, the Tamiami Trail fix 
is much more involved than originally conceived. In order to 
provide appropriate water deliveries to Everglades National 
Park, both the Corps and the Department of Interior believe 
building a bridge of some length, as well as raising the 
roadway, is required to allow the design flows to pass as well 
as ensure a safe highway. This is a significant part of the 
cost increase as well. Over $130,000,000 of the current 
estimate of $398,000,000 is for the Trail work.
    The Committee encourages the administration to include the 
Modified Waters Delivery Plan funding in the Interior budget in 
future budget submissions.
    Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration, FL.--
Within the funds provided, the Corps may initiate construction 
of the Aquifer Storage and Recovery pilot projects.
    Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements, FL.--The Committee 
has provided $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 all of the 
nearshore waters.
    Jacksonville Harbor, FL.--The Committee has provided 
$500,000 to continue work on the General Reevaluation Report.
    Tampa Harbor, FL.--$200,000 is provided to continue the 
General Reevaluation Report.
    Atlanta, GA.--The Committee has included $2,000,000 to 
initiate this project.
    Brunswick Harbor, GA.--The Committee has included 
$19,900,000 to continue construction of this project.
    Oates Creek, Richmond County, GA.--The Committee has 
included $500,000 to continue construction of this project.
    Tybee Island, GA.--The Committee has provided $18,000 to 
complete the Limited Reevaluation Report for the shore 
protection project in preparation for the next scheduled 
renourishment.
    Kaumalapau Harbor, Lanai, HI.--The Committee has provided 
$13,000,000 to complete construction of this project.
    Rural Idaho Environmental Infrastructure, ID.--The 
Committee has provided $5,500,000 for this project. Within the 
funds provided the Corps should give consideration to projects 
at Emmett, Burley, Rupert, Bonners Ferry, Donnelly, Eastern 
Idaho Regional Water Authority, Driggs, and Smelterville. Other 
communities that meet the program criteria should be considered 
as funding allows.
    Des Plaines River, IL.--The Committee has included 
$4,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
    McCook and Thornton Reservoirs, IL.--The Committee has 
included $30,000,000 for continued construction of this 
project.
    Olmsted Locks and Dam, Ohio River, IL and KY.--The 
Committee has provided $85,000,000 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.
    Missouri Fish and Wildlife Recovery, IA, KS, MO, MT, NE, ND 
and SD.--The Committee has provided $60,000,000 for this 
project. This is a significant increase from fiscal year 2005 
funding but considerably less than the request. The Committee 
is frustrated that the administration has not forwarded a 
legislative proposal to authorize endangered species recovery 
work along the Missouri River. Fish and Wildlife Mitigation for 
the lower river has been authorized for several years; however, 
habitat recovery for the upper river has yet to be addressed in 
authorization language. Estimates for recovery of species along 
the Missouri River are in excess of $3,500,000,000. The 
Committee would not fund a $3,500,000,000 construction project 
without a specific authorization and we do not believe it 
prudent for the budget to continue asking for annual budget 
increases to this project without clear authorization as to the 
actions necessary for recovery.
    Missouri River Levee System, IA, NE, KS and MO.--The 
Committee has included $750,000 to continue construction of 
this project.
    Turkey Creek, KS and MO.--The Committee has included 
$4,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
    Kentucky Lock and Dam, Tennessee River, KY.--The Committee 
has included $32,000,000 to continue construction of this 
project.
    McAlpine Locks and Dam, Ohio River, KY and IN.--The 
Committee has provided $65,000,000 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.
    Inner Harbor Lock and Dam, LA.--The Committee has included 
$15,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
    J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, LA.--The Committee has 
provided $15,000 for navigation channel refinement features, 
land purchases and development for mitigation of project 
impacts, and construction of project recreation and appurtenant 
features.
    Larose to Golden Meadow, LA.--The Committee has included 
$1,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
    New Orleans to Venice, LA.--The Committee has included 
$3,600,000 to continue construction of this project.
    West Bank and Vicinity, New Orleans, LA.--The Committee has 
provided $25,000,000 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.
    Chesapeake Bay Environmental Program, MD, PA and VA.--The 
Committee has included $2950 for continuation of this project. 
Within the funds provided, $273,000 is included to continue the 
environmental studies concerning non-native oysters.
    Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery, MD and VA.--The Committee 
has included $3,000,000 to continue construction of this 
project.
    Rural Montana, MT.--The Committee has provided $5,000,000 
for this project. Within the funds provided the Corps should 
give consideration to projects at Livingston, Missoula (Grant 
Creek), Meagher County, Stevensville, Helena, Wisdom, Bigfork, 
Sheridan, Butte and Drummond. Other communities that meet the 
program criteria should be considered as funding allows.
    Sand Creek, NE.--The Committee has included $4,000,000 to 
continue construction of this project.
    Rural Nevada, NV.--The Committee has provided $25,000,000 
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, Churchill County, West 
Wendover, Yearington, Virgin Valley Water District, Lovelock, 
and Carson City. Other communities that meet the program 
criteria should be considered as funding allows.
    Tropicana and Flamingo Washes, NV.--The Committee has 
provided $18,000,000 to continue construction of this flood 
control project. Within the funds provided $3,000,000 is 
provided for work performed in accordance with Section 211 of 
Public Law 104-303.
    Delaware Bay Coastline, Villas and Vicinity, NJ and DE.--
The Committee has provided $2,450,000 to initiate construction 
of this project.
    Raritan River Basin, Green Brook Sub-Basin, NJ.--The 
Committee has included $5,000,000 to continue construction of 
this project.
    Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, NJ.--The Committee has 
provided $4,000,000 to initiate construction of this project.
    Acequias Irrigation System, NM.--The Committee has provided 
$3,100,000 to continue restoration of these historic irrigation 
distribution systems.
    Central New Mexico, NM.--The Committee has included 
$5,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
    New Mexico [EI], NM.--The Committee has included $5,000,000 
to continue construction of this project.
    Fire Island to Montauk Point, NY.--Additional funds above 
the budget request have been provided for the reformulation 
study.
    Dare County Beaches, NC.--$2,500,000 is included for 
construction for this project.
    Buford Trenton Irrigation District, ND.--The Committee has 
included $1,500,000 to continue construction of this project.
    Webber Falls Lock and Dam Powerhouse, OK.--The Committee 
has included $4,000,000 for construction of the powerhouse 
major rehabilitation project.
    Locks and Dams 2, 3, and 4, Monongahela River, PA.--The 
Committee has provided $46,000,000 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, PA.--The Committee has provided $620,000 to 
continue this project.
    Big Sioux River, SD.--The Committee has included $2,000,000 
to continue construction of this project.
    Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux, SD.--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 
has included $5,000,000 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, TN.--The Committee has provided 
$10,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
    Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, TX.--The Committee 
has provided $35,000,000 for continued construction of this 
project.
    North Padre Island, Packery Channel, TX.--The Committee has 
provided $5,438,000 to complete this project.
    Red River Basin Chloride Control, TX, OK, AR and LA.--The 
Committee has included $1,500,000 to continue construction.
    Whitney Lake Powerhouse, TX.--The Committee has included 
$4,551,000 to continue construction of the powerhouse 
rehabilitation.
    Rural Utah. UT.--The Committee has included $10,000,000 to 
continue construction of this project.
    Burlington Harbor, VT.--The Committee has included $500,000 
to initiate removal of Oil bollards in the harbor.
    The Committee has included $$2,000,000 for continued 
deconstruction and environmental restoration efforts at the 
Embrey Dam project.
    Virginia Beach, VA.--The Committee has included $11,395,000 
to complete initial construction.
    Columbia River Fish Recovery, WA, OR, and ID.--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 and has therefore funded the 
three traditional line items combined in this heading.
    Mt. St. Helens Sediment Control, WA.--The Committee has 
included additional funds for the Corps to begin investigations 
for restoration actions in the Cowlitz and Toutle watersheds.
    Mud Mountain, Washington.--Out of the funds provided, the 
Corps is directed to use up to $600,000 to study fish passage.
    Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Cumberland 
River, WV, KY and VA.--The Committee has provided $14,100,000 
for the continuation of the project. Within the funds provided, 
the Committee recommendation includes $9,500,000 for the 
Buchanan County, Dickenson County, and Grundy, VA elements. 
Further, the recommendation includes $4,600,000 for Kermit, 
Lower Mingo County, McDowell County, Upper Mingo and Wayne 
County, WV.
    Aquatic Plant Control Program.--The Committee has provided 
$4,500,000 for this program. Within the funds provided, the 
Committee has provided $850,000 for a cost shared program for 
Lake Gaston, NC and $400,000 for a cost shared program for Lake 
Champlain, VT.
    Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $6,200,000 for the program. Within the 
funds provided, $200,000 is provided for Dauphin Island, AL, 
and $3,000,000 for Morehead City Harbor, NC.
    Dam Safety and Seepage/Stability Correction Program.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000 to complete the 
Waterbury dam repairs.
    Shore Line Erosion Control Development and Demonstration 
Program.--The Committee has provided $3,800,000 for this 
program. Within the funds provided, $2,300,000 is for an 
Alternative Sand Test Beach and Breakwater Project in Florida 
and $1,500,000 is for the Sacred Falls Demonstration project in 
Hawaii.
    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. Below 
are the various CAP sections, their congressionally authorized 
appropriation limit and the current estimate of outstanding 
obligations:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Current
                CAP Section                Program Limit    Obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 103.............................     $30,000,000      $6,000,000
Section 107.............................      35,000,000      17,000,000
Section 1135............................      25,000,000      49,500,000
Section 14..............................      15,000,000      19,000,000
Sections 204, 207, 933..................      15,000,000       9,000,000
Section 205.............................      50,000,000      42,500,000
Section 206.............................      25,000,000      50,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee directs that the Corps should 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 already have an executed 
Project Cooperation Agreement. The next priority should be for 
projects with executed design agreements. Third priority would 
be for those with executed feasibility agreement. The last 
priority should be new starts. To further this end, the 
Committee directs a moratorium on execution of new cost share 
agreements during fiscal year 2006. Work should continue on all 
phases as funding and priority allows, but no project should 
advance to the next stage during fiscal year 2006, except, of 
course, project completions.
    The Committee is aware that there are funding requirements 
for ongoing, continuing authorities projects that may not be 
accommodated within the funds provided for each program. It is 
not the Committee's intent that ongoing projects should be 
terminated. If additional funds are needed to keep ongoing work 
in any program on schedule, the Committee urges the Corps to 
reprogram the necessary funds.

                      CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGAM
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Committee
                                                         recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Small Beach Erosion Control Projects--Section 103

Unalakleet Seawall, AK...............................           1,000
North Shore of Indian River Inlet, DE................             600
Pleasure Island, MD..................................             500
St. Mary's River, MD.................................             630
Morris Island Lighthouse, SC.........................           2,234

        Small Navigation Projects--Section 107

Gustavis Harbor, AK..................................             100
Kokhanok Harbor, AK..................................              34
Nanwalek Harbor, AK..................................             100
Blytheville Harbor, AR...............................             500
Kahoolawe Small Boat Harbor, HI......................             250
Laupahoehoe Harbor Project, HI.......................             400
North Kohala Navigation Improvements, HI.............             150
Port Fuchon, LA......................................              88
Nanticoke Harbor, MD.................................             250
Yazoo Diversion Canal, MS............................           2,900
Hampton Harbor, NH...................................              55
Charlestown Breachway and Ninigret Pond, RI..........              90
Point Judith Harbor, Narragansett, RI................             100
Northwest Tennessee Regional Harbor, TN..............             490
Wisconsin Lakeshore State Park Breakwater, WI........           2,000

   Project Modifications for the Improvement of the
              Environment--Section 1135

Ditch 28, AR.........................................             130
Horseshoe Lake, AR...................................             160
Millwood Lake, Grassy Lake, AR.......................             114.8
Rock Creek, Little Rock, AR..........................             150
Bellaview Wetlands, CO...............................             377
Chatfield Downstream, South Platte River, CO.........             138.5
Oyster Revitilization in the Delaware Bay, DE and NJ.           2,000
Kanaha Pond Wildlife Sanctuary Restoration Project,               200
 HI..................................................
Kawainui Marsh Environmental Restoration Project, HI.             700
Pelekane Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project, HI.......             400
Bayou Macon, LA......................................             187
Frazier/Whitehorse Oxbow Lake Weir, LA...............             375
Lake St. Joseph, Tensas Parish, LA...................             130
Old River North, Concordia Parish, LA................              10
Wild Cow Bayou, Concordia Parish, LA.................              10
Hart Miller Island, MD...............................             200
Duck Creek, Stoddard County, MO......................             125
Kansas City Riverfront, Kansas City, Jackson County,              998
 MO..................................................
Lower Decatur Bend Environmental Improvement, NE.....           3,552
Salt Cedar Invasive Species Eradication/Restoration,              150
 NE..................................................
Albuquerque Biological Park Wetland Restoration                   400
 Project, NM.........................................
Ecosystem Revitalization at Route 66, NM.............             465
Carlsbad, Pecos River, NM............................             150
Las Cruces Dam Environmental Restoration, Dona Ana                300
 County, NM..........................................
Pecos River, Chaves County...........................             279
Riparian Wetland Restoration, Pueblo of Santa Ana                 200
 Reservation, NM.....................................
Socorro County Floodplain Restoration, NM............             210
Lower Truckee River, McCarran Ranch, NV..............           3,037
Fairmount Dam Fishladder Project, PA.................             820
Upper Tioga River Watershed, PA......................             430
Allin's Cove, RI.....................................             300
Village of Oyster, VA Ecosystem Restoration, VA......             165
City of Richland Ecosystem Restoration, WA...........             400
Mapes Creek Habitat Enhancement Project, WA..........             270
Battle Island, Desoto, WI............................              40
Kaunakakai Stream Environmental Restoration, HI......             300

    Streambank and Shoreline Protection for Public
                Facilities--Section 14

Deering Shoreline Protection, AK.....................             900
Kwethluk, AK.........................................              55
27th Street Bridge (Glenwood Springs, CO)............             353
Powers Boulevard (Colorado Springs, CO)..............             500
Coal Creek, Monroe County, IA........................              60
Iowa River, Sac and Fox Tribe, IA....................             378
Raccoon River, Panora County, IA.....................              92.3
Bayou Macon, Poverty Point, LA.......................             469
Ouachita River, City of Monroe, LA...................              80
Patuxent River, Patuxent Beach Road, MD..............             700
Sturgeon River, Houghton County, MI..................             120
Water Treatment Plant, St. Joseph, MI................             177
Red Lake River Bank Stabilization, MN................              40
Eubanks Creek, Jackson, MS...........................             275
Elizabeth River, Valleyview Road, Hillside, NJ.......             576
South Branch Rahway River, Woodbridge, NJ............             500
I-40 Bridge, Rio Puerco, NM..........................             850
Shoreland Avenue Embankment Restoration, Toledo, OH..             660
Stayton Riverfront Park Bank Stabilization, OR.......             250
Mt. Moriah Culvert, TN...............................             305
Kenosha Harbor Retaining Wall, WI....................             281

  Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material--Sections 204,
                     207 and 933

Dauphin Island Aquatic Restoration Project, AL.......             439
Morehead City Harbor, NC.............................           4,625

      Small Flood Control Projects--Section 205

Fort Yukon, AK.......................................             200
Salcha, AK...........................................             400
Bono, AR.............................................              80
Grubbs, AR...........................................              50
Wynne, AR............................................              75
Heacock and Cactus Channels, CA......................           4,000
New Hogan Lake Reoperation, CA.......................             600
Santa Venetia Flood Control, CA......................              91.5
Salmon River, CT.....................................             650
Delaware City Dragon Run Flood Mitigation Project, DE             300
Elsmere Stormwater Infrastructure, DE................             250
Little Mill Creek, New Castle County, DE.............           2,018
Rutherford, New Castle County, DE....................             150
Kuliouou Stream Flood Damage Reduction, HI...........             250
Palai Stream Flood Damage Reduction, HI..............             100
Waiakea Stream Flood Damage Reduction Project, HI....             200
Wailele Stream Flood Damage Reduction Project, HI....             150
Cedar River (Time Check Area), Cedar Rapids, IA......             300
Denison, IA..........................................           1,400
Delphi, IN...........................................             100
Fort Wayne, St. Marys and Maumee Rivers, IN..........             200
Braithwaite Park, LA.................................           1,681
Jean Lafitte, Fisher School Basin, Jefferson Parish,            2,900
 LA..................................................
Oakville to LaReussite, LA...........................              88
Red Chute Bayou, Bossier Parish, LA..................             425
Town of Carenco, Lafayette, LA.......................             160
Elkton, MD...........................................             174
Canisteo Outflow Project, MN.........................             100
Montevideo, MN.......................................           2,828
Rockford Levee Upgrade, MN...........................             100
Blacksnake Creek, St. Joseph, MO.....................             244
Little River Diversion, Ducthtown, MO................             175
Wilson, NC (Hominy Swamp Flood Control)..............             100
Fargo Ridgewood Addition, ND.........................           1,245.9
Gila River, Grants and Hidalgo Counties, NM..........             100
Hatch, NM............................................             158
Little Puerco River, Gallup, NM......................             100
Little Puerco Wash, Gallup, NM.......................             100
Battle Mountain, NV..................................           1,111.5
City of Las Vegas, NV................................             300
North Spanish Springs, NV............................             140
Reno Flood Warning System, NV........................               3
North Park Lake, Flood Control Project...............             200
Sandy Creek, TN......................................              50
Passumpsic River, Lyndonville, VT....................              42
West Virginia Statewide Flood Warning System.........             200
Henderson, WY Drainage Improvements..................             100

 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Projects--Section 206

Eklutna, AK..........................................             300
Northway, AK.........................................             350
Chattahoochee Fall Line Ecosystem Restoration                     250
 Project, AL and GA..................................
St Helena-Napa River Restoration, CA.................             600
York Creek Dam Removal, CA...........................             350
Bear Creek Reservoir, CO.............................             100
Bow Tie Wetlands, CO.................................             300
Goose Creek, CO......................................             200
Kingfisher Point, CO.................................             191
Lower Boulder Creek, CO..............................             240
North Fork, Gunnison River, CO.......................           2,201
Tamarisk Eradication, CO.............................             400
Red Clay Creek Dam Realignment, DE...................             250
Rose Bay, FL.........................................             250
Mokuhinia/Mokuula Ecosystem Restoration, HI..........             220
Indian Creek, Caldwell, ID...........................           3,300
Paradise Creek Ecosystem Restoration Project, ID.....             250
Salmon River, Challis, ID............................             611
Emiquon Preserve, IL.................................             313
South Fork of the South Branch of the Chicago River               600
 (Bubbly Creek), IL..................................
Squaw Creek Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, IL........             160
Cocodrie Bayou, LA...................................              10
University Lakes, Baton Rouge, LA....................             200
University Lakes, East Baton Rouge Parish, LA........             200
Blackwater Refuge, MD................................             500
Paint Branch Fish Passage, MD........................             282
Tidal Middle Branch, MD..............................             250
Western Branch, Patuxent River, MD...................           1,158
Painter Creek, MN....................................             300
Confluence Point State Park, MO......................             100
Missouri Stream Restoration Pilot, MO................             200
Central Bath Branch Tributary, Winston-Salem, NC.....             100
Ore Knob, NC.........................................             510
Heron Haven Wetland Restoration Project, NE..........             645
Bottomless Lakes State Park, Roswell, NM.............             350
Jemez River Aquatic and Riparian Habitat Restoration,             211
 Zia Pueblo, NM......................................
Las Cruces Wetland Restoration, NM...................             300
Carson River, NV.....................................              75
Incline, Third, and Rosewood Creeks, NV..............              90
Arcola Creek Ecosystem Restoration, OH...............             528
Arrowhead Creek, OR..................................             250
Camp Creek-Zumwalt Prairie, OR.......................             333
Coffee Lake, OR......................................             250
Ingham Spring Dam and Lake Reconstruction, PA........             300
Neshannock Creek, PA.................................             600
Sheradon Park and Chartiers Creek, PA................             300
Blackstone Fisheries Restoration, RI.................             150
Brush Neck Cove, Warwick, RI.........................             150
Lower Blackstone River Fish Passage, RI..............             250
Narrow, Narragansett, RI.............................             150
Ten Mile River, East Providence, RI..................             250
Winnipaug Pond, Westerly, RI.........................             104
Potash Brook, South Burlington, VT...................             350
West Branch of the Little River, Stowe, Lamoille                  200
 County, VT..........................................
Wild Branch of the Lamoille River, Town of                        200
 Craftsbury, Orleans County and Town of Wolcott,
 Lamoille County, VT.................................
Carpenter Creek, WA..................................             300
Issaquah Salmon Hatchery, WA.........................             300
Great Pierce Meadows, Essex and Morris Counties, NJ..             460
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tribal Partnership Program.--The Committee has also 
included $400,000 for Nevada to initiate cultural resource 
restoration on historic Washoe lands; and $400,000 for New 
Mexico to further the tribal assistance efforts by the Corps in 
New Mexico.

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

Appropriations, 2005....................................\1\ $321,904,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................     270,000,000
House allowance.........................................     290,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     433,336,000

\1\ Excludes emergency appropriation of $6,000,000.

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

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

BAYOU METO, AR..................................................  ..............           1,640  ..............
SOUTHEAST ARKANSAS, AR..........................................  ..............  ..............             350
ALEXANDRIA TO THE GULF, LA......................................             450             428             500
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM LAND STUDY, LA................             100  ..............             150
DONALDSON TO THE GULF, LA.......................................  ..............  ..............             400
MORGANZA TO THE GULF, LA........................................  ..............           1,000           5,000
POINTE COUPEE TO ST. MARY PARISH, LA............................  ..............  ..............             100
SPRING BAYOU, LA................................................  ..............  ..............             500
TENSAS RIVER BASIN, LA..........................................  ..............  ..............             250
BEAR CREEK, MS..................................................  ..............  ..............             500
COLDWATER RIVER BASIN BELOW ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS..................             500             475             750
QUIVER RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, MS................................  ..............  ..............             150
MILLINGTON AND VICINITY, TN.....................................             112             107             112
MEMPHIS METRO AREA, STORM WATER MGMT STUDY, TN AND MS...........  ..............  ..............             150
COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA..............................             720             685             720
UNSPECIFIED REDUCTION...........................................  ..............          -1,640
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, General Investigations..........................           1,882           2,695           9,632

                          CONSTRUCTION

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND TN..............          42,500          40,413          42,500
FRANCIS BLAND FLOODWAY DITCH (EIGHT MILE CREEK), AR.............           3,446           3,277  ..............
GRAND PRAIRIE REGION, AR........................................  ..............  ..............          10,000
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND TN.........          39,200          37,275          59,000
ST. FRANCIS BASIN, AR AND MO....................................  ..............           6,800           6,800
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA..........................           2,324           2,210           7,000
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA...........................................          21,000          19,969          21,000
MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA....................................           2,244           2,134           2,244
HORN LAKE CREEK MODIFICATIONS, MS...............................  ..............  ..............             200
YAZOO BACKWATER, LESS ROCKY BAYOU, YAZOO F AND WL MITIGATION      ..............  ..............             300
 LANDS..........................................................
YAZOO BASIN--BACKWATER PUMPING PLANT, MS........................  ..............  ..............          25,000
YAZOO BASIN--BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS............................  ..............  ..............           2,000
YAZOO BASIN--DELTA HEADWATERS PROJECT, MS.......................  ..............  ..............          25,000
YAZOO BASIN--MAINSTEM, MS.......................................  ..............  ..............              25
YAZOO BASIN--REFORMULATION UNIT, MS.............................  ..............  ..............           2,200
YAZOO BASIN/UPPER YAZOO PROJECT, MS.............................  ..............           5,600          20,000
ST. JOHNS BAYOU AND NEW MADRID FLOODWAY, MO.....................  ..............           5,500           5,500
NONCONNAH CREEK, TN AND MS......................................             500             475             800
WEST TENNESSEE TRIBUTARIES, TN..................................  ..............  ..............             500
WOLF RIVER, TN..................................................  ..............           3,500           3,500
SUSPENSION FUND.................................................           8,000  ..............  ..............
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Construction....................................         119,214         127,153         233,569

                           MAINTENANCE

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND TN..............          70,609          67,142          70,609
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR..............................             172             164             402
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR...............................             611             581             611
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, AR............................             560             533             560
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, AR............................             310             295             310
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, AND TN........           9,256           9,902          21,191
ST FRANCIS BASIN, AR AND MO.....................................           6,600           8,800           6,600
TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS, AR AND LA................           2,600           2,472           2,600
WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR.......................................           1,400           1,331           1,400
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL...............................              55              52              55
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY...............................              37              35              37
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA..........................           2,860           2,720           2,860
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA...........................................          13,400          12,742          13,400
BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA.............................  ..............  ..............             420
BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA..............................              65              62              65
BONNET CARRE, LA................................................           2,713           2,580           2,713
INSPECTION OF COMPELTED WORKS, LA...............................             538             512             538
LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, LA..........................              66              63              66
MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA....................................             239             227             239
OLD RIVER, LA...................................................          10,200           9,699          10,200
TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA...........................           3,950           3,756           3,950
GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS...........................................  ..............  ..............             500
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS...............................             317             301             317
YAZOO BASIN:
    ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS..........................................           6,151           5,849          14,810
    BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS.....................................             210             200           2,210
    ENID LAKE, MS...............................................           5,232           4,975          12,300
    GREENWOOD, MS...............................................             620             590           2,070
    GRENADA LAKE, MS............................................           5,674           5,395          12,278
    MAIN STEM, MS...............................................           1,080           1,027           4,033
    SARDIS LAKE, MS.............................................           7,153           5,802          16,500
    TRIBUTARIES, MS.............................................           1,130           1,075           1,130
    WILL M WHITTINGTON AUX CHAN, MS.............................             430             409             430
    YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS....................................             470             447             956
    YAZOO CITY, MS..............................................             770             732             770
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, YAZOO BASIN.....................................          28,920          26,501          67,487

VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS............................................  ..............  ..............             387
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO...............................             182             173             182
WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO.............................................           4,676           4,446           4,676
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN...............................             110             105             110
MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, TN...............................             992             943             992
WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN...........................................  ..............  ..............             540
EMERGENCY REPAIR RESERVES.......................................  ..............           1,700  ..............
MAPPING.........................................................           1,384           1,316           1,384
UNSPECIFIED REDUCTION...........................................  ..............          -1,000  ..............
REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE..................         -13,918  ..............         -25,266
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Maintenance.....................................         148,904         158,512         190,135
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries...         270,000         290,000         433,336
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, LA.--The 
Committee has provided $150,000 to initiate this study as 
recommended in the budget request.
    Morganza to the Gulf, LA.--The Committee has provided 
$5,000,000 to continue Preconstruction Engineering and Design 
for this study.
    Quiver River, MS.--The Committee has provided $150,000 to 
initiate this study.
    Memphis Metro, Storm Water Management Study, TN and MS.--
The Committee has provided $150,000 to initiate this study.

Construction

    Grand Prairie, AR.--The Committee has provided $10,000,000 
for continued construction of the project.
    Mississippi River Levees, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO and TN.--
The Committee has provided $59,000,000 to continue construction 
of this project. Within the funds provided, $19,800,000 could 
be used to continue construction on St. Johns-New Madrid Levee 
Closure/Box Culvert, MO ($3,000,000); Carlisle-Tallula, MS Item 
488-L ($6,000,000); and Above Cairo, IL Slurry Trench P-4 
($600,000) and initiate construction on Willow Point-Youngs 
Point, LA Items 445-R ($1,300,000); Pecan Point, AR, Relief 
Wells P-2 ($200,000); Trotters, MS Berm P-2 ($100,000); Council 
Bend, AR Relief Wells ($200,000); Willow Point-Youngs Point, LA 
Items 450-R ($1,500,000); Farrell, MS Relief Wells ($200,000); 
Badger-Cottonwood Point, MO Seepage Control ($200,000); 
Tallula-Magna Vista, LA Items 474-R ($1,500,000) and 
($5,000,000) could be used to complete plans and specifications 
and initiate construction of the Lower Mississippi River Museum 
and Riverfront Interpretive Site.
    Yazoo Basin, Backwater Pumping Plant, MS.--The Committee 
has provided $25,000,000 to continue construction of the 
project. Within the funds provided, $150,000 is provided for 
the Teddy Roosevelt Environment Education Center.
    Yazoo Basin, Delta Headwaters Project, MS.--The Committee 
has provided $25,000,000 to continue construction of this 
project.
    Yazoo Basin, Upper Yazoo Project, MS.--The Committee has 
provided $20,000,000 to accelerate completion of this project. 
Within the funds provided, $1,000,000 is for bank 
stabilization.

Maintenance

    Mississippi River Levees, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO and TN.--
The Committee has provided $21,191,000 to continue construction 
of this project. Funds are provided to complete Levee 
Restoration, Mellwood, AR; initiate and complete Levee Repairs, 
Torras, LA; Levee Slide Repairs, Above Old River, LA; initiate 
Slope Pavement Repairs, Various Locations, LA; Floodwall 
Renovations, Mound City, IL; Replacement of Cache Levee 
Culvert, IL; Provide Levee Gravel, AR, LA and MS; Provide Levee 
Gravel, Commerce to Birds Point, MO; Provide Levee Gravel, 
Below Helena, AR and Provide Levee Gravel, Main Line Levee, LA.
    Atchafalaya Basin, LA.--The Committee has provided 
$13,400,000 for maintenance of this project. Additional funds 
are provided for levee gravel.
    The Committee has provided funding for necessary 
maintenance dredging for the harbor projects located along the 
main stem of the Mississippi River.
    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, 2005..................................\1\ $1,943,428,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................   1,979,000,000
House allowance.........................................   2,000,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,100,000,000

\1\ Excludes emergency appropriation of $155,400,000.

    The Committee continues to believe that it is essential to 
provide adequate resources and attention to operation and 
maintenance requirements in order to protect the large Federal 
investment. Yet, current and projected budgetary constraints 
require the Committee to limit the amount of work that can be 
accomplished in the fiscal year. In order to cope with the 
current situation, the Corps has had to defer or delay 
scheduled maintenance activities.
    Maintenance backlogs continue to grow, with much of the 
backlog being essential maintenance dredging needed to keep the 
Nation's ports, harbors, and waterways open and able to 
efficiently handle important national and international trade 
activities. Yet, the Committee is aware that out-year budget 
planning guidance for the Corps of Engineers projects is such 
that the current appropriations for their critical operation 
and maintenance activities will continue to decline for the 
foreseeable future. If additional resources are not made 
available, the Corps will be forced to cut back on services, 
and begin to terminate and close many projects and activities.
    The Committee is aware of the Corps' efforts to stretch the 
limited resources to cover all of its projects and to effect 
savings through a variety of means. With an increasing number 
of projects entering the inventory, and budgetary constraints 
increasing, it is clear that the Corps will have to find 
innovative ways of accomplishing required maintenance work, 
while reducing operational and other costs.
    The budget request has proposed that no navigation project 
with less than 1 billion ton-miles of cargo be eligible for 
maintenance dredging. The Committee believes that this is in 
direct conflict with the way projects are evaluated, 
authorized, and analyzed. Project analysis is based upon 
Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water 
and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies (1983), the 
Corps of Engineers Planning Guidance Notebook (2000), and other 
polices and procedures. For navigation studies, the analysis 
centers on transportation savings to the Nation considering the 
ultimate origins and destinations of commodities to be moved. 
Operation and maintenance costs are considered as a part of 
this analysis and are figured into the benefit to cost ratio 
utilized to make the investment decision. By applying an 
arbitrary ton-mile figure to determine O&M funding decisions, 
the budget request has essentially obviated the need for any of 
the previous studies undertaken to determine the investment 
decision.
    The Committee is concerned about the annual proposals for 
reductions of maintenance funding for ``low use waterways and 
ports''. These tributary waterways naturally do not enjoy the 
same level of relative efficiencies as mainstem waterways. The 
Mississippi and Ohio Rivers handle tremendous volumes of 
traffic over long distances and so generate impressive ton-mile 
statistics. Tributaries, by nature, provide generally short, 
smaller channels with lower traffic densities. Consequently, 
``ton-mile'' statistics for tributary waterways are dwarfed by 
statistics for the mainstem waterways. It is important to 
recognize that the commerce on the tributaries is usually only 
a small part of the total journey between producer and 
consumer. When these statistics are compared on a system basis, 
nearly all of these waterways appear to ``pay their way'' and 
are performing as the economic analysis indicated when they 
were originally authorized.
    Uncertainties in maintenance funding for lower use projects 
seriously impacts their ability to compete and become higher 
use facilities. Without funding to provide a stable channel and 
authorized depths and widths, industries and shippers are 
reluctant to make the necessary investments in using these 
projects. The Committee believes that proposed elimination of 
maintenance funding for authorized projects is not only a 
serious disservice to the public, but it demonstrates a 
profound lack of respect for the Congressional oversight 
committees that have jurisdiction for authorization and 
deauthorization of such projects.
    The Committee is not in favor of funding projects which are 
no longer economically viable nor environmentally sustainable. 
Unfortunately, the administration has chosen a path of 
underfunding, or an entire lack of funding, for projects in an 
effort to achieve de facto deauthorization through the 
appropriations process by utilizing the billion-ton-mile model.
    Further, the Committee believes much could be learned by 
the open exchange of how ``low-use'' waterways and ports are 
calculated, for the billion-ton-mile does not adequately 
reflect the flow of commerce today. The Committee remains 
concerned about the economic impacts of not maintaining all of 
our waterways and ports at their authorized depths. As a result 
of waterways not being maintained at the authorized depths, 
shippers are forced to divide their cargo and place it on a 
number of smaller ships in order to make passage to the final 
destination. This adds significantly to the cost and time of 
the movement of products in and around our waterways, something 
which the administration does not appropriately take into 
account when formulating the budget for the Corps. Therefore, 
the Committee strongly encourages the administration to put 
forth a proposal for a model which better reflects the flow of 
goods along all of our ports and waterways, including 
lightering. Until then, however, the Committee believes the 
administration has the responsibility to budget for each and 
every project such that the authorized widths and depths are 
maintained.

                       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.

     DIRECT FUNDING OF OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE WORK AND THE PMAS

    The President's Budget includes user charge proposals to 
offset discretionary spending. In particular, the 
Administration proposes that, starting in 2006, receipts from 
the sale of hydroelectric power generated at certain Federal 
dams operated by the Corps of Engineers be used to finance the 
operation and maintenance of those facilities. This direct 
financing arrangement already exists for the Bonneville Power 
Administration. However, due to budgetary scoring impacts the 
Committee is unable to extend this proposal to the 
Southeastern, Southwestern, and Western Power Administrations 
in the Department of Energy.
    The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 
shown on the following table:

                                  CORPS OF ENGINEERS--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Committee
                                                                                              recommendation
                                                      Budget     House       Committee     compared to (+ or -)
                   Project title                     estimate  allowance  recommendation -----------------------
                                                                                            Budget       House
                                                                                           estimate    allowance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      ALABAMA

ALABAMA--COOSA COMPREHENSIVE WATER STUDY, AL......        180        180           180    ..........  ..........
ALABAMA--COOSA RIVER, AL..........................      1,591      1,591         3,091        +1,500      +1,500
BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL............     22,117     22,117        22,117    ..........  ..........
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL....................      4,050      4,050         4,050    ..........  ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AL.................         50         50            50    ..........  ..........
MILLERS FERRY LOCK AND DAM, WILLIAM...............      7,315      7,315         7,315    ..........  ..........
MOBILE HARBOR, AL.................................     20,248     20,248        20,248    ..........  ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AL.....................        100        100           100    ..........  ..........
ROBERT F. HENRY LOCK AND DAM, AL..................      7,125      7,125         7,125    ..........  ..........
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AL...............        140        140           140    ..........  ..........
TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY WILDLIFE MITIGATION,       1,400      1,400         2,000          +600        +600
 AL...............................................
TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL AND MS...........     20,103     20,103        24,000        +3,897      +3,897
WALTER F. GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL AND GA..........      7,171      7,171         7,171    ..........  ..........

                      ALASKA

ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK..............................     11,470     11,470        11,470    ..........  ..........
CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK.............................      3,051      3,051         3,051    ..........  ..........
CORDOVA HARBOR, AK................................  .........  .........           600          +600        +600
DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK.............................        622        622           622    ..........  ..........
HOMER HARBOR, AK..................................        299        299           299    ..........  ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK.................         45         45            45    ..........  ..........
LOWELL CREEK TUNNEL, AK...........................  .........  .........           100          +100        +100
NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK..............................        248        248           248    ..........  ..........
NOME HARBOR, AK...................................      2,496      2,496         2,496    ..........  ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK.....................        588        588           588    ..........  ..........

                  AMERICAN SAMOA

OFU HARBOR, AMERICAN SAMOA........................      1,480      1,480         1,480    ..........  ..........
TAU HARBOR, AMERICAN SAMOA........................      1,372      1,372         1,372    ..........  ..........

                      ARIZONA

ALAMO LAKE, AZ....................................      1,280      1,280         1,730          +450        +450
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ.................         92         92            92    ..........  ..........
PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ..............................      1,220      1,220         1,220    ..........  ..........
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AZ...............         37         37            37    ..........  ..........
WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ.............................        190        190           190    ..........  ..........

                     ARKANSAS

BEAVER LAKE, AR...................................      5,744      5,744         5,744    ..........  ..........
BLAKELY MT. DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR................     10,084     10,084        10,084    ..........  ..........
BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR............................      1,292      1,292         1,292    ..........  ..........
BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR..............................      6,392      6,392         6,392    ..........  ..........
DARDANELLE LOCK AND DAM, AR.......................      6,524      6,524         6,524    ..........  ..........
DEGRAY LAKE, AR...................................      6,828      6,828         6,828    ..........  ..........
DEQUEEN LAKE, AR..................................      1,193      1,193         1,193    ..........  ..........
DIERKS LAKE, AR...................................      1,161      1,161         1,161    ..........  ..........
GILLHAM LAKE, AR..................................      1,093      1,093         1,093    ..........  ..........
GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR.............................      5,608      5,608         5,608    ..........  ..........
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR................         30         30           430          +400        +400
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR.................        199        199           199    ..........  ..........
MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM,       35,065     34,230        35,065    ..........        +835
 AR...............................................
MILLWOOD LAKE, AR.................................      1,782      1,782         1,782    ..........  ..........
NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR.....................      4,342      4,342         4,342    ..........  ..........
NIMROD LAKE, AR...................................      1,656      1,656         1,656    ..........  ..........
NORFORK LAKE, AR..................................      4,540      4,540         4,540    ..........  ..........
OSCEOLA HARBOR, AR................................         29        299            29    ..........        -270
OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR AND LA..............      8,500     10,400        10,400        +1,900  ..........
OZARK-JETA TAYLOR LOCK AND DAM, AR................      5,151      5,151         5,151    ..........  ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AR.....................          7          7             7    ..........  ..........
WHITE RIVER, AR...................................        215        215         1,000          +785        +785
YELLOW BEND PORT, AR..............................  .........  .........           176          +176        +176

                    CALIFORNIA

BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA..............................      1,989      1,989         1,989    ..........  ..........
BUCHANAN DAM, HV EASTMAN LAKE, CA.................      1,781      1,781         1,781    ..........  ..........
CHANNEL ISLANDS HARBOR, CA........................        310        310           310    ..........  ..........
COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, CA.............      4,084      4,000         4,084    ..........         +84
CRESENT CITY HARBOR...............................  .........  .........           500          +500        +500
DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND CHANNEL, CA.....      5,272      5,825         5,272    ..........        -553
FARMINGTON DAM, CA................................        202        202           202    ..........  ..........
HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA......................      2,090      2,090         2,090    ..........  ..........
HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA.......................      5,069      5,000         5,069    ..........         +69
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA.................      1,396      1,396         1,396    ..........  ..........
ISABELLA LAKE, CA.................................      2,291      2,291         2,291    ..........  ..........
JACK D. MALTESTER CHANNEL, CA (SAN LEANDRO).......  .........  .........           750          +750        +750
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA..............      4,287      4,287         4,287    ..........  ..........
LOWER PETALUMA RIVER, CA..........................  .........  .........           750          +750        +750
MARINA DEL REY, CA................................  .........  .........         1,000        +1,000      +1,000
MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA.........................        251        251           251    ..........  ..........
MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA..............................        290        290           290    ..........  ..........
MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA..............................      1,616      1,616         1,616    ..........  ..........
MOSS LANDING HARBOR, CA...........................  .........      1,475  ..............  ..........      -1,475
NAPA RIVER, CA....................................  .........  .........           750          +750        +750
NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA................................      1,994      1,994         1,994    ..........  ..........
NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL, CA..........      1,634      1,634         1,634    ..........  ..........
NOYO RIVER AND HARBOR, CA.........................         28         28           250          +222        +222
OAKLAND HARBOR, CA................................      6,205      6,205         6,205    ..........  ..........
OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA..............................      1,040      1,040         1,040    ..........  ..........
PILLAR POINT HARBOR...............................  .........  .........           500          +500        +500
PINE FLAT LAKE, CA................................      2,831      2,831         2,831    ..........  ..........
PINOLE SHOAL MANAGEMENT STUDY, CA.................  .........        250  ..............  ..........        -250
PORT HUENEME, CA..................................  .........  .........           500          +500        +500
PORT SAN LUIS, CA.................................  .........  .........           500          +500        +500
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA.....................      1,891      1,891         1,891    ..........  ..........
REDWOOD CITY HARBOR, CA...........................      4,967      4,967         4,967    ..........  ..........
RICHMOND HARBOR, CA...............................      7,972      7,972         7,972    ..........  ..........
SACRAMENTO RIVER (BASULE BRIDGE), CA..............  .........  .........         1,000        +1,000      +1,000
SACRAMENTO RIVER (30 FOOT PROJECT), CA............      2,790      2,790         2,790    ..........  ..........
SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (DEBRIS CONTROL),      1,299      1,299         1,299    ..........  ..........
 CA...............................................
SACRAMENTO RIVER SHALLOW DRAFT CHANNEL, CA........        119        119           119    ..........  ..........
SAN FRANCISCO BAY, DELTA MODEL STRUCTURE, CA......      1,185      1,185         1,185    ..........  ..........
SAN FRANCISCO BAY LONG TERM MANAGEMENT STUDY, CA..  .........      1,600  ..............  ..........     -1,6000
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY, CA (DRIFT REMOVAL)..      2,000      2,000         2,000    ..........  ..........
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA..........................      2,223      2,223         2,223    ..........  ..........
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, CA.............................      2,886      2,886         2,886    ..........  ..........
SAN PABLO BAY AND MARE ISLAND STRAIT, CA..........      3,320      3,320         3,320    ..........  ..........
SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA.........................      3,321      3,321         3,321    ..........  ..........
SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA..........................      1,408      1,408         1,408    ..........  ..........
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CA...............      1,499      1,499         1,499    ..........  ..........
SUCCESS LAKE, CA..................................      1,809      1,809         1,809    ..........  ..........
SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA............................      5,132      5,132         5,132    ..........  ..........
TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA.....................      1,692      1,692         1,692    ..........  ..........
UPPER PETALUMA RIVER,CA...........................  .........  .........           300          +300        +300
VENTURA HARBOR, CA................................      2,200      2,200         2,900          +700        +700
YUBA RIVER, CA....................................         29         29            29    ..........  ..........

                     COLORADO

BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO...............................        407        407           407    ..........  ..........
CHATFIELD LAKE, CO................................      1,233      1,233         1,900          +667        +667
CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO.............................      1,941      1,941         2,607          +666        +666
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO.................        107        107           107    ..........  ..........
JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO.........................      2,926      2,926         2,926    ..........  ..........
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CO...............        590        590           590    ..........  ..........
TRINIDAD LAKE, CO.................................      1,021      1,021         1,688          +667        +667
COMMONWEALTH OF NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS ROTA             260        260           260    ..........  ..........
 HARBOR, CNMI.....................................

                    CONNECTICUT

BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT...............................        592        592           592    ..........  ..........
BRIDGEPORT HARBOR, CT.............................  .........  .........         1,500        +1,500      +1,500
CLINTON HARBOR, CT................................  .........        100           250          +250        +150
COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT..........................        583        583           583    ..........  ..........
HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT............................        599        599           599    ..........  ..........
HOP BROOK LAKE, CT................................      1,005      1,005         1,005    ..........  ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CT.................         79         79            79    ..........  ..........
MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT.........................        535        535           535    ..........  ..........
NORTH COVE HARBOR, CT.............................  .........  .........         2,000        +2,000      +2,000
NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT.........................        527        527           527    ..........  ..........
NORWALK FEDERAL NAVIGATION PROJECT, CT............  .........        500         1,000        +1,000        +500
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CT.....................      1,000      1,000         1,000    ..........  ..........
STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT....................        417        417           417    ..........  ..........
THOMASTON DAM, CT.................................        951        951           951    ..........  ..........
WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT............................        724        724           724    ..........  ..........

                     DELAWARE

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE RIVER TO               11,475     11,475        12,475        +1,000      +1,000
 CHESAPEAKE BAY...................................
MISPILLION RIVER, DE..............................         20         20            20    ..........  ..........
MURDERKILL RIVER, DE..............................         20         20            20    ..........  ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DE.....................         86         86            86    ..........  ..........
WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE.............................      3,860      3,800         3,860    ..........         +60

               DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DC.................          9          9             9    ..........  ..........
POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVERS, DC (DRIFT REMOVAL)..        744        744           744    ..........  ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DC.....................         37         37            37    ..........  ..........
WASHINGTON HARBOR, DC.............................        600        600           600    ..........  ..........

                      FLORIDA

AIWW, NORFOLK, VA TO ST. JOHNS RIVER, FL, GA, SC,   .........  .........           500          +500        +500
 NC, VA...........................................
CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL..............................      3,828      6,000         3,000          -828      -3,000
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL..................     14,213     14,213        14,213    ..........  ..........
ESCAMBIA AND CONECUH RIVERS, FL...................      1,000      1,000         1,000    ..........  ..........
FERNANDINA HARBOR, FL.............................      1,513      1,513         1,513    ..........  ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL.................        300        300           300    ..........  ..........
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, CALOOSAHATCHEE TO ANCLOTE,   .........  .........         1,000        +1,000      +1,000
 FL...............................................
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI, FL..        250        250         4,000        +3,750      +3,750
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL...........................      3,637      3,637         3,637    ..........  ..........
JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE SEMINOLE, FL, AL,       8,188      8,188         8,188    ..........  ..........
 AND GA...........................................
MANATEE HARBOR, FL................................      2,000      2,000         2,000    ..........  ..........
MIAMI HARBOR, FL..................................      1,530      1,530         1,530    ..........  ..........
MIAMI RIVER, FL...................................  .........      1,000         3,500        +3,500      +2,500
OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL...........................      2,060      2,060         2,060    ..........  ..........
PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL.............................      1,183      1,183         1,183    ..........  ..........
PANAMA CITY HARBOR, FL............................        906        906           906    ..........  ..........
PENSACOLA HARBOR, FL..............................      1,315      1,315         1,315    ..........  ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL.....................      1,325      1,325         1,325    ..........  ..........
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL.....................      2,306      2,306         2,306    ..........  ..........
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, FL...............         30         30            30    ..........  ..........
SUWANEE RIVER, FL.................................  .........        500  ..............  ..........        -500
TAMPA HARBOR, FL..................................      4,500     10,000         4,000          -500      -6,000

                      GEORGIA

ALLATOONA LAKE, GA................................      7,322      7,322         7,322    ..........  ..........
APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT RIVERS, GA,       1,050      1,050         6,500        +5,450      +5,450
 AL &.............................................
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GA................        286        286           286    ..........  ..........
BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA..............................      2,396      2,396         2,396    ..........  ..........
BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GA.............      8,519      8,519         8,519    ..........  ..........
CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA..........................     10,637     10,637        10,637    ..........  ..........
HARTWELL LAKE, GA AND SC..........................     16,619     16,619        16,619    ..........  ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA.................         41         41            41    ..........  ..........
J STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA AND SC..................     11,047     11,047        11,047    ..........  ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, GA.....................         90         90            90    ..........  ..........
RICHARD B. RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND SC........     12,283     12,283        12,283    ..........  ..........
SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA...............................     13,521     13,521        13,521    ..........  ..........
WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA AND AL................     11,449     11,449        11,449    ..........  ..........

                      HAWAII

BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI..........................        231        231           231    ..........  ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI.................        189        189           189    ..........  ..........
POHIKI BAY HAWAII, HI.............................  .........  .........           100          +100        +100
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI.....................        200        200           200    ..........  ..........

                       IDAHO

ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID..............................      1,792      1,792         1,792    ..........  ..........
DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID....................      2,464      2,464         2,464    ..........  ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID.................         78         78            78    ..........  ..........
LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID...............................      2,567      2,567         2,567    ..........  ..........
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ID...............        430        430           430    ..........  ..........

                     ILLINOIS

CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL AND IN...............      2,900      2,900         2,900    ..........  ..........
CARLYLE LAKE, IL..................................      6,745      6,745         6,745    ..........  ..........
CHICAGO HARBOR, IL................................      3,499      3,499         3,499    ..........  ..........
CHICAGO RIVER, IL.................................        385        385           385    ..........  ..........
FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL.........................        214        214           214    ..........  ..........
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVR PORTION), IL AND IN........     24,702     25,767        24,702    ..........      -1,065
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVS PORTION), IL AND IN........      1,065      1,065         1,065    ..........  ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL.................        631        631           631    ..........  ..........
KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL....................      1,189      1,189         1,189    ..........  ..........
LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL.......................        547        547           547    ..........  ..........
LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL..............................      5,186      5,186         6,186        +1,000      +1,000
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS..........  .........     67,030  ..............  ..........  ..........
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVR          48,107  .........        50,407        +2,300      +2,300
 PORTION).........................................
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVS          18,923  .........        18,923    ..........  ..........
 PORTION).........................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL.....................         33         33            33    ..........  ..........
REND LAKE, IL.....................................      5,254      5,254         5,254    ..........  ..........
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IL......        114        114           114    ..........  ..........
WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL...............................        680      2,680           680    ..........      -2,000

                      INDIANA

BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN...............................        872        872           872    ..........  ..........
BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN.........................  .........        800  ..............  ..........        -800
CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN..............................        600        600           600    ..........  ..........
CECIL M. HARDEN LAKE, IN..........................        687        687           687    ..........  ..........
INDIANA HARBOR, IN................................  .........        300  ..............  ..........        -300
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN.................        370        370           370    ..........  ..........
J. EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN..........................        643        643           643    ..........  ..........
MICHIGAN CITY HARBOR, IN..........................  .........  .........           500          +500        +500
MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN.............................        751        751           751    ..........  ..........
MONROE LAKE, IN...................................        689        689           689    ..........  ..........
PATOKA LAKE, IN...................................        619        619           619    ..........  ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN.....................         59         59            59    ..........  ..........
SALAMONIE LAKE, IN................................        637        637           637    ..........  ..........
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IN......        111        111           111    ..........  ..........

                       IOWA

CORALVILLE LAKE, IA...............................      2,537      2,537         2,537    ..........  ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA.................        202        202           202    ..........  ..........
MISSOURI RIVER-KENSLERS BEND, NE TO SIOUX CITY, IA        152        152           152    ..........  ..........
MISSOURI RIVER-RULO TO MOUTH, IA, NE, KS, AND MO..      6,475      6,475         6,475    ..........  ..........
MISSOURI RIVER-SIOUX CITY TO RULO, IA AND NE......      2,417      2,417         2,417    ..........  ..........
RATHBUN LAKE, IA..................................      2,081      2,081         2,081    ..........  ..........
RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA................      3,415      3,415         3,415    ..........  ..........
SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA..............................      3,952      4,202         4,202          +250  ..........

                      KANSAS

CLINTON LAKE, KS..................................      1,987      1,987         1,987    ..........  ..........
COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS............................      1,544      1,544         1,544    ..........  ..........
EL DORADO LAKE, KS................................        339        339           339    ..........  ..........
ELK CITY LAKE, KS.................................        692        692           692    ..........  ..........
FALL RIVER LAKE, KS...............................      2,154      2,154         2,154    ..........  ..........
HILLSDALE LAKE, KS................................        703        703           703    ..........  ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KS.................         85         85            85    ..........  ..........
JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS................      1,081      1,081         1,081    ..........  ..........
KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS................................      1,634      1,634         1,634    ..........  ..........
MARION LAKE, KS...................................      1,551      1,551         1,551    ..........  ..........
MELVERN LAKE, KS..................................      1,828      1,828         1,828    ..........  ..........
MILFORD LAKE, KS..................................      2,903      2,903         2,903    ..........  ..........
PEARSON-KUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS..................      1,052      1,052         1,052    ..........  ..........
PERRY LAKE, KS....................................      2,211      2,211         2,211    ..........  ..........
POMONA LAKE, KS...................................      1,810      1,810         1,810    ..........  ..........
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, KS...............         32         32            32    ..........  ..........
TORONTO LAKE, KS..................................        402        402           402    ..........  ..........
TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS.............................      2,189      2,189         2,189    ..........  ..........
WILSON LAKE, KS...................................      1,509      1,509         1,609          +100        +100

                     KENTUCKY

BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY, AND TN..........      9,507      9,507         9,507    ..........  ..........
BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY.............................      2,102      2,102         3,000          +898        +898
BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY..............................      1,091      1,091         1,091    ..........  ..........
BUCKHORN LAKE, KY.................................      1,195      1,195         1,195    ..........  ..........
CARR CREEK LAKE, KY...............................      1,252      1,652         1,252    ..........        -400
CAVE RUN LAKE, KY.................................        733        733           733    ..........  ..........
DEWEY LAKE, KY....................................      1,245      1,245         1,245    ..........  ..........
ELVIS STAHR (HICKMAN) HARBOR, KY..................         40         40            40    ..........  ..........
FISHTRAP LAKE, KY.................................      1,621      1,621         1,621    ..........  ..........
GRAYSON LAKE, KY..................................      1,140      1,140         1,140    ..........  ..........
GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY.......................      1,178      1,178         1,178    ..........  ..........
GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY..............................      1,882      1,882         1,882    ..........  ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY.................         98         98            98    ..........  ..........
LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY.............................      1,814      1,814         1,814    ..........  ..........
MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY.............................        599        599           599    ..........  ..........
MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KY............         62         62            62    ..........  ..........
NOLIN LAKE, KY....................................      1,817      1,817         1,817    ..........  ..........
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, IN, AND OH.....     32,210     32,210        32,210    ..........  ..........
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, IL, IN, AND OH..      3,928      3,928         3,928    ..........  ..........
PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY..............................        912        912           912    ..........  ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, KY.....................          7          7             7    ..........  ..........
ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY..............................      1,945      1,945         1,945    ..........  ..........
TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY.............................      1,149      1,149         1,149    ..........  ..........
WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY...............      5,902      5,902         5,902    ..........  ..........
YATESVILLE LAKE, KY...............................      1,070      1,070         1,070    ..........  ..........

                     LOUISIANA

ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF AND          15,948     15,948        24,948        +9,000      +9,000
 BLACK, LA........................................
BARATARIA BAY.....................................  .........  .........         1,300        +1,300      +1,300
BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA........................      1,402      1,402         1,402    ..........  ..........
BAYOU LACOMBE.....................................  .........  .........           500          +500        +500
BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP WATERWAY, LA...  .........  .........         1,000        +1,000      +1,000
BAYOU PIERRE, LA..................................         32         32            32    ..........  ..........
BAYOU SEGNETTE, LA................................  .........  .........         1,450        +1,450      +1,450
BAYOU TECHE.......................................  .........  .........           800          +800        +800
CADDO LAKE, LA....................................        330        330           330    ..........  ..........
CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA......................      9,032      9,032        14,032        +5,000      +5,000
FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA..............................      1,466      1,466         1,466    ..........  ..........
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA....................     19,614     19,000        19,614    ..........        +614
HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA........................        253        253           253    ..........  ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA.................        856        856           856    ..........  ..........
J. BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA..................     10,115     10,115        13,115        +3,000      +3,000
LAKE PROVIDENCE HARBOR, LA........................  .........  .........           491          +491        +491
MADISON PARISH PORT, LA...........................  .........  .........            86           +86         +86
MERMENTAU RIVER, LA...............................      2,538      2,538         2,538    ..........  ..........
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE GULF OF          54,053     54,053        54,053    ..........  ..........
 MEXICO...........................................
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, GULF OUTLET, LA................     14,111     13,500        14,111    ..........        +611
MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT VENICE, LA...........  .........  .........         2,500        +2,500      +2,500
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, LA.....................         60         60            60    ..........  ..........
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA.....................      2,000      2,000         2,000    ..........  ..........
WALLACE LAKE, LA..................................        291        291           291    ..........  ..........
WATERWAY FROM EMPIRE TO THE GULF, LA..............  .........  .........           240          +240        +240
WATERWAY FROM INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY TO BAYOU        .........  .........           200          +200        +200
 DULAC, LA........................................

                       MAINE

BASS HARBOR, ME...................................         95         95            95    ..........  ..........
CARVERS HARBOR, ME................................        270        270           270    ..........  ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ME.................         21         21            21    ..........  ..........
INTERNATIONAL ST. CROIX RIVER BOARD OF CONTROL, ME         17         17            17    ..........  ..........
KENNEBUNK RIVER, ME...............................  .........        700  ..............  ..........        -700
PORTLAND HARBOR, ME...............................        520        520           520    ..........  ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME.....................        866        866           866    ..........  ..........

                     MARYLAND

BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 FOOT), MD.......     15,214     15,214        19,214        +4,000      +4,000
BALTIMORE HARBOR, MD (DRIFT REMOVAL)..............        326        326           326    ..........  ..........
CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV...................        126        126           750          +624        +624
HERRING CREEK, TALL TIMBERS, MD...................  .........  .........           450          +450        +450
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD.................         36         36            36    ..........  ..........
JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD AND WV.................      1,907      1,907         1,907    ..........  ..........
KANPPS NARROWS, MD................................  .........  .........           700          +700        +700
NANTICOKE RIVER NORTHWEST FORK, MD................        240        240           240    ..........  ..........
OCEAN CITY HARBOR AND INLET AND SINEPUXENT BAY, MD        220        220         1,900        +1,680      +1,680
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD.....................        379        379           379    ..........  ..........
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MD...............         97         97            97    ..........  ..........
ST. JEROME CREEK, MD..............................  .........  .........           850          +850        +850
TILGHMAN ISLAND HARBOR,MD.........................  .........  .........           450          +450        +450
WICOMICO RIVER, MD................................        500        500           500    ..........  ..........

                   MASSACHUSETTS

AUNT LYDIA'S COVE, MA.............................  .........        250  ..............  ..........        -250
BARRE FALLS DAM, MA...............................        637        637           637    ..........  ..........
BIRCH HILL DAM, MA................................        607        607           607    ..........  ..........
BOSTON HARBOR, MA.................................  .........  .........         7,500        +7,500      +7,500
BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA..............................        592        592           592    ..........  ..........
CAPE COD CANAL, MA................................      8,896      8,750         8,896    ..........        +146
CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY STORAGE AREA, MA.....        312        312           312    ..........  ..........
CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA.............................        362        362           362    ..........  ..........
EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA...........................        458        458           458    ..........  ..........
GREEN HARBOR, MA..................................  .........  .........           350          +350        +350
HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA............................        591        591           591    ..........  ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA.................        114        114           114    ..........  ..........
KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA...............................        677        677           677    ..........  ..........
LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA..............................        541        541           541    ..........  ..........
MERRIMACK RIVER, MA...............................  .........  .........           200          +200        +200
NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET HURRICANE              337        337           337    ..........  ..........
 BARRIER..........................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA.....................      1,300      1,300         1,300    ..........  ..........
TULLY LAKE, MA....................................        595        595           595    ..........  ..........
WEST HILL DAM, MA.................................        798        798           798    ..........  ..........
WESTVILLE LAKE, MA................................        579        579           579    ..........  ..........
WEYMOUTH-FORE RIVER, MA...........................      3,774      3,700         3,774    ..........         +74

                     MICHIGAN

ALPENA HARBOR, MI.................................  .........  .........           290          +290        +290
ARCADIA HARBOR, MI................................  .........  .........            80           +80         +80
CASEVILLE HARBOR, MI..............................  .........  .........           128          +128        +128
CEDAR RIVER HARBOR, MI............................  .........  .........           550          +550        +550
CHANNELS IN LAKE ST. CLAIR, MI....................        183        183           183    ..........  ..........
CHARLEVOIX HARBOR, MI.............................         89         89            89    ..........  ..........
DETROIT RIVER, MI.................................      4,347      4,347         4,347    ..........  ..........
FRANKFORT HARBOR, MI..............................         37         37            37    ..........  ..........
GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI............................      1,879      1,879         1,879    ..........  ..........
GRAND MARAIS HARBOR, MI...........................         14         14         1,714        +1,700      +1,700
HARBOR BEACH HARBOR, MI...........................  .........        100           500          +500        +400
HOLLAND HARBOR, MI................................      1,354      1,354         1,354    ..........  ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI.................        144        144           144    ..........  ..........
KEWEENAW WATERWAY, MI.............................        370        370           370    ..........  ..........
LAC LA BELLE, MI..................................         92         92            92    ..........  ..........
LELAND HARBOR, MI.................................  .........  .........            88           +88         +88
LITTLE LAKE HARBOR, MI............................  .........  .........           186          +186        +186
LUDINGTON HARBOR, MI..............................        500        500           500    ..........  ..........
MENOMINEE HARBOR, MI AND HI.......................  .........        400           400          +400  ..........
MONROE HARBOR, MI.................................        550        550           550    ..........  ..........
MUSKEGON HARBOR, MI...............................        525        525           525    ..........  ..........
NEW BUFFALO HARBOR, MI............................  .........  .........            79           +79         +79
ONTONAGON HARBOR, MI..............................  .........  .........           300          +300        +300
PENTWATER, MI.....................................  .........        100           100          +100  ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI.....................        178        178           178    ..........  ..........
ROUGE RIVER, MI...................................      1,161      1,161         1,161    ..........  ..........
SAGINAW RIVER, MI.................................      2,427      2,427         2,427    ..........  ..........
SEBEWAING RIVER, MI...............................  .........  .........           360          +360        +360
ST. CLAIR RIVER, MI...............................        920        920           920    ..........  ..........
ST. JOSEPH HARBOR, MI.............................        470        470         1,085          +615        +615
ST. MARYS RIVER, MI...............................     17,134     17,134        17,134    ..........  ..........
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MI......      2,314      2,314         2,314    ..........  ..........

                     MINNESOTA

BIGSTONE LAKE WHETSTONE RIVER, MN AND SD..........        164        164           164    ..........  ..........
DULUTH-SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN AND WI.................      5,081      5,381         5,081    ..........        -300
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN.................        129        129           129    ..........  ..........
LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA RIVER, MN..........        363        363           363    ..........  ..........
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVP          58,073     58,073        57,073        -1,000      -1,000
 PORTION).........................................
ORWELL LAKE, MN...................................        261        261           261    ..........  ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN.....................         67         67            67    ..........  ..........
RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN............................        320        320           320    ..........  ..........
RESERVOIR PLAN OPERATING EVALUATION, MN...........  .........        400  ..............  ..........        -400
RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN.      2,263      2,263         2,263    ..........  ..........
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MN......        310        310           310    ..........  ..........
WARROAD HARBOR, MN................................  .........  .........           250          +250        +250

                    MISSISSIPPI

CLAIBORNE COUNTY PORT, MS.........................  .........  .........            62           +62         +62
EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS....................        102        102           170           +68         +68
GULFPORT HARBOR, MS...............................      2,500      2,500         4,000        +1,500      +1,500
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS.................         57         57            57    ..........  ..........
MOUTH OF THE YAZOO RIVER, MS......................  .........  .........           110          +110        +110
OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS................................      1,680      1,680         2,300          +620        +620
PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS.............................      5,156      5,156         5,156    ..........  ..........
PEARL RIVER, MS AND LA............................        276        276           276    ..........  ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MS.....................        181        181           181    ..........  ..........
ROSEDALE HARBOR, MS...............................  .........  .........           580          +580        +580
YAZOO RIVER, MS...................................  .........  .........           140          +140        +140

                     MISSOURI

CARUTHERSVILLE HARBOR, MO.........................         23         23           350          +327        +327
CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE, MO.......      6,107      6,107         6,107    ..........  ..........
CLEARWATER LAKE, MO...............................      2,677      2,600         2,677    ..........         +77
HANNIBAL, MO......................................  .........  .........            76           +76         +76
HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO..............      9,140      9,140         9,140    ..........  ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO.................        768        768           768    ..........  ..........
LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO.......................        730        730           730    ..........  ..........
LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO..............................        848        848           848    ..........  ..........
MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS (REG            29,559     29,559        29,559    ..........  ..........
 WORKS), MO.......................................
NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO.............................  .........  .........           360          +360        +360
POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO...........................      1,963      1,963         1,963    ..........  ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MO.....................          7          7             7    ..........  ..........
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MO...............        319        319           319    ..........  ..........
SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO...............................      1,237      1,237         1,237    ..........  ..........
SOUTHEAST MISSOURI PORT, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MO....  .........  .........           350          +350        +350
STOCKTON LAKE, MO.................................      3,742      3,742         3,742    ..........  ..........
TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO...............................      7,556      7,556         7,556    ..........  ..........
UNION LAKE, MO....................................          6          6             6    ..........  ..........

                      MONTANA

FT PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT..........................      4,154      4,154         4,154    ..........  ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MT.................         19         19            19    ..........  ..........
LIBBY DAM, LAKE KOOCANUSA, MT.....................      2,189      2,189         2,189    ..........  ..........
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MT...............         87         87            87    ..........  ..........

                     NEBRASKA

GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK LAKE, NE AND SD.      8,231      8,231         8,231    ..........  ..........
HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE............................      1,863      1,863         1,863    ..........  ..........
HARLAN COUNTY LAKE DAM SAFETY STUDY, NE...........  .........        355  ..............  ..........        -355
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NE.................        102        102           102    ..........  ..........
MISSOURI R. MASTER WTR CONTROL MANUAL, NE, IA, KS,        203        203           203    ..........  ..........
 MO,..............................................
PAPILLION CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES LAKES, NE.........        625        625  ..............  ..........  ..........
SALT CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, NE....................        845        845           845    ..........  ..........

                      NEVADA

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV.................         46         46            46    ..........  ..........
MARTIS CREEK LAKE, NV AND CA......................        586        586           586    ..........  ..........
PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV................        214        214           214    ..........  ..........

                   NEW HAMPSHIRE

BLACKWATER DAM, NH................................        644        644           644    ..........  ..........
COCHECO RIVER.....................................  .........  .........         2,000        +2,000      +2,000
EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH.........................        555        555           555    ..........  ..........
FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH............................        768        768           768    ..........  ..........
HOPKINTON-EVERETT LAKES, NH.......................      1,228      1,228         1,228    ..........  ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NH.................         12         12            12    ..........  ..........
OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH..............................        806        806           806    ..........  ..........
PORTSMOUTH HARBOR/PISCATAQUA RIVER, NH............  .........  .........           500          +500        +500
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NH.....................        300        300           300    ..........  ..........
SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH...........................        736        736           736    ..........  ..........

                    NEW JERSEY

ABSECON INLET.....................................  .........  .........           110          +110        +110
BARNEGAT INLET, NJ................................         95         95           500          +405        +405
COLD SPRING INLET, NJ.............................        540        540           540    ..........  ..........
DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ......................         10         10            10    ..........  ..........
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE SEA, NJ, PA,       20,465     20,465        20,465    ..........  ..........
 AND DE...........................................
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO TRENTON, NJ...        720        720           720    ..........  ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NJ.................        106        106           106    ..........  ..........
MANASQUAN RIVER, NJ...............................        510        510           510    ..........  ..........
NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC RIVERS, NJ.....      8,120      8,120         8,120    ..........  ..........
NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY..................  .........  .........         1,250        +1,250      +1,250
PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD WARNING SYSTEMS, NJ...........        450        450           450    ..........  ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NJ.....................      1,675      1,675         1,675    ..........  ..........
RARITAN RIVER TO ARTHUR KILL CUT-OFF, NJ..........        150        150           150    ..........  ..........
RARITAN RIVER, NJ.................................      2,500      2,400         2,500    ..........        +100
SALEM RIVER, NJ...................................  .........  .........           965          +965        +965
SAVOY HOOK AT LEONARDO, NJ........................  .........  .........           150          +150        +150
SHARK RIVER, NJ...................................         80         80           230          +150        +150
SHREWSBURY RIVER MAIN CHANNEL, NJ.................  .........  .........           400          +400        +400

                    NEW MEXICO

ABIQUIU DAM, NM...................................      3,168      3,168         3,168    ..........  ..........
ALBUQUERQUE LEVEES, NM............................  .........  .........         2,000        +1,000      +1,000
COCHITI LAKE, NM..................................      3,726      3,726         4,426          +700        +700
CONCHAS LAKE, NM..................................      1,579      1,579         2,579        +1,000      +1,000
GALISTEO DAM, NM..................................        779        750           779    ..........         +29
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM.................        221        221           221    ..........  ..........
JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM..............................      3,561      3,561         5,061        +1,500      +1,500
RIO GRANDE BOSQUE REHABILITATION, NM..............  .........  .........         4,000        +4,000      +4,000
SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM.......................      1,213      1,213         1,213    ..........  ..........
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NM...............      1,221      1,221         1,221    ..........  ..........
TWO RIVERS DAM, NM................................        552        552           552    ..........  ..........
UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS MODEL...........  .........  .........         2,000        +2,000      +2,000

                     NEW YORK

ALMOND LAKE, NY...................................        509        509           509    ..........  ..........
ARKPORT DAM, NY...................................        294        294           294    ..........  ..........
BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR, NY.......      1,308      1,308         1,308    ..........  ..........
BROWNS CREEK, NY..................................        100        100           100    ..........  ..........
BUFFALO HARBOR, NY................................      1,030      1,030         1,030    ..........  ..........
BUTTERMILK CHANNEL, NY............................         60         60            60    ..........  ..........
EAST RIVER, NY....................................      1,350      1,350         1,350    ..........  ..........
EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY...........................        140        140           140    ..........  ..........
EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY..............................        517        517           517    ..........  ..........
EASTCHESTER CREEK, NY.............................        100        100           100    ..........  ..........
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY..............        220        220           220    ..........  ..........
FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY........................        150        150           150    ..........  ..........
GREAT SOUTH BAY, NY...............................        200        200           200    ..........  ..........
HUDSON RIVER CHANNEL, NY..........................        350        350           350    ..........  ..........
HUDSON RIVER, NY (MAINT)..........................      1,794      1,794         1,794    ..........  ..........
HUDSON RIVER, NY (O&C)............................      1,090      1,090         1,090    ..........  ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY.................        659        659           659    ..........  ..........
JAMAICA BAY, NY...................................        140        140           140    ..........  ..........
LONG ISLAND INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NY.............        200        200           200    ..........  ..........
MORICHES INLET, NY................................         80         80            80    ..........  ..........
MT MORRIS LAKE, NY................................      3,845      3,845         3,845    ..........  ..........
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS, NY..............      7,200      7,200         7,200    ..........  ..........
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY...............................      3,410      3,410         3,410    ..........  ..........
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY AND NJ (DRIFT REMOVAL)........      4,400      4,400         4,400    ..........  ..........
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY AND NJ (PREV OF OBSTRUCTIVE     .........  .........           950          +950        +950
 DEPOSIT..........................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY.....................      1,310      1,310         1,310    ..........  ..........
SHINNECOCK INLET, NY..............................        120        120           120    ..........  ..........
SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS, NY......        662        662           662    ..........  ..........
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, NY......        710        710           710    ..........  ..........
WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY............................        678        678           678    ..........  ..........

                  NORTH CAROLINA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NC................        860        860         5,860        +5,000      +5,000
B. EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC................      1,849      1,849         1,849    ..........  ..........
CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC..............        635        635           635    ..........  ..........
CAROLINA BEACH INLET..............................  .........  .........           550          +550        +550
FALLS LAKE, NC....................................      2,097      2,097         2,097    ..........  ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC.................         35         35            35    ..........  ..........
LOCKWOODS FOLLY RIVER, NC.........................  .........  .........           950          +950        +950
MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC.......................      7,855      7,855        15,855        +8,000      +8,000
MASONBORO INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS, NC.......      3,700      3,700         3,700    ..........  ..........
MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC..........................      3,575      3,575         3,575    ..........  ..........
NEW RIVER INLET, NC...............................  .........  .........         1,050        +1,050      +1,050
NEW TOPSAIL INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS, NC.....  .........  .........           675          +675        +675
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC.....................        226        226           226    ..........  ..........
SILVER LAKE HARBOR, NC............................      1,540      1,540         1,540    ..........  ..........
W. KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC...............      2,817      2,817         2,817    ..........  ..........
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC.............................     13,963     13,963        13,963    ..........  ..........

                   NORTH DAKOTA

BOWMAN-HALEY LAKE, ND.............................        156        156           156    ..........  ..........
GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND..................     13,266     13,516        14,266        +1,000        +750
HOMME LAKE, ND....................................        266        266           266    ..........  ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND.................         85         85            85    ..........  ..........
LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND...............      1,242      1,242         1,242    ..........  ..........
PIPESTEM LAKE, ND.................................        459        459           459    ..........  ..........
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ND...............        117        117           117    ..........  ..........
SOURIS RIVER, ND..................................        422        422           422    ..........  ..........
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ND......         31         31            31    ..........  ..........

                       OHIO

ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH...............................        948        948           948    ..........  ..........
ASHTABULA HARBOR, OH..............................      1,063      1,063         1,063    ..........  ..........
BERLIN LAKE, OH...................................      1,544      1,544         1,544    ..........  ..........
CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH.............................      1,222      1,222         1,222    ..........  ..........
CLARENCE J. BROWN DAM, OH.........................      1,358      1,358         1,358    ..........  ..........
CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH..............................      3,305      3,305         3,305    ..........  ..........
CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH...............................      2,315      2,315         2,315    ..........  ..........
DEER CREEK LAKE, OH...............................        815        815           815    ..........  ..........
DELAWARE LAKE, OH.................................        794        794           794    ..........  ..........
DILLON LAKE, OH...................................      1,790      1,790         1,790    ..........  ..........
HURON HARBOR, OH..................................  .........  .........           105          +105        +105
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH.................        280        280           280    ..........  ..........
LORAIN HARBOR, OH.................................        600        600           600    ..........  ..........
MASSILLON LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH............         25         25            25    ..........  ..........
MICHAEL J. KIRWAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, OH...........        718        718           718    ..........  ..........
MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH...........................        717        717           717    ..........  ..........
MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH.........................      6,754      6,754         6,754    ..........  ..........
NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, OH..............        125        125           125    ..........  ..........
PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH..............................        721        721           721    ..........  ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH.....................        240        240           240    ..........  ..........
ROSEVILLE LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH............         30         30            30    ..........  ..........
SANDUSKY HARBOR, OH...............................        890        850           890    ..........         +40
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OH......        170        170           170    ..........  ..........
TOLEDO HARBOR, OH.................................      3,682      3,650         3,682    ..........         +32
TOM JENKINS DAM, OH...............................        290        290           290    ..........  ..........
WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH..................        403        403           403    ..........  ..........
WILLIAM H. HARSHA LAKE, OH........................        710        710           710    ..........  ..........

                     OKLAHOMA

ARCADIA LAKE, OK..................................        429        429           429    ..........  ..........
BIRCH LAKE, OK....................................        475        475           475    ..........  ..........
BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK...............................      1,493      1,493         1,493    ..........  ..........
CANTON LAKE, OK...................................      1,723      1,723         1,723    ..........  ..........
COPAN LAKE, OK....................................      1,511      1,511         1,511    ..........  ..........
EUFAULA LAKE, OK..................................      5,312      5,312         5,312    ..........  ..........
FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK..............................      5,053      5,053         5,053    ..........  ..........
FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK..............................        733        733           733    ..........  ..........
GRAND LAKE, OR....................................  .........  .........           650          +650        +650
GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK........................        166        166           166    ..........  ..........
HEYBURN LAKE, OK..................................        529        529           529    ..........  ..........
HUGO LAKE, OK.....................................      1,451      1,451         1,451    ..........  ..........
HULAH LAKE, OK....................................        626        626           750          +124        +124
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OK.................         88         88            88    ..........  ..........
KAW LAKE, OK......................................      2,378      2,378         2,378    ..........  ..........
KEYSTONE LAKE, OK.................................      4,300      4,300         4,300    ..........  ..........
OOLOGAH LAKE, OK..................................      1,955      1,955         1,955    ..........  ..........
OPTIMA LAKE, OK...................................         61         61            61    ..........  ..........
PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE CHEROKEES, OK....         57         57            57    ..........  ..........
PINE CREEK LAKE, OK...............................        857        857           857    ..........  ..........
ROBERT S. KERR LOCK AND DAM AND RESERVOIRS, OK....      4,517      4,517         4,517    ..........  ..........
SARDIS LAKE, OK...................................      1,192      1,192         1,192    ..........  ..........
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OK...............        508        508           508    ..........  ..........
SKIATOOK LAKE, OK.................................      1,086      1,086         1,086    ..........  ..........
TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK..........................      2,998      2,998         2,998    ..........  ..........
WAURIKA LAKE, OK..................................      1,528      1,528         1,528    ..........  ..........
WEBBERS FALLS LOCK AND DAM, OK....................      4,815      4,815         4,815    ..........  ..........
WISTER LAKE, OK...................................        460        460           460    ..........  ..........

                      OREGON

APPLEGATE LAKE, OR................................        595        595           595    ..........  ..........
BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR...............................        312        312           312    ..........  ..........
BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA................      7,792      7,792         7,792    ..........  ..........
CHETCO RIVER, OR..................................        348        348           348    ..........  ..........
COLUMBIA AND LWR WILLAMETTE R. BLW VANCOUVER, WA       16,829     16,829        17,579          +750        +750
 AND PORTLA.......................................
COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR AND WA............     10,186     10,186        27,186       +17,000     +17,000
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA AND THE              254        254           254    ..........  ..........
 DALLES, OR.......................................
COOS BAY, OR......................................      4,594      4,594         4,594    ..........  ..........
COQUILLE RIVER, OR................................  .........  .........           348          +348  ..........
COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR............................        780        780           780    ..........  ..........
COUGAR LAKE, OR...................................        766        766           766    ..........  ..........
DEPOE BAY, OR.....................................  .........  .........           400          +400        +400
DETROIT LAKE, OR..................................        729        729           729    ..........  ..........
DORENA LAKE, OR...................................        613        613           613    ..........  ..........
FALL CREEK LAKE, OR...............................        555        555           555    ..........  ..........
FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR...............................        966        966         2,100        +1,134      +1,134
GREEN PETER-FOSTER LAKES, OR......................      1,186      1,186         1,186    ..........  ..........
HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR..............................      3,807      3,807         3,807    ..........  ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR.................        167        167           167    ..........  ..........
JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA..................      4,692      4,692         4,692    ..........  ..........
LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR............................      1,272      1,272         1,272    ..........  ..........
LOST CREEK LAKE, OR...............................      5,096      5,096         5,096    ..........  ..........
MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA....................      7,129      7,129         7,129    ..........  ..........
PORT ORFORD, OR...................................  .........  .........           723          +723        +723
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR.....................        177        177           177    ..........  ..........
ROGUE RIVER AT GOLD BEACH, OR.....................        394        394           394    ..........  ..........
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OR...............         62         62            62    ..........  ..........
SIUSLAW RIVER, OR.................................        449        449           449    ..........  ..........
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OR......        134        134           134    ..........  ..........
TILLAMOOK BAY AND BAR, OR (PORT OF GARIBALDI).....  .........  .........         1,500        +1,500      +1,500
UMPQUA RIVER, OR..................................  .........        225           679          +679        +454
WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS, OR..........         72         72            72    ..........  ..........
WILLAMETTE RIVER BANK PROTECTION, OR..............         80         80            80    ..........  ..........
WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR.............................        538        538           538    ..........  ..........
YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR........................      1,006      1,006         1,006    ..........  ..........

                   PENNSYLVANIA

ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA...............................      4,393      4,393         4,393    ..........  ..........
ALVIN R. BUSH DAM, PA.............................        727        727           727    ..........  ..........
AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA.........................        251        251           251    ..........  ..........
BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA...............................      1,026      1,026         1,026    ..........  ..........
BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA...............................      2,662      2,662         2,662    ..........  ..........
CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA..........................      1,074      1,074         1,074    ..........  ..........
COWANESQUE LAKE, PA...............................      2,793      2,793         2,793    ..........  ..........
CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA............................      1,033      1,033         1,033    ..........  ..........
CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA.............................        717        717           717    ..........  ..........
EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA................        799        799           799    ..........  ..........
FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA......................        745        745           745    ..........  ..........
FRANCIS E. WALTER DAM, PA.........................        731        731           731    ..........  ..........
GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND RESERVOIR, PA........        249        249           249    ..........  ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA.................        196        196           196    ..........  ..........
JOHNSTOWN, PA.....................................      1,603      1,603         1,603    ..........  ..........
KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PA............      1,147      1,447         1,147    ..........        -300
LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA...............................        785        785           785    ..........  ..........
MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA...........................        946        946           946    ..........  ..........
MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA.............................     17,138     17,138        17,138    ..........  ..........
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, PA, OH AND WV..........     18,362     18,362        18,362    ..........  ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA.....................         30         30            30    ..........  ..........
PROMPTON LAKE, PA.................................        483        483           483    ..........  ..........
PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA..................................         13         13            13    ..........  ..........
RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA.................................      5,449      5,849         5,449    ..........        -400
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, PA...............         66         66            66    ..........  ..........
SCHUYLKILL RIVER, PA..............................         70         70            70    ..........  ..........
SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA...........................      1,831      1,831         1,831    ..........  ..........
STILLWATER LAKE, PA...............................        386        386         1,000          +614        +614
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, PA......         80         80            80    ..........  ..........
TIOGA-HAMMOND LAKES, PA...........................      3,365      3,365         3,365    ..........  ..........
TIONESTA LAKE, PA.................................      1,331      1,331         1,331    ..........  ..........
UNION CITY LAKE, PA...............................        147        147           147    ..........  ..........
WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA...........................        714        714           714    ..........  ..........
YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA..........................        556        556           556    ..........  ..........
YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA AND MD................      2,124      2,124         2,124    ..........  ..........

                    PUERTO RICO

SAN JUAN HARBOR, PR...............................      1,800      1,800         1,800    ..........  ..........

                   RHODE ISLAND

BULLOCKS POINT COVE, RI...........................  .........  .........           700          +700        +700
BLOCK ISLAND HARBOR, RI...........................  .........  .........           120          +120        +120
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, RI.................         15         15            15    ..........  ..........
PAWTUXET COVE, RI.................................  .........  .........         1,600        +1,600      +1,600
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, RI.....................        400        400           400    ..........  ..........

                  SOUTH CAROLINA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC................        467        467         3,000        +2,533      +2,533
CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC.............................     11,038     11,038        11,038    ..........  ..........
COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC...............      2,905      2,905         2,905    ..........  ..........
FOLLY RIVER, SC...................................        987        987           987    ..........  ..........
GEORGETOWN HARBOR, SC.............................      1,342      1,342         4,000        +2,658      +2,658
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC.................         30         30            30    ..........  ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC.....................        349        349           349    ..........  ..........
TOWN CREEK, SC....................................  .........  .........           459          +459        +459

                   SOUTH DAKOTA

BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD.....................      7,577      7,577         7,577    ..........  ..........
CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRVLE SIOUS, SD.  .........  .........         2,000        +2,000      +2,000
COLD BROOK LAKE, SD...............................        275        275           275    ..........  ..........
COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD.......................        192        192           192    ..........  ..........
FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS CASE, SD...........      9,635      9,635         9,635    ..........  ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SD.................         17         17            17    ..........  ..........
LAKE TRAVERSE, SD AND MN..........................        434        434           434    ..........  ..........
MISSOURI R. BETWEEN FORT PECK DAM AND GAVINS PT,          350        350           350    ..........  ..........
 SD, MT...........................................
OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD AND ND....................     11,421     11,421        11,421    ..........  ..........
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, SD...............         52         52            52    ..........  ..........

                     TENNESSEE

CENTER HILL LAKE, TN..............................      6,397      6,397         6,397    ..........  ..........
CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN.........................      5,103      5,103         5,103    ..........  ..........
CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TN..............................      2,430      2,430         2,430    ..........  ..........
CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN................      6,226      6,226         6,226    ..........  ..........
DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN..............................      5,531      5,531         5,531    ..........  ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN.................        137        137           137    ..........  ..........
J. PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN.............      3,738      3,738         3,738    ..........  ..........
OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN......................      6,385      6,385         6,385    ..........  ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TN.....................          7          7             7    ..........  ..........
TENNESSEE RIVER, TN...............................     18,537     18,537        18,537    ..........  ..........
WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN.............................         23         23            23    ..........  ..........

                       TEXAS

AQUILLA LAKE, TX..................................      1,108      1,108         1,108    ..........  ..........
ARKANSAS-RED RIVER BASINS CHLORIDE CONTROL--AREA        1,051      1,051         1,051    ..........  ..........
 VI...............................................
BARDWELL LAKE, TX.................................      1,538      1,538         1,538    ..........  ..........
BAYPORT SHIP CHANNEL, TX..........................      2,875      2,875         2,875    ..........  ..........
BELTON LAKE, TX...................................      3,041      3,041         3,041    ..........  ..........
BENBROOK LAKE, TX.................................      2,097      2,097         2,097    ..........  ..........
BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TX..........................      3,775      3,775         3,775    ..........  ..........
BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX.................      2,875      2,875         2,875    ..........  ..........
CANYON LAKE, TX...................................      3,667      3,667         3,667    ..........  ..........
CHOCOLATE BAYOU...................................  .........  .........         2,000        +2,000      +2,000
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX...................      3,900      3,900         3,900    ..........  ..........
DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX......................      5,569      5,569         5,569    ..........  ..........
ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT, TX........          5          5             5    ..........  ..........
FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O' THE PINES, TX........      3,075      3,075         3,075    ..........  ..........
FREEPORT HARBOR, TX...............................      3,610      3,610         3,610    ..........  ..........
GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX..................      4,800      4,800         4,800    ..........  ..........
GIWW, CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX.....................      6,975      6,975         6,975    ..........  ..........
GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX..........................      2,004      2,004         2,004    ..........  ..........
GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX................................      3,349      3,349         3,349    ..........  ..........
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX....................     29,312     29,312        29,312    ..........  ..........
HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX..............................      1,665      1,665         1,665    ..........  ..........
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX..........................      3,261      3,261        11,056        +7,795      +7,795
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX.................        557        557           557    ..........  ..........
JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX..............................      2,897      2,897         2,897    ..........  ..........
JOE POOL LAKE, TX.................................      1,023      1,023         1,023    ..........  ..........
LAKE KEMP, TX.....................................        422        422           422    ..........  ..........
LAVON LAKE, TX....................................      3,885      3,885         3,885    ..........  ..........
LEWISVILLE DAM, TX................................      4,290      4,290         4,290    ..........  ..........
MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX........................      8,700      8,700         8,700    ..........  ..........
NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX............................      2,353      2,353         2,353    ..........  ..........
NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE GEORGETOWN, TX.....      2,320      2,320         2,320    ..........  ..........
O. C. FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX.....................      1,260      1,260         1,260    ..........  ..........
PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX................................      1,266      1,266         1,266    ..........  ..........
PROCTOR LAKE, TX..................................      2,221      2,221         2,221    ..........  ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TX.....................         50         50            50    ..........  ..........
RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX..............................      1,070      1,070         1,070    ..........  ..........
SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX........................     13,478     13,478        13,478    ..........  ..........
SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX.................     11,578     11,578        11,578    ..........  ..........
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, TX...............         84         84            84    ..........  ..........
SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX...............................      3,068      3,068         3,068    ..........  ..........
STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX.........................      1,951      1,951         1,951    ..........  ..........
TEXAS CITY SHIP CHANNEL, TX.......................      2,150      2,150         2,500          +350        +350
TEXAS WATER ALLOCATION ASSESSMENT, TX.............        500        500         1,600        +1,100      +1,100
TOWN BLUFF DAM, B. A. STEINHAGEN LAKE, TX.........      3,995      3,995         3,995    ..........  ..........
WACO LAKE, TX.....................................      3,295      3,295         3,295    ..........  ..........
WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX..............................      1,662      1,662         1,662    ..........  ..........
WHITNEY LAKE, TX..................................      5,603      6,803         5,603    ..........      -1,200
WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX....................      3,416      3,416         3,416    ..........  ..........

                       UTAH

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT.................         40         40            40    ..........  ..........
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, UT...............        631        631           631    ..........  ..........

                      VERMONT

BALL MOUNTAIN LAKE, VT............................        801        801           801    ..........  ..........
CONNECTICUT RIVER FLOOD CONTROL DAMS..............  .........  .........           500          +500        +500
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VT.................         45         45            45    ..........  ..........
NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT...........................        706        706           706    ..........  ..........
NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT........................        892        892           892    ..........  ..........
TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT................................        786        786           786    ..........  ..........
UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT.............................        684        684           684    ..........  ..........

                     VIRGINIA

APPOMATTOX RIVER, VA..............................  .........  .........           500          +500        +500
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--ACC, VA...........      1,670      1,670         1,670    ..........  ..........
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--DSC, VA...........        275        275           850          +575        +575
BENNETT'S CREEK, VA...............................  .........  .........           352          +352        +352
CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA............................        900        900           900    ..........  ..........
GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA.................      2,084      2,084         2,084    ..........  ..........
HAMPTON RDS, NORFOLK AND NEWPORT NEWS HBR, VA             825        825           825    ..........  ..........
 (DRIFT REM.......................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA.................        127        127           127    ..........  ..........
JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA...........................      3,295      3,295         3,295    ..........  ..........
JOHN H. KERR LAKE, VA AND NC......................     11,513     11,513        11,513    ..........  ..........
JOHN W. FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA...........      1,435      1,435         1,435    ..........  ..........
NORFOLK HARBOR, VA................................     11,203     11,203        14,672        +3,469      +3,469
NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA................        346        346           346    ..........  ..........
PHILPOTT LAKE, VA.................................      5,391      5,391         5,391    ..........  ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA.....................        793        793           793    ..........  ..........
RUDEE INLET, VA...................................        635        635         1,275          +640        +640
TANGIER CHANNEL, VA...............................        600        600           600    ..........  ..........
WATERWAY ON THE COAST OF VIRGINIA, VA.............        200        200           200    ..........  ..........

                    WASHINGTON

CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA..............................      2,419      2,419         2,419    ..........  ..........
COLUMBIA RIVER AT BAKER BAY, WA (PORT OF ILWACO)..  .........  .........         1,000        +1,000      +1,000
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN CHINOOK AND THE HEAD OF      .........  .........         1,000        +1,000      +1,000
 SAND.............................................
EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WA............      1,508      1,508         1,508    ..........  ..........
GRAYS HARBOR AND CHEHALIS RIVER, WA...............      8,582      9,000         8,582    ..........        -418
HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA.............................      2,481      2,481         2,481    ..........  ..........
ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA.......................      5,670      5,670         5,670    ..........  ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA.................        311        311           311    ..........  ..........
LAKE CROCKETT (KEYSTONE HARBOR), WA...............        342        342           342    ..........  ..........
LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA....................      4,387      4,387         6,480        +2,093      +2,093
LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, WA.....................      2,165      2,165         2,165    ..........  ..........
LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, WA....................      2,422      2,422         2,422    ..........  ..........
LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA.................      1,996      1,996         1,996    ..........  ..........
MILL CREEK LAKE, WA...............................      1,041      1,041         1,041    ..........  ..........
MT. ST. HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA...............        257        257           257    ..........  ..........
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA..............................      2,516      2,516         3,419          +903        +903
NEAH BAY, WA......................................  .........  .........         1,000        +1,000      +1,000
OLYMPIA HARBOR, WA................................        400        400           400    ..........  ..........
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA.....................        403        403           403    ..........  ..........
PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, WA..............        864        864           864    ..........  ..........
QUILLAYUTE RIVER, WA..............................         58         58            58    ..........  ..........
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WA...............        485        485           485    ..........  ..........
SEATTLE HARBOR, WA................................        555        555           555    ..........  ..........
STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA...........................        226        226           226    ..........  ..........
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WA......         66         66            66    ..........  ..........
TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA........................        112        112           112    ..........  ..........
THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM, WA AND OR................      3,667      3,667         3,877          +210        +210
WILLAPA RIVER AND HARBOR, WA......................        158        158           158    ..........  ..........

                   WEST VIRGINIA

BEECH FORK LAKE, WV...............................      1,014      1,014         1,014    ..........  ..........
BLUESTONE LAKE, WV................................      3,828      3,828         3,828    ..........  ..........
BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV...............................      1,517      1,517         1,517    ..........  ..........
EAST LYNN LAKE, WV................................      1,799      1,799         1,799    ..........  ..........
ELK RIVER HARBOR, WV..............................         10         10            10    ..........  ..........
ELKINS, WV........................................         16         16            16    ..........  ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV.................        117        117           117    ..........  ..........
KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV..................     13,661     13,661        13,661    ..........  ..........
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY AND OH..........     19,530     19,530        20,530        +1,000      +1,000
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, WV, KY AND OH.......      2,019      2,019         2,519          +500        +500
R. D. BAILEY LAKE, WV.............................      1,515      1,515         1,515    ..........  ..........
STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV........................        640        640           640    ..........  ..........
SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV.............................      1,657      1,657         1,657    ..........  ..........
SUTTON LAKE, WV...................................      1,788      1,788         1,788    ..........  ..........
TYGART LAKE, WV...................................      2,950      2,950         2,950    ..........  ..........

                     WISCONSIN

ASHLAND HARBOR, WI................................  .........  .........           166          +166        +166
EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI..........................        647        647           647    ..........  ..........
FOX RIVER, WI.....................................      1,748      1,748         1,748    ..........  ..........
GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI..............................      2,476      2,476         2,476    ..........  ..........
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WI.................         40         40            40    ..........  ..........
KEWAUNEE HARBOR, WI...............................  .........  .........           288          +288        +288
MANITOWOC HARBOR, WI..............................  .........  .........           450          +450        +450
MILWAUKEE HARBOR, WI..............................        844        844           844    ..........  ..........
PORT WASHINGTON HARBOR, WI........................  .........  .........           213          +213        +213
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WI.....................        105        105           105    ..........  ..........
STURGEON BAY HARBOR AND LAKE MICHIGAN SHIP CANAL,   .........  .........           257          +257        +257
 WI...............................................
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WI......        472        472           472    ..........  ..........
TWO RIVERS HARBOR, WI.............................  .........        420  ..............  ..........        -420

                      WYOMING

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WY.................         11         11            11    ..........  ..........
JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY...........................      1,094      1,094         1,094    ..........  ..........
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WY...............         86         86            86    ..........  ..........

                   MISCELLANEOUS

AQUATIC NUISANCE CONTROL RESEARCH.................        690        690           690    ..........  ..........
COASTAL INLET RESEARCH PROGRAM....................      2,475      2,475         2,475    ..........  ..........
CULTURAL RESOURCES (NAGPRA/CURATION)..............      1,391      1,391         1,391    ..........  ..........
DREDGE WHEELER READY RESERVE......................      8,000      8,000         8,000    ..........  ..........
DREDGING DATA AND LOCK PERFORMANCE MONITORING           1,062      1,000         1,062    ..........         +62
 SYSTEM...........................................
DREDGING OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH          6,080      5,660         6,080    ..........        +420
 (DOER)...........................................
DREDGING OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT PROGRAM           1,391      1,300         1,391    ..........         +91
 (DOTS)...........................................
EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM..............        270        270           270    ..........  ..........
FACILITY PROTECTION...............................     12,000     12,000        12,000    ..........  ..........
GREAT LAKES SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MODELS.............        900        900           900    ..........  ..........
HARBOR MAINTENANCE FEE DATA COLLECTION............        608        608           608    ..........  ..........
INLAND WATERWAY NAVIGATION CHARTS.................      3,708      3,708         3,708    ..........  ..........
LONG TERM OPTION ASSESSMENT FOR LOW USE NAVIGATION      1,500  .........  ..............      -1,500  ..........
MONITORING OF COMPLETED NAVIGATION PROJECTS.......      1,575      1,500         1,575    ..........         +75
NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM.......................        250        250           250    ..........  ..........
NATIONAL DAM SECURITY PROGRAM.....................         31         31            31    ..........  ..........
NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM (NEPP)....      5,000      5,000         5,000    ..........  ..........
NATIONAL LEWIS AND CLARK COMMEMORATION                    319        319           319    ..........  ..........
 COORDINATION.....................................
PERFORMANCE BASED BUDGETING SUPPORT PROGRAM.......      2,540        734           734        -1,806  ..........
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT TECHNICAL SUPPORT (ABS-P2)....        250        250           250    ..........  ..........
PROTECT, CLEAR AND STRAIGHTEN CHANNELS (SEC 3)....         45         45            45    ..........  ..........
RECREATION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT PROGRAM (RMSP)......      1,600      1,500         1,600    ..........        +100
REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM      1,391      1,391        10,016        +8,625      +8,625
RELIABILITY MODELS PROGRAM FOR MAJOR                      608        608           608    ..........  ..........
 REHABILITATION...................................
REMOVAL OF SUNKEN VESSELS.........................        500        500           775          +275        +275
RESERVE FOR KEY EMERGENCY MAINTENANCE/REPAIRS.....     20,000     20,000  ..............     -20,000     -20,000
WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT (WOTS).........        653        653           653    ..........  ..........
WATERBORNE COMMERCE STATISTICS....................      4,271      4,200         4,271    ..........         +71
REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE....    -12,766  .........       -66,232       -52,341     -65,107
                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Operation and Maintenance............  1,977,894  2,000,000     2,100,000      +122,106    +100,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alabama-Coosa River, AL.--The Committee has included an 
additional $1,500,000 for maintenance dredging.
    Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, AL & MS.--The Committee has 
included for additional maintenance dredging and for aquatic 
plant control activities.
    Cordova Harbor, AK.--The Committee has included $600,000 
for maintenance dredging of the harbor.
    Lowell Creek Tunnel, AK.--The Committee has included 
$100,000 for maintenance of the Lowell Creek Tunnel project.
    Nome Harbor, AK.--The Committee has included an additional 
$2,496,000 for maintenance dredging of the harbor.
    Alamo Lake, AZ.--The Committee has provided an additional 
$450,000 for ecological restoration studies at the lake.
    Helena Harbor, AR.--The Committee has included $400,000 for 
maintenance dredging of this harbor.
    McClellan-Kerr, Arkansas River Navigation System, AR and 
OK.--Additional funds are provided to initiate replacement of 
tow-haulage equipment at Locks 1 and 2.
    Ouachita and Black Rivers, AR and LA.--The Committee has 
included an additional, $1,800,000 for maintenance dredging.
    Crescent City, CA.--The Committee has provided $500,000 for 
the continued work on the dredge material management plan.
    Sacrement River (Bascule Bridge), CA.--The Committee has 
provided $1,000,000 to initiate transfer of the Bascule Bridge 
to the City.
    Cherry Creek, Chatfield, and Trinidad Lakes, CO.--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, DE 
and MD.--The Committee recommendation includes $12,475,000 for 
this project. Within the funds provided, $1,000,000 is included 
for maintenance costs of the SR-1 Bridge.
    AIWW, Norfolk, VA to St. Johns River, FL, GA, SC, NC, and 
VA.--The Committee has included $1,000,000 for maintenance 
dredging.
    Intracoastal Waterway, Caloosahatchee to Anclote, FL.--The 
Committee has included $1,000,000 for maintenance dredging.
    Intracoastal Waterway, Jacksonville to Miami, FL.--The 
Committee has included $4,250,000 for maintenance dredging.
    Miami River, FL.--The Committee is aware of the ongoing 
economic analysis of the Miami River maintenance project. The 
Corps has reported to the local sponsors on several occasions 
that the study was nearing completion, only to postpone its 
final completion. Most recently, the Corps has directed the 
consultant to complete the study by August 15, in order for the 
Corps to utilize the results of the study in its preparation of 
the fiscal year 2007 budget request, and has conveyed its 
intention once again to the local sponsors. The Committee 
expects the Corps to complete and approve this analysis by 
August 15.
    Apalachiacola, Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers, GA, AL, and 
FL.--The Committee has included an additional $6,500,000, which 
includes annual dredging of the river channel, annual 
operations and maintenance of the George W. Andrews Lock, spot 
dredging of shoals, continuation of slough mouth restoration, 
and routine operations and maintenance of the project.
    Pohiki Bay, Hawaii, HI.--The Committee has included 
$100,000 to initiate plans and specifications for the 
breakwater repair.
    Lake Shelbyville, IL.--The Committee has included an 
additional $1,000,000 for deferred maintenance activities at 
recreation sites.
    Mississippi River Between Missouri River and Minneapolis 
(MVR Portion), IL.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$50,407,000. Within the funds provided, $3,000,000 is for 
continuation of the rehab of Lock and Dam 11 and $2,500,000 is 
for the rehab of Lock and Dam 19.
    Saylorville Lake, IA.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $250,000 to maintain the project's basic service 
level as determined by the Corps.
    Michigan City Harbor, IN.--The Committee has provided 
$500,000 for the dredged material management plan and plans and 
specifications for dredging the harbor.
    Wilson Lake, KS.--The Committee has provided an additional 
$100,000 for the Corps to conduct a reallocation study.
    Barren River Lake, KY.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $898,000 for the repair and upgrade of public use 
facilities.
    Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf and Black, LA.--
The Committee has provided an additional $9,000,000 for 
maintenance dredging activities.
    Barataria Bay Waterway, LA.--The Committee has provided 
funds for maintaining the authorized depth of the project.
    Calcasieu River and Pass, LA.--The Committee has provided 
an additional $5,000,000 for maintenance dredging of this 
channel.
    J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, LA.--The Committee has 
included an additional $3,000,000 for bank stabilization 
repairs, dredging entrances to oxbow lakes, routine operation 
and maintenance activities, annual dredging requirements, and 
backlog maintenance.
    Baltimore Harbor and Channels (50 foot), MD.--The Committee 
has provided an additional $4,000,000 for maintenance dredging.
    Herring Creek, Tall Timbers, MD.--With the funds provided, 
the Committee expects the Corps to complete construction of the 
revetment.
    Boston Harbor, MA.--The Committee has provided $7,500,000 
to initiate dredging in the Inner Harbor.
    Grand Marais Harbor, MI.--The Committee has provided 
$1,714,000 to initiate construction of the replacement 
breakwater.
    Clairborne County Port, MS.--The Committee has included 
additional funds to continue maintenance dredging of the port.
    Gulfport Harbor, MS.--The Committee has included an 
additional $1,500,000 for ongoing maintenance projects and 
dredging of the bar channel.
    Mouth of the Yazoo River, MS.--The Committee has included 
additional funds for the maintenance dredging of the entrance 
to Vicksburg Harbor.
    Okatibbee Lake, MS.--The Committee has included additional 
funds for maintenance of public user facilities.
    Rosedale Harbor, MS.--The Committee has included $580,000 
for maintenance dredging of the harbor.
    Cocheco River, NH.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 
continue dredging of the Cocheco River project.
    New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway, NJ.--The Committee has 
included an additional $1,250,000 for dredging of the project.
    Albuquerque Levees, NM.--The Committee has provided 
$2,000,000 to assess damage to and make immediate repairs to 
levees damaged as a result of spring run-off flooding in 2005.
    Cochiti Lake, NM.--The Committee has provided additional 
funds for the continuation of studies that were initiated in 
fiscal year 2004, which include the proposed operational 
changes and gate automation and to begin the relocation of the 
Al Black area.
    Jemez Canyon Dam, NM.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $1,500,000 to modify headworks to allow management 
of sediment flows to meet 2003 Biological Opinion requirements.
    Rio Grande Bosque Rehabilitation, NM.--The Committee has 
provided $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, NM.--The Committee 
has provided $2,000,000 to improve data management, coordinate 
river operations, automate data in partnership with the U.S. 
Bureau of Reclamation.
    Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, NC.--The Committee has 
included an additional $5,000,000 for dredging of the project.
    Manteo (Shallowbag Bay), NC.--The Committee has included an 
additional $8,000,000 for dredging of the project.
    Garrison Dam and Lake Sakakawea, ND.--The Committee has 
provided $100,000 for mosquito control and $900,000 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 & Lower Willamette River Below Vancouver, WA and 
Portland, OR.--The committee recommendation includes $750,000 
for continued work at the Astoria Boat Basin.
    Columbia River at the Mouth, OR and WA.--The Committee has 
provided an additional $17,000,000 to continue jetty repairs 
initiated with fiscal year 2005 budgeted funds, but not 
budgeted in fiscal year 2006.
    Fern Ridge Dam, OR.--The Committee has provided $2,100,000 
for this project. The Committee understands that the additional 
$1,134,000 will complete the emergency repairs begun in fiscal 
year 2005 using emergency reprogramming procedures. The 
Committee understands that the repairs will cost in excess of 
$25,000,000. The Committee directs that these costs should be 
considered as dam safety repairs for cost allocation purposes.
    Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, SC.--The Committee has 
included an additional $2,533,000 for dredging of the project.
    Georgetown Harbor, SC.--The Committee has included 
additional funds for maintenance dredging of the harbor.
    Oahe Dam, Lake Oahe, SD & ND.--The Committee understands 
that the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe's water system is facing a 
potential water shortage due to extremely low water levels on 
the Missouri River. The tribe's water intake is likely to 
become inoperable, as the Corps of Engineers continues to draw 
down the water level on Lake Oahe. The Committee urges the 
Corps to take all necessary steps to relocate the tribe's water 
intake on the Missouri River to ensure continued operation of 
the water system and an uninterrupted water supply for the 
Reservation.
    Chocolate Bayou, TX.--The Committee has provided additional 
funds for maintenance dredging of the channel.
    Houston Ship Channel, TX.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $7,795,000 for additional dredging and dredging 
related activities.
    Texas Water Allocation Study, TX.--The Committee has 
provided additional funds for the ongoing study.
    Norfolk Harbor, VA.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $3,469,000 for maintenance dredging and to raise the 
containment dikes to provide the capacity needed for the 
Norfolk Harbor Deepening project.
    Connecticut River Flood Control Dams, VT.--$500,000 has 
been provided for continued work on fish passage facilities at 
these projects.
    Lake Washington Ship Channel, WA.--The Committee has 
included an additional $2,093,000 to maintain basic service 
levels at the Ballard Locks.
    Mud Mountain, WA.--Out of 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.
    The Dalles Lock and Dam, WA and OR.--The Committee has 
provided an additional $210,000 for Lewis and Clark activities 
at Celilo Park.
    Ohio River Locks and Dams, WV, KY and OH.--The Committee 
has provided $600,000 for security monitoring and $400,000 for 
full levels of service at the lock.
    Ohio River Open Channel Work, WV, KY and OH.--The Committee 
has provided $500,000 for channel condition surveys.
    Long Term Option Assessment for Low Use Navigation.--The 
Committee has not provided funding for this study.
    Regional Sediment Management Demonstration Program.--The 
Committee has provided $10,016,000 for this program. Within the 
funds provided, $500,000 is for the southeast coast of Oahu, 
HI; $2,500,000 is for the Littoral Drift Restoration Program, 
Benson Beach, WA; $375,000 is for Lido Key, Sarasota, FL, and 
Vicinity and central and southern Brevard County to Dade 
County; $350,000 is for South Jetty and Clatsop Spit, OR; and 
$4,900,000 is for Coastal Zone Mapping and Imaging Laser to be 
conducted in accordance with the University of Southern 
Mississippi.
    Removal of Sunken Vessels.--The Committee has provided 
$275,000 to remove the sunken vessel State of Pennsylvania from 
the Christina River at Wilmington, DE.

                 FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

Appropriations, 2005....................................         ( \1\ )
Budget estimate, 2006...................................     $70,000,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................      43,000,000

\1\ Exclude emergency appropriation of $148,000,000.

    The Committee has included $43,000,000 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.

                           REGULATORY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2005....................................    $143,840,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................     160,000,000
House allowance.........................................     160,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     150,000,000

    An appropriation of $150,000,000 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. Sec. 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.

            FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2005....................................    $163,680,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................     140,000,000
House allowance.........................................     140,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     140,000,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $140,000,000 
to continue activities related to the Formerly Utilized Sites 
Remedial Action Program [FUSRAP] in fiscal year 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.

                            general expenses

Appropriations, 2005....................................    $165,664,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................     162,000,000
House allowance.........................................     152,021,000
Committee recommendation................................     165,000,000

    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 $165,000,000. The Committee 
understands that the cost of the required financial audit of 
the Corps of Engineers may exceed $20,000,000 for fiscal year 
2006. Therefore, the Committee encourages the Corps to use the 
Revolving Fund to undertake this audit and budget appropriation 
for this audit in future years.
    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. General Expense funds are appropriated 
solely for the executive management and oversight of the Civil 
Works Program under the direction of the Director of Civil 
Works.
    The Committee is pleased with the efforts of the Corps to 
restructure the management of general expense funds. It 
continues to believe that the general expense dollars are 
ultimately at the discretion of the Chief of Engineers and are 
intended to be utilized in his effort to carry out the Corps' 
mission. The new controls put in place to manage the general 
expense dollars and evaluate the needs of the Corps address the 
Committee's previous concerns. The Committee requests the Corps 
continue to provide biannual written notification of the 
dispersal of general expense funds.

             GENERAL PROVISIONS--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL

    Section 101. The bill includes language limiting 
reimbursements.
    Section 102. The bill includes language prohibiting the 
divesting or transferring Civil Works functions.
    Section 103. The bill includes language prohibiting any 
steps to dismantle the St. Georges Bridge in Delaware.
    Section 104. The bill includes language concerning report 
notifications.
    Section 105. The bill includes language concerning report 
notifications.
    Section 106. The bill includes language making a technical 
correction to the Baltimore Metropolitan Watershed Feasibility 
Study-Gwnns Falls, MD.
    Section 107. The bill includes language that provides for 
increasing the cost ceiling for the Marmet Lock, Kanawha River, 
WV project.
    Section 108. The bill includes language that provides for 
increasing the cost ceiling for the Lower Mud River, Milton, WV 
project.
    Section 109. The bill includes language regarding water 
reallocation at Lake Cumberland, KY, the San Luis Unit and the 
Kesterson Reservoir in California.
    Section 110. The bill includes language regarding the Lower 
Las Vegas Wash, NV.
    Section 111. The bill includes language regarding the Yazoo 
Basin, Upper Yazoo Projects in Mississippi.
    Section 112. The bill includes language regarding the Lower 
Mississippi River Museum and Riverfront Interpretive Site, MS.
    Section 113. The bill includes language regarding the 
Central New Mexico, NM.
    Section 114. The bill includes language regarding the Los 
Angeles Harbor, CA.
    Section 115. The bill includes language regarding the 
Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers Enhancement Project.
    Section 116. The bill includes language regarding the 
Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers Enhancement Project.
    Section 117. The bill includes language regarding the 
Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers Enhancement Project.
    Section 118. The bill includes language regarding the 
Missouri River Levee System, Unit L-15 Levee, MO.
    Section 119. The bill includes language regarding the 
Alpine, CA project.
    Section 120. The bill includes language regarding 
regulatory permit processing.
    Section 121. The bill includes language regarding the 
Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program, NM.
    Section 122. The bill includes language regarding Bluestone 
Dam, WV.
    Section 123. The bill includes language deauthorizing a 
portion of a project in Washington.
    Section 124. The bill includes language regarding Fern 
Ridge Dam, WV.
    Section 125. The bill includes language regarding the 
Federal dredges.
    Section 126. The bill includes language regarding Federal 
dredges.
    Section 127. The bill includes language regarding a 
Dispersal Barrier in Vermont and New York.

                  TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                Central Utah Project Completion Account

Appropriations, 2005....................................     $47,625,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................      34,350,000
House allowance.........................................      34,350,000
Committee recommendation................................      34,350,000

    The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2006 to carry 
out the provisions of the Central Utah Project Completion Act 
totals $34,350,000. An appropriation of $31,668,000 has been 
provided for Central Utah project construction; $946,000 for 
fish, wildlife, and recreation, mitigation and conservation. 
The Committee recommendation provides $1,736,000 for program 
administration and oversight.
    The Central Utah Project Completion Act (titles II-VI of 
Public Law 102-575) provides for the completion of the central 
Utah project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. 
The Act also authorizes the appropriation of funds for fish, 
wildlife, recreation, mitigation, and conservation; establishes 
an account in the Treasury for the deposit of these funds and 
of other contributions for mitigation and conservation 
activities; and establishes a Utah Reclamation Mitigation and 
Conservation Commission to administer funds in that account. 
The Act further assigns responsibilities for carrying out the 
Act to the Secretary of the Interior and prohibits delegation 
of those responsibilities to the Bureau of Reclamation.

                         Bureau of Reclamation

                      WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

Appropriations, 2005....................................    $852,605,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................     801,569,000
House allowance.........................................     832,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     899,569,000

    An appropriation of $899,569,000 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.
    The amounts recommended by the Committee are shown on the 
following table along with the budget request.

                       BUILDING AND SITE SECURITY

    Security Costs and Allocations.--Following the attacks on 
September 11, 2001, the Bureau of Reclamation strengthened 
security at Federal dams and similar facilities and has 
undertaken but not completed extensive risk assessments for 
over 400 units throughout the West. Many of these are multi-
purpose facilities providing flood control, water storage for 
contract irrigators, municipal and industrial water supplies, 
power generation, recreation and environmental mitigation 
benefits. The Committee understands that beginning in fiscal 
year 2006, Reclamation will no longer make a distinction 
between pre-September 11, 2001, security costs and post-
September 11, 2001, security costs. The Committee recognizes 
that the security posture of Reclamation will likely not 
approach pre-September 11, 2001, levels for many years, if 
ever. The Committee recognizes that project beneficiaries 
benefit from this enhanced security. However, the Committee 
remains concerned about the reimbursability of increased 
security costs for Reclamation projects. The Committee wants to 
ensure that all project beneficiaries that benefit from the 
enhanced security posture, pay a fair share of the costs. 
Therefore, Reclamation shall provide a report to the Committee, 
no later than, May 1, 2007, with a breakout of planned 
reimbursable and non-reimbursable security costs by project pro 
rated by project purposes. The Committee directs the 
Commissioner not to begin the reimbursement process until the 
Congress provides direct instruction to do so.

Direct Funding of Operations and Maintenance Work and the PMAs

    The Committee has chosen not to include the legislative 
proposal to directly fund reclamation hydropower operation and 
maintenance activities through receipts from the power 
marketing administrations due to budgetary scoring 
implications.

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

                 ARIZONA

AK CHIN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT       ..........       7,200  ..........       7,200  ..........       7,200
 PROJECT................................
CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT, COLORADO RIVER       22,128          95      22,128          95      22,128          95
 BASIN..................................
COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE            2,455  ..........       3,200  ..........       8,200  ..........
 SYSTEM.................................
FORT MCDOWELL SETTLEMENT ACT............         400  ..........         400  ..........         400  ..........
NORTHERN ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.         250  ..........         250  ..........         250  ..........
PHOENIX METROPOLITAN WATER REUSE PROJECT         200  ..........         200  ..........         200  ..........
SALT RIVER PROJECT......................         300  ..........         300  ..........         300  ..........
SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE WATER SETTLEMENT         100  ..........         100  ..........         100  ..........
 ACT....................................
SOUTHERN ARIZONA WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT       4,725  ..........       4,725  ..........       4,725  ..........
 ACT PROJECT............................
SOUTH/CENTRAL ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS             795  ..........         795  ..........       1,354  ..........
 PROGRAM................................
TRES RIOS WETLANDS DEMONSTRATION........         300  ..........         300  ..........         300  ..........
YUMA AREA PROJECTS......................       1,722      20,378       1,722      20,878       1,722      20,378

               CALIFORNIA

CACHUMA PROJECT.........................         988         588         988         588         988         588
CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.......         580  ..........         580  ..........         580  ..........
CALLEGUAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT             1,350  ..........       2,500  ..........       2,000  ..........
 RECYCLING PLANT........................
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT..................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
    AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION.............       2,060       7,437       2,060       7,437       2,060       7,437
    AUBURN-FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT............       5,966  ..........       5,966  ..........       5,966  ..........
    DELTA DIVISION......................      10,441       5,752      10,441       5,752      10,441       5,752
    EAST SIDE DIVISION..................       1,907       2,297       1,907       2,297       1,907       2,297
    FRIANT DIVISION.....................       2,235       3,481       2,235       3,481       2,435       3,481
    MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS......      12,511       1,114      12,511       1,114      15,074       1,114
    REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND          ..........      23,200  ..........      23,200  ..........      23,200
     EXTRAORDINARY MAINT................
    SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION...........       2,381       1,759       2,381       1,759       2,458       1,759
    SAN FELIPE DIVISION.................         846  ..........         846  ..........         846  ..........
    SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION................         300  ..........         300  ..........         300  ..........
    SHASTA DIVISION.....................       1,050       7,606       1,050       7,606       1,050       7,606
    TRINITY RIVER DIVISION..............       7,621       3,242       7,621       3,242       8,121       3,242
    WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS..........       1,707      10,211       1,707      10,211       1,707      10,211
    WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS        5,191       7,146       5,191       7,146       5,191       7,146
     UNIT...............................
    YIELD FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION.....         500  ..........         500  ..........         500  ..........
EL DORADO TEMPERATURE CONTROL DEVICE....  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........  ..........  ..........
LAKE CACHUMA WATER AND SEWAGE TREATMENT.  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         500  ..........
LAKE TAHOE REGIONAL WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT         100  ..........         100  ..........       3,000  ..........
LONG BEACH AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND            650  ..........         650  ..........         650  ..........
 REUSE PROJECT..........................
LONG BEACH DESALINATION PROJECT.........  ..........  ..........       1,250  ..........       1,250  ..........
MISSION SPRINGS WATER REUSE, DESERT HOT   ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         150  ..........
 SPRINGS, CA............................
NAPA--SONOMA--MARIN AGRICULTURAL REUSE    ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         250  ..........
 PROJECT................................
NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY AREA WATER              1,250  ..........       2,500  ..........       1,250  ..........
 RECYCLING PROJECT......................
ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL WATER RECLAMATION       1,250  ..........       2,250  ..........       2,250  ..........
 PROJECT, PHAS..........................
ORLAND PROJECT..........................          41         920          41         920          41         920
PASADENA RECLAIMED WATER PROJECT........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         160  ..........
SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVERSION STUDY........  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........  ..........  ..........
SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT.............       1,000  ..........       4,800  ..........       1,000  ..........
SAN DIEGO AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND           3,500  ..........       3,500  ..........       3,500  ..........
 REUSE PROGRAM..........................
SAN GABRIEL BASIN PROJECT...............         500  ..........         500  ..........         500  ..........
SAN GABRIEL BASIN RESTORATION PROJECT...  ..........  ..........      10,000  ..........  ..........  ..........
SAN JOSE WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE             300  ..........         300  ..........       1,000  ..........
 PROGRAM................................
SANTA MARGARITA RIVER CONJUNCTIVE USE     ..........  ..........         500  ..........  ..........  ..........
 PROJECT................................
SOLANO PROJECT..........................       1,502       2,863       1,502       2,863       1,502       2,863
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS               550  ..........       1,050  ..........         550  ..........
 PROGRAM................................
VENTURA RIVER PROJECT...................         596  ..........         596  ..........         596  ..........
WATSONVILLE AREA WATER RECYCLING PROJECT  ..........  ..........       2,000  ..........  ..........  ..........

                COLORADO

ANIMAS-LA PLATA PROJECT, CRSP SECTION 5       52,000  ..........      56,000  ..........      60,000  ..........
 AND 8..................................
COLLBRAN PROJECT........................         166       1,277         166       1,277         166       1,277
COLORADO-BIG THOMPSON PROJECT...........         438      16,151         438      16,151         438      16,151
COLORADO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.........         200  ..........         200  ..........         200  ..........
FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT................          20         128          20         128          20         128
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT..............         173       8,579         173       8,579         173       8,579
GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II.....         233         670         233         670         233         670
LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY.......          72       2,250          72       2,250          72       2,250
MANCOS PROJECT..........................          86          88          86          88          86          88
PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II...          62       2,055          62       2,055          62       2,055
PINE RIVER PROJECT......................         114         128         114         128         114         128
SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT.................         279       5,490         279       5,490         279       5,490
UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT.....................         172         126         172         126         172         126

                 HAWAII

HAWAIIAN RECLAIM AND REUSE STUDY........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........

                  IDAHO

BOISE AREA PROJECTS.....................       2,480       2,520       2,480       2,520       2,480       2,520
COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY      17,500  ..........      17,500  ..........      17,500  ..........
 PROJECT................................
IDAHO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM............         548  ..........         548  ..........         548  ..........
MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS..................       3,169       2,639       3,169       2,639       3,169       2,639
MINIDOKA NORTHSIDE DRAIN WATER                   200  ..........         200  ..........         200  ..........
 MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.....................
MINIDOKA PROJECT, GRASSY LAKE SOD.......  ..........         310  ..........         310  ..........         310

                 KANSAS

KANSAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...........         150  ..........         150  ..........         150  ..........
WICHITA PROJECT.........................         261         334         261         334         261         334

                 MONTANA

FORT PECK DRY PRAIRIE RURAL WATER SYSTEM  ..........  ..........      13,000  ..........      19,000  ..........
HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT....................  ..........         331  ..........         331  ..........         331
HUNTLEY PROJECT.........................          26         125          26         125          26         125
MILK RIVER PROJECT......................         455         852         455         852         455         852
MONTANA INVESTIGATIONS..................         385  ..........         385  ..........         385  ..........
NORTH CENTRAL MONTANA RURAL WATER         ..........  ..........       7,500  ..........  ..........  ..........
 PROJECT................................
ST. MARY'S FACILITIES REHABILITATION....  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........
SUN RIVER PROJECT.......................  ..........         241  ..........         241  ..........         241

                NEBRASKA

MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT....................          12          71          12          71          12          71
NEBRASKA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.........         128  ..........         128  ..........         128  ..........

                 NEVADA

HALFWAY WASH PROJECT STUDY..............         200  ..........         200  ..........       1,000  ..........
LAHONTAN BASIN PROJECT..................       4,520       3,057       4,520       3,057       4,520       3,057
LAKE MEAD/LAS VEGAS WASH PROGRAM........       1,200  ..........       1,200  ..........       2,775  ..........
NORTH LAS VEGAS WATER REUSE.............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........
SOUTHERN NEVADA WATER RECYCLING PROJECT.  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       3,423  ..........

               NEW MEXICO

ALBUQUERQUE METRO AREA WATER AND          ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........
 RECLAMATION REUSE......................
CARLSBAD PROJECT........................       2,297         822       2,297         822       2,297         822
CHIMAYO WATER PLAN......................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........
EASTERN NEW MEXICO WATER SUPPLY.........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
EASTERN NEW MEXICO INVESTIGATIONS                 70  ..........          70  ..........          70  ..........
 PROGRAMS...............................
ESPANOLA WATER DIVERSION................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........
JICARILLA APACHE RESERVATION RURAL WATER  ..........  ..........         500  ..........  ..........  ..........
 SYSTEM.................................
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT...............       9,150       9,850       9,150       9,850      15,650       9,850
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE OFF-CHANNEL             ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       2,000  ..........
 SANCTUARIES............................
NAVAJO GALLUP WATER SUPPLY..............  ..........  ..........         500  ..........         500  ..........
NAVAJO NATION INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM....         180  ..........         180  ..........         180  ..........
PECOS RIVER BASIN WATER SALVAGE PROJECT.  ..........         181  ..........         181  ..........         181
RIO GRANDE PROJECT......................       1,134       3,567       1,134       3,567       1,134       3,567
SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN INVESTIGATIONS              150  ..........         150  ..........         150  ..........
 PROGRAM................................
SANTA FE--WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE     ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
 PROJECT................................
SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO/WEST TEXAS                   230  ..........         230  ..........         230  ..........
 INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.................
TUCUMCARI PROJECT.......................          56           7          56           7          56           7

              NORTH DAKOTA

DAKOTAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM..........         237  ..........         237  ..........         237  ..........
DAKOTAS TRIBES INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...          84  ..........          84  ..........          84  ..........
PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN PROGRAM,            22,640       4,197      22,640       4,197      26,640       4,197
 GARRISON DIVERSION.....................

                OKLAHOMA

ARBUCKLE PROJECT........................          17         183          17         183          17         183
MCGEE CREEK PROJECT.....................          33         518          33         518          33         518
MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT...................          17         338          17         338          17         338
NORMAN PROJECT..........................          17         384          17         384          17         384
NORMANIOR FEASISBILITY STUDY............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         300  ..........
NORTH FORK OF THE RED RIVER PROJECT,      ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
 (OKLAHOMA INVESTI......................
OKLAHOMA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.........         155  ..........         155  ..........         155  ..........
WASHITA BASIN PROJECT...................          30       1,155          30       1,155          30       1,155
W.C. AUSTIN PROJECT.....................         137         389         137         389         137         389

                 OREGON

CROOKED RIVER PROJECT...................         661         446         661         446         661         446
DESCHUTES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT.  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       2,000  ..........
DESCHUTES PROJECT.......................         301         147         301         147         301         147
EASTERN OREGON PROJECTS.................         544         362         544         362         544         362
KLAMATH PROJECT.........................      21,310         690      21,310         690      21,310         690
OREGON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...........         450  ..........         450  ..........         450  ..........
ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT                780         223         780         223         780         223
 DIVISION...............................
SAVAGE RAPIDS DAM REMOVAL...............       1,000  ..........       1,000  ..........       2,000  ..........
TUALATIN PROJECT........................         475         147         475         147         475         147
TUALATIN VALLEY WATER SUPPLY FEASIBILITY  ..........  ..........         300  ..........         300  ..........
 PROJECT................................
UMATILLA BASIN PROJECT, PHASE III STUDY.         200  ..........         200  ..........         200  ..........
UMATILLA PROJECT........................         803       3,127         803       3,127         803       3,127

              SOUTH DAKOTA

LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM......      15,000  ..........      15,000  ..........      20,000  ..........
MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT..........  ..........          15  ..........         300       4,000          15
MNI WICONI PROJECT......................      22,447       7,053      14,947       7,053      26,447       7,053
PERKINS COUNTY RURAL WATER DISTRICT.....  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       2,000  ..........
RAPID VALLEY PROJECT, DEERFIELD DAM.....  ..........          50  ..........          50  ..........          50

                  TEXAS

BALMORHEA PROJECT.......................          24  ..........          24  ..........          24  ..........
CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT..................          69          97          69          97          69          97
EL PASO WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE.....  ..........  ..........         100  ..........         103  ..........
LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY WATER RESOURCES.          50  ..........       2,900  ..........          50  ..........
NUECES RIVER............................          36         503          36         503          36         503
SAN ANGELO PROJECT......................          17         344          17         344          17         344
TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM............         214  ..........         214  ..........         214  ..........
TRINITY RIVER WASTEWATER STUDY..........  ..........  ..........         200  ..........  ..........  ..........
WILLIAMSON COUNTY WATER RECYLING PROJECT  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         200  ..........

                  UTAH

HYRUM PROJECT...........................         125          30         125          30         125          30
MOON LAKE PROJECT.......................          13          27          13          27          13          27
NEWTON PROJECT..........................          43          23          43          23          43          23
NORTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM....         154  ..........         154  ..........         654  ..........
OGDEN RIVER PROJECT.....................         228          35         228          35         228          35
PARK CITY FEASIBILITY STUDY.............  ..........  ..........         500  ..........         500  ..........
PROVO RIVER PROJECT.....................         894         319         894         319         894         319
PROVO RIVER PROJECT, DEER CREEK DAM.....  ..........       4,900  ..........       4,900  ..........       4,900
SCOFIELD PROJECT........................          86          27          86          27          86          27
SOUTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM....  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT...............         177           8         177           8         177           8
WEBER BASIN PROJECT.....................       1,841         357       1,841         357       1,841         357
WEBER BASIN PROJECT, PINEVIEW PROJECT...  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
WEBER RIVER PROJECT.....................          41          80          41          80          41          80

               WASHINGTON

COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT..................       4,047       7,616       4,047       7,616       4,047       7,616
LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM WATER SUPPLY          ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
 FEASIBILITY STUDY......................
MAKAH INDIAN COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY       ..........  ..........         300  ..........         300  ..........
 FEASIBILITY STUDY......................
STORAGE DAM FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY             780  ..........         780  ..........         780  ..........
 STUDY..................................
WASHINGTON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.......         300  ..........         550  ..........         950  ..........
YAKIMA PROJECT..........................       1,524       6,398       1,524       6,398       1,524       6,398
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE........  ..........  ..........       1,500  ..........       1,500  ..........
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT           8,500  ..........       7,000  ..........       8,500  ..........
 PROJECT................................

                 WYOMING

KENDRICK PROJECT........................          50       4,010          50       4,010          50       4,010
NORTH PLATTE PROJECT....................          79       1,817          79       1,817          79       1,817
SHOSHONE PROJECT........................          62         740          62         740          62         740
WYOMING INVESTIGATION PROGRAM...........          40  ..........          40  ..........          40  ..........

                 VARIOUS

COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL     ..........      10,673  ..........      10,673  ..........      10,673
 PROJECT, TITLE I.......................
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL,        10,000  ..........      10,000  ..........      10,000  ..........
 TITLE II...............................
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, SECTION        6,293       3,403       6,293       3,403       6,293       3,403
 5......................................
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, SECTION        4,030  ..........       4,030  ..........       4,030  ..........
 8......................................
COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT         465  ..........         465  ..........         465  ..........
 PROGRAM................................
DAM SAFETY PROGRAM......................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
    DEPARTMENT DAM SAFETY PROGRAM.......  ..........       1,500  ..........       1,500  ..........       1,500
    INITIATE SOD CORRECTIVE ACTION......  ..........      44,578  ..........      44,578  ..........      44,578
    SAFETY OF DAMS CORRECTIVE ACTION      ..........         100  ..........         100  ..........         100
     STUDIES............................
    SAFETY OF EVALUATION OF EXISTING      ..........      18,500  ..........      18,500  ..........      18,500
     DAMS...............................
DEPARTMENTAL IRRIGATION DRAINAGE PROGRAM  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       1,900  ..........
DROUGHT EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE............         500  ..........         500  ..........         500  ..........
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND DISASTER RESPONSE  ..........       1,360  ..........       1,360  ..........       1,360
 PROGRAM................................
ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY                    9,734  ..........       9,734  ..........       9,734  ..........
 IMPLEMENTATION.........................
ENVIRONMENTAL AND INTERAGENCY                  1,790  ..........       1,790  ..........       1,790  ..........
 COORDINATION ACTIVITIES................
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION....         965  ..........         965  ..........         965  ..........
EXAMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES......  ..........       5,699  ..........       5,699  ..........       5,699
FEDERAL BUILDING SEISMIC SAFETY PROGRAM.  ..........       1,575  ..........       1,575  ..........       1,575
GENERAL PLANNING STUDIES................       2,006  ..........       2,006  ..........       2,006  ..........
LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.......       7,000  ..........       7,000  ..........       7,000  ..........
LOWER COLORADO RIVER INVESTIGATIONS              300  ..........         300  ..........         300  ..........
 PROGRAM................................
LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM.      17,894  ..........      17,894  ..........      17,894  ..........
MISCELLANEOUS FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS..  ..........         631  ..........         631  ..........         631
NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM.........       7,525  ..........       7,525  ..........       9,025  ..........
NATURAL RESOURCES DAMAGE ASSESSMENT.....         300  ..........         300  ..........         300  ..........
NEGOTIATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF WATER        1,745  ..........       1,745  ..........       1,745  ..........
 MARKETING..............................
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM                165         876         165         876         165         876
 MANAGEMENT.............................
PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN--OTHER               3,537      38,553       3,537      38,553       3,537      38,553
 PROJECTS...............................
POWER PROGRAM SERVICES..................       1,020         212       1,020         212       1,020         212
PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY PROGRAM........         634         124         634         124         634         124
RECLAMATION LAW ADMINISTRATION..........       2,368  ..........       2,368  ..........       2,368  ..........
RECLAMATION RECREATION MANAGEMENT--TITLE         582  ..........         582  ..........         582  ..........
 XXVIII.................................
RECREATION & FISH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM         1,570  ..........       1,570  ..........       1,570  ..........
 ADMINISTRATION.........................
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
    DESALINATION RESEARCH AND                     25  ..........          25  ..........      11,025  ..........
     DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM................
    SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM......       9,684  ..........       9,684  ..........      10,684  ..........
SITE SECURITY...........................  ..........      50,000  ..........      40,000  ..........      50,000
SOIL AND MOISTURE CONSERVATION..........         293  ..........         293  ..........         293  ..........
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO STATES..........       1,884  ..........       1,884  ..........       1,884  ..........
TITLE XVI, WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE         1,229  ..........  ..........  ..........       4,229  ..........
 PROGRAM................................
UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER ISSUES--              80  ..........          80  ..........          80  ..........
 TECHNICAL SUPPORT......................
WATER CONSERVATION FIELD SERVICE PROGRAM       8,950  ..........       9,875  ..........       9,250  ..........
    EFFICIENCY INCENTIVES PROGRAM.......  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
    WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION     ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
     PROGRAM............................
WATER 2025..............................      30,000  ..........  ..........  ..........      20,000  ..........
WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT....................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       1,500  ..........
UNDISTRIBUTED REDUCTION BASED ON             -30,172  ..........      -6,967  ..........     -30,749      -2,978
 ANTICIPATED DELAYS.....................
RESCISSION--PUBLIC LAW 108-447..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Water and Related Resources     409,892     391,677     449,488     382,462     510,870     388,699
                                                  801,569
                                                  832,000
                                                  899,569
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Colorado Front Work and Levee System, AZ.--The Committee 
has included $8,200,000 for continuation of this project. 
Additional funds were provided above the budget request for 
continued work on the regulating reservoirs and for initiation 
of appropriate studies to determine if additional capacity can 
be economically realized behind Laguna Dam if sediment is 
removed. The Committee understands that these projects have the 
potential of saving as much as 300,000 acre-feet of Colorado 
River System water that would otherwise be over-delivered to 
Mexico. Due to the potential for such water savings 
(essentially Nevada's entire annual share of Colorado River 
Water), the Committee urges Reclamation to increase budgeting 
for these items.
    South/Central Arizona Investigations Program, AZ.--Within 
the funds provided, the Committee has included $300,000 for the 
Central Arizona Salinity Study and $250,000 for the West Salt 
River Study.
    Central Valley Project.--
  --Delta Division.--Within the funds provided for the Delta 
        Division, $4,000,000 is provided for the Interagency 
        Ecological Program.
  --Friant Division.--$200,000 has been provided for appraisal 
        level studies of the Madera Irrigation District Water 
        Supply Enhancement.
  --Miscellaneous Project Programs.--Additional funds above the 
        budget request are provided for the Kaweah River Delta 
        Corridor Enhancement Study ($63,000) and the Sacramento 
        Valley Regional Integrated Water Management Plan 
        ($2,500,000).
  --Sacramento River Division.--Additional funds above the 
        budget request are provided to complete the Glen Colusa 
        Irrigation District Fish Screen Improvement Project.
  --Trinity River Division.--The Committee has provided 
        $500,000 above the budget request for the Fishery 
        Restoration program. These funds are to be used in 
        concert with the $2,000,000 provided in the Central 
        Valley Project Restoration Program to meet Federal 
        trust responsibilities to protect the fishery resources 
        of the Hoopa Valley Tribe. The Commissioner is urged to 
        continue to support a Co-Management Agreement between 
        the Hoopa Valley Tribe and the Bureau of Reclamation.
    Animas-La Plata, CO.--The Committee has provided 
$60,000,000 for construction of this project.
    Colorado-Big Thompson Project, CO.--The Committee is aware 
of the recently completed pipeline study and urges Reclamation 
to work with the stakeholders with relation to the Colorado-Big 
Thompson project as authorities allow.
    Fort Peck, Dry Prairie Rural Water System, MT.--The 
Committee has provided $19,000,000 for continued construction 
of the project.
    Lahontan Basin Project, NV.--The Committee has learned that 
dam safety issues have arisen concerning Tahoe Dam. As this dam 
provides more than 70 percent of the water supply for the area, 
it is imperative that safety remediation activities be 
undertaken as soon as possible. The Committee understands that 
preliminary investigations are underway and will be continued 
with budgeted funds in fiscal year 2006. The Committee expects 
Reclamation to ask for the appropriate funding level in the 
fiscal year 2007 budget to address safety issues.
    Southern Nevada Water Recycling Project, NV.--The Committee 
has provided $3,423,000 to complete the Federal share of this 
project.
    Chimayo Water Plan, NM.--The Committee has provided 
$1,000,000 to initiate this project.
    Espanola Water Diversion, NM.--The Committee has provided 
$1,000,000 to initiate this project.
    Middle Rio Grande Project, New Mexico.--The conferees 
support the reorganization of the Endangered Species Act 
Collaborative Program resulting in the Army Corps of Engineers 
in collaboration with the Fish and Wildlife Service taking 
responsibility to provide the administrative support for the 
program and the Army Corps of Engineers taking responsibility 
to meet the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative of the 2003 
Biological Opinion required by section 205 of Public Law 108-
447 (118 Stat 2949) other than the water acquisition and 
management functions set out in the Reasonable and Prudent 
Alternative. Additionally, the Army Corps of Engineers will 
assume responsibility for providing a detailed spending plan 
for fiscal year 2006 funds to the House and Senate 
Appropriations Committees for approval; completion of the 
baseline Long-Term Plan and completion of the Programmatic 
Environmental Impact Statement before the end of fiscal year 
2006. The Bureau of Reclamation retains responsibility to meet 
the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative regarding water 
acquisition and management, including acquisition of water to 
meet the flow requirements articulated in the 2003 Biological 
Opinion and development of a long-term plan to meet these flow 
requirements. The conferees expect the Bureau of Reclamation to 
facilitate a smooth transition of administrative functions for 
the program to the Army Corps of Engineers and the Fish and 
Wildlife Service within 3 months of the beginning of fiscal 
year 2006. Of the total $25,500,000 provided for the Middle Rio 
Grande Project, the conferees have provided $12,900,000 for the 
collaborative program. Of these funds, The Bureau of 
Reclamation is provided $5,000,000 for water acquisition and 
associated administrative support within the Bureau; the Bureau 
is to transfer $7,500,000 to the Army Corps of Engineers to 
fund populations management, habitat restoration, water 
management studies, fish passage and river connectivity, minnow 
management, water quality, science and monitoring, biological 
opinion monitoring, and program management to meet the 2003 
Biological Opinion Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives; and to 
provide $400,000 to the Fish and Wildlife Service for program 
management support. The cost-share requirements of the program 
remain 75 percent Federal/25 percent non-Federal for all 
activities except water acquisition and program administration. 
Non-Federal cost share may be provided through in-kind services 
and participation on the administration team.
    Middle Rio Grande Off-Channel Sanctuaries, New Mexico.--The 
Committee provides $2,000,000 for completion of construction 
and initial operation of the off-channel sanctuary authorized 
under section 6014 of Public Law 109-13.
    Norman, OK.--The Committee has included $300,000 to 
initiate this study.
    Deschutes Ecosystem Restoration Project, OR.--The Committee 
has provided $2,000,000 to continue this project.
    Mid-Dakota Rural Water Project, SD.--The Committee has 
provided $4,000,000 to close out this project that was 
completed in fiscal year 2005.
    El Paso, Water Reclamation and Reuse, TX.--The Committee 
has included $103,000 to complete the project as currently 
authorized.
    Williamson County Water Reclamation and Reuse Project, 
TX.--The Committee has provided $200,000 to initiate this 
project.
    Northern Utah Investigations Program, UT.--The Committee 
has included an additional $500,000 for the Rural Water 
Technology Alliance.
    Washington Investigations Program, WA.--The Committee has 
provided $950,000 for this program. Within the funds provided, 
$600,000 is for the Odessa Sub Area study, and $50,000 is for 
the West Canal study.
    Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project, Title I.--
The Committee is concerned about drought conditions in the west 
and particularly how they relate to the Colorado River System. 
As was discussed under the Colorado Front Work and Levee System 
Project, it is imperative that Reclamation, working with the 
stakeholders, determine how to retain additional water in the 
system to avoid making excess releases to Mexico.
    The Yuma desalting plant was constructed by the Bureau of 
Reclamation to address Treaty water, quality and quantity, 
issues with Mexico; however, it has never been operated at more 
than about one-third capacity for about 6 months. Without the 
plant, about 100,000 acre feet of Colorado River water is 
bypassed to Mexico through the Welton-Mohawk Drain. Treaty 
obligations have been met by other means over the last 10-12 
years rather than using the desalting plant. However, with the 
persistent drought the loss of that 100,000 acre feet of water 
is becoming more of an issue as Lake Mead and Lake Powell have 
dropped.
    The Committee understands that the Yuma plant is antiquated 
and expensive to operate. However, it appears to the Committee 
that it might be the best short-term alternative to respond to 
the drought. Therefore, the Committee directs the Commissioner 
of Reclamation to provide an engineering report to the 
Committee no later than 30 days after the enactment of this act 
detailing the costs and current progress towards modernizing 
the Yuma plant to where it could be used as intended. Further, 
the Committee directs the Commissioner to include realistic 
operational costs in the report for the plant. The Committee 
would entertain discussions of alternate ideas for water 
sources or operation of the plant provided they do not infringe 
upon property rights, state or local laws.
    Departmental Irrigation Program.--The Committee has 
provided $1,900,000 for this program. $150,000 is provided for 
the Uncompaghre selenium control project and $1,750,000 is for 
irrigation modernization activities for Elephant Butte 
Irrigation District.
    Drought Emergency Assistance.--The Committee has provided 
the budget request for this program. Within the funds provided, 
the Committee urges Reclamation to provide full and fair 
consideration for drought assistance from the State of Hawaii.
    Native American Affairs Program.--Additional funds provided 
above the budget request are for continued work on the AAMODT 
settlement.
    Research and Development, Science and Technology Program.--
The Committee has provided $1,000,000 above the request for the 
further refinement of the Upper Rio Grande Water Operations 
Model in collaboration with the Army Corps of Engineers and 
Sandia National Laboratories.
    Research and Development, Desalination Research and 
Development Program.--The Committee has provided $11,025,000 
for this program. Within the funds provided, $4,000,000 is for 
desalination R&D efforts directed by the Bureau of Reclamation. 
The Committee continues to urge the Bureau of Reclamation to 
place a higher priority on desalination activities in future 
budgets given the importance of sustainable water supplies to 
the West and to other regions of the country. Additionally, the 
Committee has provided $7,000,000 for the completion of 
construction of the Tularosa Basin Desalination Facility, New 
Mexico and initial operation. Upon completion of the facility, 
the Bureau is directed to select an organization to operate the 
facility under Bureau direction. In this selection the Bureau 
should give priority to local education institutions who have 
expertise, do not need to relocate and have on-going water 
research activities.
    Site Security.--The Committee has provided the budget 
request for this item and directs that increased security costs 
continue to be non-reimbursible until the Committee notifies 
Reclamation otherwise.
    Title XVI, Water Reclamation and Reuse.--The Committee has 
provided $4,229,000 for this program. Within the funds 
provided, the Committee has included $3,000,000 for the 
WateReuse Foundation. These funds shall be available to support 
the Foundation's research priorities.
    Water Conservation Field Service Program.--The Committee 
has included $300,000 for urban water conservation projects 
identified through the Metropolitan Water District of Southern 
California Innovative Conservation Program that will increase 
water-use efficiency. In addition, $100,000 is provided for the 
Bureau of Reclamation to initiate a study to identify 
concurrent and overlapping Government programs aimed at 
improving water resource efficiency. It is hoped that the study 
will encourage agencies to look beyond their individual areas 
of responsibility in an effort to bring about greater resource 
efficiencies to the Southern California region.
    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 $20,000,000 for this initiative proposed by the 
administration. The Committee believes that water resource and 
efficiency issues, combined with the drought and endangered 
species listings, make the Rio Grande River in New Mexico the 
embodiment of the Water 2025 initiative. Therefore, the 
Committee has included $1,000,000 to provide for continued 
efficiency and water improvements related to the Middle Rio 
Grande Conservancy District and $1,000,000 for work related to 
water efficiency and supply supplementation in the Pecos 
consistent with the partnership between the Carlsbad Irrigation 
District and the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission. A 
critical component of reducing tension among multiple water 
users is collaborative planning and joint operations. Within 
the funds provided, $2,000,000 is for the Desert Research 
Institute to address water quality and environmental issues in 
ways that will bring industry and regulators to mutually 
acceptable answers.
    Wetlands Development.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $1,500,000 for the Yuma East Wetlands project.

                CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

Appropriations, 2005....................................     $54,628,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................      52,219,000
House allowance.........................................      52,219,000
Committee recommendation................................      52,219,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $52,219,000, 
the same as the budget request for the Central Valley Project 
Restoration Fund.
    The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund was authorized 
in the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, title 34 of 
Public Law 102-575. This fund was established to provide 
funding from project beneficiaries for habitat restoration, 
improvement and acquisition, and other fish and wildlife 
restoration activities in the Central Valley project area of 
California. Revenues are derived from payments by project 
beneficiaries and from donations. Payments from project 
beneficiaries include several required by the Act (Friant 
Division surcharges, higher charges on water transferred to 
non-CVP users, and tiered water prices) and, to the extent 
required in appropriations acts, additional annual mitigation 
and restoration payments.

                    CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2005....................................................
Budget estimate, 2006...................................     $35,000,000
House allowance.........................................      35,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      37,000,000

    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.
    The Committee has provided $37,000,000, $2,000,000 above 
the budget request for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. The 
Committee is aware of recent declines in the Delta smelt 
population in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Within the 
funds provided, $1,000,000 is for the Interagency Ecological 
Program to identify the causes of and propose remedies for the 
smelt's population decline and $1,000,000 is for the Westside 
Regional Drainage Program in the San Luis Division of the 
Central Valley Project.

                       POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2005....................................     $57,688,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................      57,917,000
House allowance.........................................      57,917,000
Committee recommendation................................      57,917,000

    The Committee recommendation for general administrative 
expenses is $57,917,000. This is the same as the budget 
request.
    The policy and administrative expenses program provides for 
the executive direction and management of all reclamation 
activities, as performed by the Commissioner's offices in 
Washington, DC, Denver, CO, and five regional offices. The 
Denver office and regional offices charge individual projects 
or activities for direct beneficial services and related 
administrative and technical costs. These charges are covered 
under other appropriations.
    Bureau of Reclamation Transformation for the Future.--The 
Committee notes that the core activities of the Bureau have 
largely transitioned from design and construction of dams and 
power plants to maintenance, repair, and renovation of these 
facilities. It is appropriate to ask whether Reclamation has 
the appropriate organizational structure, core competencies, 
and resource allocations to meet the current realities of the 
Bureau's mission. The Committee therefore directs that 
Reclamation contract with the National Research Council to 
conduct a study to advise Reclamation on the appropriate 
organizational, management, and resource configurations to meet 
its construction, maintenance, and infrastructure missions of 
the 21st Century. Once completed, the Bureau shall submit the 
findings to the Committee.

             GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

    Section 201. The bill includes language regarding the San 
Luis Unit and the Kesterson Reservoir in California.
    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.
    Section 203. The bill includes language regarding Drought 
Emergency Assistance.
    Section 204. The bill includes language authorizing Water 
2025 and making it permanent.
    Section 205. The bill includes language regarding the Rio 
Grande Collaborative water operations team.
    Section 206. The bill includes language extending the 
Desalination Act by 5 years, regarding the San Luis Unit and 
the Kesterson Reservoir in California.
    Section 207. The bill includes language extendeing the 
completion date for the Animas-La Plata.
    Section 208. The bill includes language regarding the 
Humbolt Project Title transfer.
    Section 209. The bill includes language regarding Desert 
Terminus Lakes.
    Section 210. The bill includes language authorizing a 
feasibility study for Norman, OK.
    Section 211. The Committee has included a provision 
concerning Animas-La Plata.

                    TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

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

                             REPROGRAMMINGS

    The Committee requires the Department to promptly and fully 
inform the Committee when a change in program execution or 
funding is required during the fiscal year. A reprogramming 
includes the reallocation of funds from one activity to another 
within an appropriation, or any significant departure from a 
program, project, or activity described in the agency's budget 
justification, including contemplated site budgets as presented 
to and approved or modified by Congress in an appropriations 
act or the accompanying statement of managers or report. For 
construction projects, a reprogramming constitutes the 
reallocation of funds from one construction project identified 
in the justifications to another or a significant change in the 
scope of an approved project.
    Reprogrammings should not be employed to initiate new 
programs or to change program, project, or activity allocations 
specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in the 
Act or report. In cases where unforeseen events or conditions 
are deemed to require such changes, proposals shall be 
submitted in advance to the Committee and be fully explained 
and justified. The Committee has not provided the Department 
with any internal reprogramming flexibility in fiscal year 
2005, unless specifically identified in the House, Senate, or 
conference reports. Any reallocation of new or prior year 
budget authority or prior year deobligations must be submitted 
to the Committees in writing and may not be implemented prior 
to approval by the Committees on Appropriations.

                      SMALL BUSINESS PROCUREMENTS

    The Committee is concerned that the Department of Energy's 
current efforts at breaking out procurements for small business 
contracts do not represent a systematic approach for 
consideration of small business statutory goals together with 
other legitimate acquisition objectives.
    Beginning with its roots in the Manhattan Project, the 
Department of Energy [DOE] has executed a broad mandate with 
regard to the Nation's nuclear and energy challenges. The 
Department maintains the primary responsibility for energy 
security, ensuring the safety, security and reliability of the 
nuclear weapons stockpile, cleaning up the environment from the 
legacy of the Cold War, and developing innovations in science 
and technology. A significant portion of DOE's mission 
(approximately 83 percent of DOE's budget) is carried out by 
industrial and academic contractors operating DOE-owned plants 
and laboratories under large facilities management contracts 
where it is essential to meeting mission needs for the work to 
be fully integrated at a site. Although DOE has aggressively 
sought out new opportunities for small businesses as both prime 
contractors and subcontractors, there is a limit to what it can 
do since DOE's facility management contracts are not, for the 
most part, suitable for award to small businesses as prime 
contractors.
    Nevertheless, DOE has increased the amount of DOE dollars 
awarded to small businesses and over $4,000,000,000 a year is 
awarded to small businesses under DOE prime contracts and 
subcontracts. However, DOE's recent innovative efforts to 
increase small business prime contracts have met with mixed 
results. For example, major small business set-a-sides by the 
Office of Environmental Management [EM] have continued EM's 
preferred, but complicated, cost-plus-incentive fee type 
contracts for mission reasons, but have also attempted to 
streamline the process for small businesses. The complexities 
of the Federal procurement process and the clean up mission 
requirements for these procurements often resulted in schedule 
delays which negatively impact the small business participants 
who may be less able to absorb such delays than larger 
businesses may be. NNSA's attempts to break out work from 
facility management contracts have been met with concerns over 
mission fragmentation and the ability to properly administer 
new cadres of newly awarded prime Federal contracts.
    Language was included in section 6022 of Public Law 109-13, 
the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the 
Global War on Terror and Tsunami Relief Act of 2005 (Public Law 
109-13) directing the Secretary of Energy and Administrator of 
the Small Business Administration to negotiate a Memorandum of 
Understanding on developing a better methodology of counting 
prime and subcontracts awarded by the Department of Energy's 
management and operating, management and integration and other 
facility management prime contractors. During this period of 
negotiation, the Committee expects the Department and the 
National Nuclear Security Administration to refrain from 
implementing new contracting schemes, such as the Tri-lab 
Initiative, until an MOU has been filed with the Congress. 
Consistent with section 6022 of the Emergency Supplemental, the 
Committee also urges the Department to increase it efforts to 
ensure that any efforts to break out of prime contracts are 
provided to local small businesses.
    Contracting requirements for the Department designed to 
assist small businesses access the Federal procurement market 
has created inequitable competition amongst 8(a) firms. In the 
attempt to comply with the current contracting requirements, 
the Department has turned to Alaska Native Corporations [ANC] 
as a means to increase its Federal prime contracting numbers. 
Since October 2003, the Department has signed contracts with 
Alaska Native Corporations totaling more that $500,000,000 as 
8(a) firms, despite the size and income of some ANCs. In New 
Mexico, for example, the National Nuclear Security 
Administration has used ANC contractors at the expense of New 
Mexico small businesses.
    The Committee is aware of an ongoing Government 
Accountability Office [GAO] investigation into Federal 
contracting rules that are applied to Indian tribes and Native 
American businesses, including Alaska Native Corporations and 
Hawaiian Native Organizations. The Committee looks forward to 
the completion of the GAO report and the study conducted by the 
Department so that it may identify where appropriate reforms 
are necessary to ensure that the spirit of the Small Business 
Act is fulfilled.

       EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY LABS

    In February 2005, the Government Accountability Office 
[GAO] issued a report entitled, ``Equal Employment Opportunity: 
Information on Personnel Actions, Employee Concerns, and 
Oversight at Six Department of Energy Laboratories'' (GAO-05-
190). This report examined six Department of Energy 
laboratories to determine whether differences existed for 
managerial and professional women and minorities compared with 
men and whites in salaries, merit pay increases, separation 
patterns, and promotion rates; what concerns these women and 
minorities have raised; and how the Office of Federal Contract 
Compliance Programs [OFCCP] and the Department of Energy are 
responding to these issues. Based on the recommendations of the 
GAO, the Committee directs the Department of Energy to work 
with Department of Labor's OFCCP to determine the causes of the 
disparities and take the necessary corrective steps to address 
the problems identified.

          LABORATORY DIRECTED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT [LDRD]

    The Committee is concerned with the continued lack of 
recognition of the value of the LDRD, Plant Directed Research 
and Development [PDRD] and Site Directed Research and 
Development [SDRD] programs to DOE, other Federal agencies, and 
the American taxpayer. For example, the most recent DOE report 
submitted to Congress on the LDRD program clearly indicates 
that other Federal agencies continue to receive a very 
favorable return on their limited investment in the LDRD 
program. The LDRD program continues to provide solutions to 
future science and defense mission needs before program 
problems or requirements are even realized.
    Building on extensive understanding of radiation transport, 
LDRD efforts successfully developed a method for simulating 
dose response in radiation treatment of cancer. This system, 
dubbed Peregrine, has been licensed and approved by the FDA, 
and is currently in use for treating patients. The technology 
is a substantial improvement over previous approaches, 
providing more precise targeting of cancerous cells with 
radiation therapy, lowering the overall dose to the patient, 
and protecting healthy tissue from unnecessary exposure. LDRD 
research has resulted in systems for detecting biological and 
chemical warfare agents which have been deployed in recent 
combat zones. Specifically, Sniffer-Star has as its core 
technology the ``chem-lab-on-a-chip'' developed under the LDRD 
program, and has been flown over combat areas on un-manned 
aerial vehicles, ensuring that these areas were safe for our 
troops.
    The LDRD program provides the Nation the flexibility needed 
to support various research activities that result in many 
additional scientific breakthroughs and advances that would not 
have occurred otherwise, since DOE program funding is limited 
in its ability to fund these critical research efforts. 
Limiting the amount of funding provided to this program is 
counter-intuitive to the continued strength of American science 
and defense programs in the long run, and the Committee 
strongly resists any penny-wise but pound-foolish calls to 
arbitrarily limit the amounts provided for LDRD.
    As currently structured, the LDRD program ensures that a 
very small fraction of the laboratories' budgets are invested 
in innovative research and new ideas that are relevant to the 
missions of DOE/NNSA and the laboratories. In fact, the current 
funding level for the LDRD program is relatively small compared 
to the overall laboratory and Departmental budgets, but the 
program has been able to produce significant scientific and 
technical results that benefit the Nation's science and defense 
missions, and the Committee is hard-pressed to think of another 
program that produces results as beneficial to the taxpayer 
with such a paltry amount of funds. In this regard, the 
Committee is concerned that the current funding ceiling for the 
LDRD program is not adequate to continue to achieve the 
objectives of the program. Therefore, we recommend the LDRD 
funding ceiling be raised to effectively meet the increasing 
challenges faced by the laboratories to maintain their critical 
scientific competencies and attract and retain the best and 
brightest scientists. The new LDRD funding ceiling shall now be 
set at 8 percent (up from the current 6 percent) and PDRD and 
SDRD shall now be set at 4 percent (up from the current 2 
percent) and continue to be annually approved by the 
Department.
    Further, the Committee would like to compliment the 
Department for its strong and effective management of the LDRD 
program. The Department has been subject to several internal 
and external reviews over the last 5 years which have indicated 
the LDRD program continues to be well-managed by the 
Department. In fact, the most recent GAO review specifically 
indicated that DOE has implemented procedures for the LDRD 
program to ensure compliance with existing laws. The report 
also states that the GAO contacted the CFO and/or General 
Counsel of six Federal agencies and ``each agency told us that 
the LDRD program's inclusion as an indirect cost does not limit 
their ability to comply with their agency's statutory or 
appropriations requirements. Similarly, none of the research 
managers and/or contracting officers at the agencies expressed 
concern about the LDRD program or its funding method.'' The 
White House Federal Laboratory Review Panel (called the Packard 
Panel) recommended the Federal laboratories conduct 
discretionary research programs at the 5-10 percent level with 
appropriate Federal oversight. The Panel's report also states:

    ``If U.S. taxpayers are to get the most return from their 
support of R&D, government laboratories must have sufficient 
discretionary funding for independent research and development. 
Almost every laboratory has found that the most important 
innovation often comes from the scientists' independent ideas 
or actions. Thus the productivity of the U.S. R&D establishment 
depends on a vigorous independent R&D program.''

    Over the years, LDRD-funded research has resulted in many 
scientific breakthroughs and advances, benefiting and 
furthering not only DOE's mission, but the missions of all 
sponsors of work at the laboratories. LDRD is a cost of doing 
business at the laboratories, and the Department should 
continue to ensure its laboratories distribute LDRD as indirect 
costs, in accordance with cost accounting standards [CAS], to 
all work performed at its laboratories. The Department must 
maintain a funding mechanism that is: (1) stable, to ensure the 
laboratories continue to perform long-term, fundamental 
research--which is among their most distinctive contributions 
to the Nation; (2) flexible because of the uniqueness of each 
institution; (3) equitable for all customers; and (4) 
consistent with cost accounting standards in order to allocate 
expenses to cost objectives that cause, or benefit from, the 
expenses in accordance with CAS (a model consistent with 
government contracts placed with private industry). The 
Committee supports the current method for accumulating LDRD 
program dollars and believes that it is a fair and equitable 
approach to funding the program. Therefore, funds provided in 
Title III of this Act may be used to finance the total cost of 
work performed for other Federal sponsors, including LDRD 
costs, until they are reimbursed through the Department's 
normal billing and collection processes.
    Given the evidence reiterating the well managed LDRD 
program and the public benefits it provides, the Committee 
strongly supports the LDRD program as currently structured and 
managed by the Department, and specifically rejects the program 
changes suggested by the House Committee on Appropriations in 
their report (House Report 109-86) accompanying the fiscal year 
2006 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. The Department and 
its laboratories have clearly demonstrated the need for the 
LDRD program to continue. The Committee recognizes LDRD as a 
legitimate cost for keeping the laboratories vibrant, cutting 
edge and creative in ideas and new fields, and thereby benefits 
all customers using the DOE laboratories as well as the DOE and 
its missions. For the future of the Department and its 
laboratories, the Committee suggests that the Secretary of 
Energy should consider expanding the LDRD program to other DOE 
laboratories to further enhance the clear benefits of the 
program.
    The Committee recognizes that scientific discovery does not 
always coincide with the annul budget cycles and promising 
scientific discovery occasionally fails to capture the 
attention of this Committee. The LDRD program will continue to 
provide scientists the best opportunity to pursue discoveries 
as they develop, regardless if it was never contemplated by the 
Congress or the Office of Management and Budget. The Committee 
strongly endorses the LDRD program, as authorized, to ensure 
researchers sufficient funding and flexibility to pursue useful 
and relevant scientific discovery.

                     Energy Supply and Conservation

Appropriations, 2005....................................  $1,806,936,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................   1,749,446,000
House allowance.........................................   1,763,888,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,945,330,000

    The purposes of the programs funded under Energy Supply are 
to develop new energy technologies and improve existing energy 
technologies through basic and applied research and targeted 
programs in technology development. This account provides funds 
for both operating expenses and capital equipment for the 
advancement of the various energy technologies.
    The Energy Supply and Conservation account includes the 
following programs: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 
Nuclear Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy 
Reliability, Environment, Safety and Health (non-defense) and 
Legacy Management. Energy Conservation programs previously 
funded by the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act 
are now funded by the Energy Supply and Conservation 
appropriation, and are combined with energy efficiency 
activities in the Energy Supply and Conservation activities. 
These funds shall remain available until expended.

            ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAMS

    The Committee recommendation provides $1,253,819,000 for 
renewable energy resources, an increase of $53,405,000 from the 
current year level.
    This program undertakes research and development of 
renewable energy and related technologies to meet the growing 
need for clean and affordable energy. Program activities range 
from basic research in universities and national laboratories 
to cost-shared applied research, development, and field 
validation in partnership with the private sector.
    The recommendation for Renewable Energy Resources reflects 
the Committee's strong belief that only a balanced portfolio of 
production and distribution technologies and strategies will 
fulfill our Nation's long-term needs and goals for both energy 
and the environment. The Committee continues to support the 
efforts of the National Center on Energy Management and 
Building Technologies to improve energy efficiency in 
buildings. The Committee directs that this project shall be 
subject to the cost-sharing requirements of a research project 
rather than a demonstration project and directs the Department 
to continue to fund this project at the fiscal year 2005 level 
of $5,000,000.
    Hydrogen Research.--As a key component of the President's 
Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, this program develops hydrogen 
production, storage and delivery technologies that are more 
energy efficient, cleaner, safer and lower in cost. The long-
term aim is to develop hydrogen technologies that will allow 
the Nation to aggressively move forward to achieve a vision of 
a cleaner, more secure energy future. Current research will 
facilitate a decision by industry to commercialize hydrogen-
powered fuel cell vehicles by 2015.
    As such, the Committee recommendation includes $182,694,000 
for hydrogen research, which is consistent with the request and 
$13,188,000 above the current year level. The Committee also 
directs the Department to provide the budget request for 
Hydrogen Storage Centers of Excellence.
    The Committee recognizes the importance of DOE's 
``Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure Demonstration 
Validation Program'' for further development of hydrogen 
technology to meet our Nation's energy needs. This 
demonstration program is unique in that for the first time 
vehicles and energy infrastructure are integrated in real world 
settings that serve as test laboratories. The DOE requires 
extensive data collection and sharing that will be used to help 
advance this technology towards commercialization. The 
demonstration program requires full cost sharing. The Committee 
specifically provides $14,900,000 for infrastructure and 
$24,000,000 for vehicles for the demonstration projects as 
requested in the Department's fiscal year 2006 budget.
    Industrial consumption of hydrogen, especially by the 
petro-chemical and fertilizer communities is large and growing. 
The rate of petro-chemical hydrogen consumption necessary for 
gasoline-powered vehicles will accelerate as global reserves of 
sweet crude oil diminish. The dominant resource for hydrogen 
production today is natural gas whose reformation into hydrogen 
and carbon dioxide contributes significantly to atmospheric 
greenhouse gases. Moreover, natural gas reserves are 
insufficient to service simultaneously domestic heating and 
electricity requirements, industrial hydrogen consumption, and 
future demands by hydrogen powered vehicles and other fuel cell 
applications that would accompany the future ``Hydrogen 
Economy.'' Thus, the Committee recommendation seeks to focus 
the resources of the initiative on developing the most 
economical means of producing hydrogen from renewable sources 
and nuclear power. In addition, the Committee supports the 
recommendations of the National Academy of Science, and 
requests that the Department integrate their recommendations 
into the program. The Committee is aware of an ethanol-to-
hydrogen fueling station and vehicle demonstration project in 
Chicago and encourages the Department to provide appropriate 
technical and financial assistance.
    For the UNLV Research Foundation the Committee 
recommendation includes $4,000,000 to continue evaluation of 
solar-powered thermochemical production of hydrogen and 
$4,000,000 for on-going hydrogen fuel cell and storage research 
and development.
    Biomass/Biofuels--Energy Systems.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $92,164,000 for biomass/biofuels energy 
systems, an increase of $20,000,000 above the request.
    The Committee believes that the Regional Biomass Energy 
Program [RBEP] has been a successful partnership with the five 
distinct regions it has served. The Committee recommendation 
includes $15,000,000 for product development for the State and 
Regional Partnership Activity, of which $11,000,000 shall be 
provided to establish the Southeastern Center at Mississippi 
State University to support regional biomass research and 
development efforts and identify the best commercial 
opportunities in the Southeast for the use of biofuels and 
biomass to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources. 
Within the funds provided, the Committee recommends $5,000,000, 
the amount of the budget request, for the Pacific Northwest 
National Laboratory to sustain the bioproducts program focused 
on catalysis and fungal biotechnology for replacing petroleum 
derived chemicals and materials.
    The Committee recommendation also includes $4,000,000 for 
the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research, a successful 
consortium of 34 universities and 33 agribusinesses and trade 
associations.
    Geothermal.--The Committee recommends $23,299,000 for 
geothermal technology development, the same as the request, 
including continued funding (at current year levels) for 
GeoPowering the West. The Committee recommendation also 
includes $1,300,000 for the Geothermal and Renewable Energy 
Laboratory of Nevada; $500,000 to continue funding of 
operations at the GeoHeat Center at Oregon Institute of 
Technology; and $500,000 for the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe 
Energy Project.
    Hydropower.--The Committee recommends $500,000 for 
hydropower, the same as the budget request.
    Solar Energy.--The Committee recommendation for solar 
energy programs is $83,953,000.
    The Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 for the 
Southeast and Southwest photovoltaic experiment stations. The 
Committee recommends $1,200,000 for Sandia National 
Laboratories for the development of advanced cells and modules 
using ultra-thin back-contact multicrystalline-silicon solar 
cells employing micromachining. The Department should continue 
to fully support the public/private Million Solar Roofs 
initiative or another effective solar deployment program. The 
Committee recommendation includes $11,000,000 from within 
available funds for concentrating solar power, including 
$5,000,000 to validate the commercial viability by supporting a 
one megawatt demonstration at Sandia National Laboratory for 
dish concentrating solar power.
    Wind.--The Committee recommendation includes $34,249,000 
for wind energy systems. The Committee recognizes that wind 
energy has succeeded in penetrating the energy markets as a 
cost-effective renewable energy resource. Between 1990 and 
2003, the United States added 6,347 MW of wind-based generating 
capacity. The Committee concurs with the assessment of the 
Government Accountability Office in its September 2004 report 
(GAO-04-756) that noted that the driving factor behind wind 
deployment is the production of tax credit.
    The budget request also provides support for offshore wind 
research and development. Due to Federal regulatory uncertainty 
in permitting offshore facilities, the Committee recommends 
that the Department not expend any funds to support offshore 
wind energy research until the Federal rules and permitting 
requirements are implemented through legislation. In addition, 
the Committee recognizes that the intermittent nature of wind 
energy has made interconnection to the electricity grid a 
barrier to entry. The Committee supports Federal efforts to 
integrate renewable energy, but believes this activity is 
better suited to the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy 
Reliability.
    Vehicles Technology.--This program was previously funded in 
the Energy Conservation account in the Interior and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act, and now is funded within the 
Energy Supply and Conservation account of this Act. The mission 
of the Vehicle Technologies Program is to develop more energy 
efficient and environmentally friendly highway transportation 
technologies that will enable America to use significantly less 
petroleum. The long-term aim is to develop ``leapfrog'' 
technologies that through improvements in vehicle energy 
efficiency will provide Americans with continuing freedom of 
mobility and greater energy security, at lower costs and with 
lower impacts on the environment than current vehicles. The 
program focuses its research and development investments 
specifically on potential technology improvements that have 
uncertain or long-term outcomes, yet have significant public 
benefit. The high risks associated with these projects make it 
unlikely that they would be pursued by industry alone. The 
Committee recommends $199,943,000, an increase of $34,000,000 
above the request. The Committee includes $15,000,000 above the 
budget request for the Oak Ridge National Lab to be divided 
evenly between materials development and computational modeling 
to develop more energy efficient and environmentally friendly 
highway transportation technologies. The Committee provides an 
additional $4,500,000 for the CAVS Center located at 
Mississippi State University. The Committee also recommends an 
additional $2,600,000 to support the VULCAN beam line. Within 
available funds, $2,000,000 is provided for the Transportable 
Emissions Testing Laboratory; $1,000,000 is provided for the 
lightweight composite materials for heavy duty vehicles 
program; and $500,000 is provided for the hydrogen natural gas 
vehicles cylinder safety, inspection and maintenance program. 
The Committee recommendation includes $3,500,000, the same as 
current year, for the Off-Highway Program. The Committee 
expects the Department to fund the Automotive Lightweight 
Vehicles program account at the President's request of 
$18,000,000. The Committee recommends $12,000,000 for support 
of natural gas fueled vehicles. The Committee recognizes the 
Department's cooperative turbocharger research and development 
program and its contribution to increasing fuel efficiency in 
diesel engines. The Committee urges the continuation of the 
turbocharger initiative and seeks to facilitate the integration 
of such technology into engine and vehicle designs.
    The Committee recognizes the need to ensure that materials 
research funding within the vehicles technology program 
supports strategic advances in science and innovation and the 
long-term competitiveness of U.S. industry. The Committee 
directs DOE to expand research in the area of computational 
predictive engineering and testing of lightweight thermoplastic 
polymer composites as an enabling technology supporting the 
future design and manufacture of safer, more fuel efficient, 
and lower emissions vehicles competitive in global markets. In 
addition, the Committee acknowledges the important work in this 
area being undertaken by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 
and Oak Ridge National Laboratory in cooperation with the 
American Plastics Council.
    Building Technologies.--This program was previously funded 
in the Energy Conservation account in the Interior and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act, and now is funded within the 
Energy Supply and Conservation account of this Act. The 
Building Technologies program aims to reduce energy use in 
homes and commercial buildings by developing advanced lighting 
and appliances which, when coupled with improved building 
design, will yield maximum results. The Committee recommends 
$67,000,000, which includes $22,000,000 for lighting R&D, an 
increase of $5,000,000 to support through this office and the 
Office of Science a National Center for Solid State Lighting 
Research affiliated with the Center for Integrated 
Nanotechnologies. The Committee recommendation also includes 
$20,000,000, an increase of $2,250,000 above the request, for 
Residential Buildings Research. The Committee notes there are a 
number of proposed activities within the Building Technologies 
program that seek to reduce electricity through demand side 
management. The Secretary should consider transferring these 
activities to the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy 
Reliability. At a minimum, the Committee directs the Department 
to provide the Committee with a brief report on how the 
research between the two programs will add value to both 
programs and not needlessly duplicate research efforts. The 
Committee recommendation includes a $4,000,000 increase for 
Thermal Energy Technologies. Within the $12,000,000 
recommended, $4,000,000 is for gas engine-driven heat pump 
development; $2,000,000 shall be used to complete the on-going 
Ammonia Absorption Technology Development for HVAC&R activity; 
$2,500,000 shall be available for a CHP engineering prototype & 
field test activity of ammonia absorption technology; Desiccant 
research shall be continued at a level of $1,500,000; and heat 
and mass transfer activities shall be continued at a level of 
$2,000,000.
    Industrial Technologies.--This program was previously 
funded in the Energy Conservation account in the Interior and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, and now is funded within 
the Energy Supply and Conservation account of this Act. The 
Industrial Technologies program aims to develop more efficient 
industrial processes in energy intensive industries through the 
cost-sharing of research. The Committee recommends $56,489,000.

                   FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

    This program was previously funded in the Energy 
Conservation account in the Interior and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, and now is funded within the Energy Supply 
and Conservation account of this act. The Federal Energy 
Management Program advances energy efficiency and use of 
renewable energy in Federal buildings through financial and 
technical assistance and project evaluation. The Committee 
recommends $17,147,000 for Federal Energy Management Programs.

                     FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

    The Committee recommendation for Facilities and 
Infrastructure is $16,315,000. The recommendation includes 
$5,800,000 for operation and maintenance of facilities and 
$10,515,000 for construction of Project 04-E-001, Science and 
Technology Facility, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 
Golden, Colorado.

            WEATHERIZATION AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES

    The mission of the Weatherization and Intergovernmental 
Program is to develop and accelerate the adoption of energy 
efficiency, renewable energy, and oil displacement technologies 
and practices by a wide range of stakeholders. These include 
State and local governments, weatherization agencies, 
communities, companies, fleet managers, building code 
officials, technology developers, Native American tribal 
governments, and international agencies. This program was 
previously funded in the Energy Conservation account in the 
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, and now is 
funded within the Energy Supply and Conservation account of 
this Act. The Committee recommends $240,000,000 for 
weatherization assistance program grants, an increase of 
$15,000,000 above the request, $4,600,000 for training and 
technical assistance, $41,000,000 for State energy program 
grants, $500,000 for State energy activities, and $26,657,000 
for gateway deployment. The Committee recommends that gateway 
deployment funds be distributed as follows: $6,571,000 for 
Rebuild America; $350,000 for energy efficiency information and 
outreach; $4,550,000 for building codes training and 
assistance; $6,510,000 for Clean Cities; $5,776,000 for Energy 
Star; and $2,400,000 for inventions and innovations. The 
intergovernmental total includes $2,910,000 for the 
International Renewable Energy program to promote the use of 
renewable energy resources in international markets. The 
Committee directs the Department to avoid using funds 
appropriated to the International Renewable Energy Program to 
fund domestic programs and projects. From within the funds 
provided, the Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 for 
the Renewable Energy Production Incentive [REPI]. The 
Intergovernmental total includes $4,000,000 for the tribal 
energy program to help Native Americans develop renewable 
energy resources on their lands and help tribal leaders develop 
energy plans. Within the funds provided to the tribal energy 
program, the Committee includes $1,000,000 for the Council of 
Renewable Energy Resource Tribes [CERT] to provide technical 
expertise and training of Native Americans in renewable energy 
resource development and electric generation facilities 
management.
    The Committee provides $600,000 above the President's 
request, to be made available to the Office of International 
Energy Market Development in the Department of Energy to carry 
out a program in support of the multi-agency Clean Energy 
Technology Exports Initiative.
    Program Support.--The Committee recommendation for Program 
Support is $9,456,000, the same as the budget request. The 
Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000 to continue the 
efforts of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory [NREL] to 
develop renewable energy resources uniquely suited to the 
Southwestern United States through its virtual site office in 
Nevada.
    Program Direction.--The Committee recommendation for 
Program Direction is $86,524,000.
    Regional Offices.--The Committee recognizes and applauds 
EERE's efforts to strengthen project management through its 
creation of the EERE Project Management Center [PMC] and notes 
that the National Academy for Public Administration has 
identified it as a best management practice in the Department 
of Energy. To accelerate and strengthen its development, the 
Committee directs that the six Regional Offices be consolidated 
into the PMC locations at the Golden Field Office and the 
National Energy Technology Laboratory. To allow for an orderly 
implementation, contract close-out and personnel relocations, 
the Committee provides that this consolidation be fully 
implemented by June 1, 2006. The Office of Energy Efficiency 
and Renewable Energy originally established 10 regional offices 
in 1973 in response to the Arab Oil Embargo. The original 
function of the offices was to coordinate gasoline and 
petroleum allocations to distributors and resellers and to 
promote energy conservation. They were located in what used to 
be standard Federal Regions. In addition to the current 
regional offices in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Denver, 
Philadelphia, and Seattle, offices were located in San 
Francisco/Oakland, Kansas City, New York City, and Dallas. In 
1996, as part of Secretary O'Leary's Strategic Realignment 
Initiative, regional offices in San Francisco, Dallas, Kansas 
City and New York City were closed and the programmatic 
responsibilities of those offices were distributed among the 
remaining regions. In order to support weatherization 
assistance, the Committee recommends the Department close the 
remaining offices and develop a more cost effective outreach 
plan that minimizes the impact on employees. The Committee has 
reserved 20 percent for necessary close-out cost and severance 
payments. The Committee recognizes this is a Presidential 
priority and is confident the distribution of the formula based 
grants will not be negatively impacted. The Committee will 
apply $15,000,000 toward weatherization grants.
    Congressionally Directed Projects.--The Committee 
recommendation includes the following congressionally directed 
projects. The Committee has provided sufficient funding to 
cover the cost of these additions so as not to impact essential 
research.
  --$1,000,000 for Missouri biodiesel demonstration project 
        (Biomass);
  --$2,000,000 for Alternative Uses for Asphalt Shingle Waste, 
        UT (Biomass);
  --$1,200,000 for Auburn Alternative Fuel Source Study of 
        Cement Kilns, AL (Biomass);
  --$1,000,000 for Canola-based Automotive Oil Research and 
        Development, PA (Biomass);
  --$1,000,000 for Center for Advanced Bio-based Binders, IA 
        (Biomass);
  --$1,000,000 for Biomass Power for Rural Development, IA 
        (Biomass);
  --$500,000 for the Development of Applied membrane Technology 
        for Processing Ethanol from Biomass, DE (Biomass);
  --$500,000 for the National Ag-Based Industrial Lubricants 
        Center at the University of Northern Iowa (Biomass);
  --$1,000,000 for the University of North Dakota Center for 
        Biomass Utilization (Biomass);
  --$1,000,000 for the Michigan Biotechnology Institute 
        (Biomass);
  --$500,000 for the Washington State Ferries Biodiesel 
        Demonstration Project (Biomass);
  --$500,000 for the Oxydiesel demonstration project in 
        California and Nevada (Biomass);
  --$500,000 for the Louisiana State University Biorefinery for 
        Ethanol, Chemicals, Animal Feed and Biomaterials 
        (Biomass);
  --$500,000 for the Vermont Biomass Energy Resource Center 
        (Biomass);
  --$500,000 for a demonstration project on alternative sources 
        of energy at St. Joseph College in West Hartford, CT 
        (Biomass);
  --$4,000,000 for the UNLV Research Foundation for development 
        of biofuels utilizing ionic transfer membranes 
        (Biomass);
  --$500,000 for the Lake County Full Circle Project, CA 
        (Geothermal);
  --$3,000,000 for the Montana Palladium Research Center 
        (Hydrogen);
  --$1,100,000 for the Ohio Distributed Hydrogen Project 
        (Hydrogen);
  --$3,000,000 for the hydrogen fuel cell project for the 
        Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County, NV 
        (Hydrogen);
  --$500,000 for the production of Hydrogen at the 
        Nanotechnology Center of Excellence University of 
        Arkansas, Little Rock (Hydrogen);
  --$4,000,000 for the UNLV Research Foundation for the 
        renewable hydrogen refueling station system, including 
        development of high pressure electrolysis using 
        photovoltaics (Hydrogen);
  --$3,000,000 for the UNLV Research Foundation for development 
        of photoelectric chemical production of hydrogen 
        (Hydrogen);
  --$500,000 for the Michigan Technological University Fuel 
        Cell Research, MI (Hydrogen);
  --$500,000 for the University of Southern Mississippi's 
        School of Polymers and High Performance Materials' 
        Improved Materials for Fuel Cell Membranes program 
        (Hydrogen);
  --$5,000,000 for the photoelectrochemical generation of 
        hydrogen by solid nanoporous titanium dioxide project 
        at the University of Nevada-Reno (Hydrogen);
  --$1,000,000 for the California Hydrogen Infrastructure 
        Project (Hydrogen);
  --$500,000 for the Southern Nevada Alternative Fuels 
        Demonstration Project (Hydrogen);
  --$400,000 for the University of Louisville Sustainable 
        Buildings Project, KY (Building Technologies);
  --$4,000,000 for the Hackensack University Medical Center 
        Green Building, NJ (Building Technologies);
  --$500,000 Portland Center Stage Armory Theater Energy 
        Conservation Project, OR (Building Technologies);
  --$1,000,000 for the Brigham City, UT Wind Energy Project 
        (Wind);
  --$1,500,000 for Alaska Wind Energy (Wind);
  --$500,000 for Renewable Energy for Rural Economic 
        Development [RERED] Program, UT (Wind);
  --$500,000 for Synchronous Wind Turbines, ID (Wind);
  --$2,000,000 for Texas Tech Great Plains Wind Power Test 
        Facility (Wind);
  --$500,000 for the North Dakota Hydrogen Wind Pilot Project, 
        ND (Wind);
  --$500,000 for the Fox Ridge Renewable Energy Education 
        Center, SD (Wind);
  --$250,000 for the PowerJet Wind Turbine project, NV (Wind);
  --$300,000 for Portland State University's Solar Photovoltaic 
        Test Facility System, OR (Solar);
  --$1,000,000 for Next Generation Hydraulic Actuator 
        Technology for Solar Power, OH (Solar);
  --$3,000,000 for the UNLV Research Foundation for photonics 
        research, including evaluation of advanced fiber optics 
        for hybrid solar lighting (Solar);
  --$2,000,000 for Waste Heat Recovery Program, IN (Vehicle 
        Technologies);
  --$500,000 for the Gerlach Green Energy Project, NV (Energy 
        Conservation);
  --$500,000 for the Minnesota Center for Renewable Energy, MN 
        (Energy Conservation);
  --$500,000 for the Wireless Sensor Network for Advanced 
        Energy Management, WI (Energy Conservation); and
  --$2,000,000 for ITM/Syngas Project (PA).

         OFFICE OF ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY

Appropriations, 2005....................................    $120,185,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................      95,604,000
House allowance.........................................      99,849,000
Committee recommendation................................     178,083,000

Electric Transmission and Distribution

    Consistent with the direction from Congress in fiscal year 
2005, this office has merged the old Offices of Transmission 
and Distribution and Energy Assurance to create this entity. 
The office has responsibility for modernizing our national 
electric grid to increase reliability and security and respond 
to widespread interruption or failure in our energy 
infrastructure. Without enforcement authority, this office will 
find numerous challenges in trying to lead a national reform 
effort. However, this office must support investment in 
research and development initiatives such as high temperature 
superconductivity and next generation wire, in areas where 
utilities or State regulatory authorities are unlikely to 
support such investment. These technological developments have 
the potential to drastically increase line capacity and serve 
areas that are currently transmission constrained as a result 
of either an unwillingness or inability to increase 
transmission capacity. This office should also take the lead in 
working to integrate alternative technologies such as 
distributed generation and renewable energy sources into the 
grid for the Department of Energy. This office also has the 
responsibility for understanding and correcting vulnerabilities 
in our energy transmission infrastructure. Drawing on the 
technical expertise of our national laboratories through 
testing on Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition [SCADA] 
systems this office should identify and support the deployment 
of a technology based architecture that will reduce the 
vulnerability of our energy infrastructure at both a cyber and 
physical level.
    The Committee provides $178,083,000 for the Office of 
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, an increase of 
$82,479,000 over the budget request.
    Research and Development.--The Committee provides 
$128,386,000, an increase of $56,629,000 above the budget 
request. This increase is a result of transferring the 
Distributed Generation program to the Office of Electricity 
Reliability and Energy Assurance.
    The Committee recommends $50,500,000 for continued 
development of high temperature superconductivity [HTS], which 
promises to revolutionize electrical generation, transmission 
and distribution, conditioning and, ultimately, consumption. 
This is an increase of $5,500,000.
    The Committee recommends eliminating funding for Gridwise 
and Gridworks and has shifted this funding to the R&D budget to 
support superconductivity research and transmission 
reliability. The Committee recommends $5,000,000 to conduct 
research and development at the National Energy Technology 
Laboratory associated with electricity transmission, 
distribution and energy assurance activities. Additionally, 
$2,500,000 shall be for the continued development of an energy 
information training facility at Camp Dawson, and related 
activities. The Committee recommendation also includes 
$1,000,000 for the integrated control of next generation power 
systems project at West Virginia University. The Committee 
provides $10,000,000 to support critical research at SCADA test 
facilities. The funds are to be equally divided between the 
Sandia and Idaho National Labs.
    The Distributed Energy and Electricity Reliability 
Program.--This program was previously funded in the Energy 
Conservation account in the Interior and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, and is now funded within the Office of 
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability [OE] account within 
this Act. The activities within this account complement the 
mission of OE and are consistent with the research and 
development initiatives related to advanced composite 
conductors and high temperature superconductive cable and wire. 
If the distributed generation platform is to be successfully 
deployed it must be integrated into the electricity 
transmission and distribution network, which is a primary 
responsibility for the Office of Electricity Delivery and 
Energy Reliability. This program has been merged with the 
Electricity distribution transformation R&D program and the 
Committee recommends $64,666,000 to support these activities. 
Both programs are funded at the requested level. The Committee 
urges the Secretary to reorganize these activities as 
appropriate in the fiscal year 2007 budget request.
    The Committee is aware that program managers with the 
Distributed Energy Program have failed to adequately support 
the telecommunications sector that has high electric power 
requirements and represents a critical element in our first 
response needs during emergencies. The Committee directs the 
Department to provide $3,000,000 for deployment testing and 
analysis of advanced energy storage systems for 
telecommunication applications in Kansas.
    Program Direction.--The Committee recommends $15,477,000, 
an additional $4,000,000 for Program Direction to support the 
transition of staff to this new office and to properly align 
staff and mission responsibilities.
    Congressionally Directed Projects.--The Committee 
recommendation includes the following congressional directed 
projects. The Committee has provided sufficient funding to 
cover the cost of these additions so as not to impact essential 
research.
  --$5,000,000 for Hawaii/New Mexico Sustainable Energy 
        Security Partnership [OE];
  --$2,000,000 for the Navajo Electrification Project, NM [OE];
  --$2,350,000 for Load Control System Reliability, MT [OE];
  --$10,000,000 for SCADA test beds in New Mexico and Idaho 
        [OE];
  --$2,500,000 for advancing AC- and DC-power communications, 
        OH [OE];
  --$2,000,000 for Grid Computing in KY and its Impact of 
        Research and Education Project [OE];
  --$1,500,000 to University of Missouri-Rolla for electric 
        grid modernization [OE]; and
  --$1,000,000 for the Integrated Distribution Management 
        System in Alabama [OE].

                        NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAMS

Appropriations, 2005....................................    $385,568,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................     389,906,000
House allowance.........................................     377,701,000
Committee recommendation................................     449,906,000

    The Committee recommendation provides $449,906,000 for 
nuclear energy, an increase of $60,000,000 above the request.
    University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support.--The 
Committee recommends $24,000,000 for university reactor fuel 
assistance and support. The Committee recommends $4,500,000 
from within available funds for the Institute of Nuclear 
Science and Engineering at the Idaho National Laboratory.
    University nuclear engineering programs and university 
research reactors represent a fundamental and key capability in 
supporting our national policy goals in health physics, 
materials science and energy technology. The Committee strongly 
supports the University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support 
program's efforts to provide fellowships, scholarships, and 
grants to students enrolled in nuclear energy, science and 
engineering programs and related areas like health physics at 
U.S. universities, as well as efforts to provide fuel 
assistance and reactor upgrade funding for university-owned 
research reactors.
    The Committee remains concerned about the ability of the 
Nation to respond to the growing demand for trained experts in 
nuclear science and technology in the face of financial and 
other challenges affecting engineering programs and research 
reactor facilities at American universities.
    The Committee strongly endorses the administration's 
commitment to cooperate with the People's Republic of China in 
its expansion of nuclear power. The Committee believes that the 
deployment of advanced U.S. reactor technology is critical to 
meet the growing energy demands in China and to contribute to 
improved air quality.

                        RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

    The Committee recommendation for nuclear energy research 
and development includes a total of $251,000,000, an increase 
of $60,000,000 over the budget request.
    Nuclear Energy Research Initiative.--The Committee strongly 
supports the NERI program. Consistent with the goals of the 
November 1997 President's Committee of Advisors on Science and 
Technology [PCAST] that addresses energy research, the 
Committee directs the Department to maintain the existing, 
stand-alone NERI program that provides funding to peer-reviewed 
projects proposed by national laboratories, universities and 
industry on issues facing the nuclear energy industry. As 
provided in the PCAST report, research topics should include 
research into developing a proliferation resistant fuel cycle, 
improvements to reactor designs of new and existing designs, 
increased efficiency, as well as better knowledge of materials 
and fuel characteristics to support the Next Generation Nuclear 
Plant and Generation IV programs. The Committee is aware that 
the budget proposes to merge the NERI funding into the various 
research and development programs. The Committee concurs with 
the request and provides NERI funding in the following manner: 
$4,000,000 within the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative; 
$4,000,000 within the Generation IV program; and $2,000,000 for 
Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative.
    Nuclear Power 2010.--The recommendation includes 
$76,000,000 for nuclear power 2010. The Department is directed 
to focus the resources on the demonstration of the regulatory 
licensing processes of 10 CFR Part 52 for early site permits, 
design certifications, and combined construction and operating 
licenses. This is to be cost-shared with industrial and 
governmental entities.
    The Committee recommendation supports demonstration of key 
regulatory approval processes in order to encourage the 
deployment of new, advanced nuclear plants in the United States 
by the 2010 timeframe. The strong industry response to the 
Department's request for proposals for a Combined Operating 
License is a turning point in the future of nuclear energy in 
the country and presents the Department with a unique 
opportunity to facilitate the deployment of one or more new 
nuclear plants in a generation. Support for such a program is 
critical in order to diversify our electric generation fuel 
supply with the added benefit of not producing any greenhouse 
gas emissions.
    Generation IV.--The recommendation includes $60,000,000 for 
the Generation IV nuclear energy systems initiative, an 
increase of $15,000,000 over the request. The Committee directs 
$40,000,000 to be used for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant 
[NGNP] program. Prior to the submission of this budget the 
Office of Nuclear Energy had worked expeditiously on a process 
to select a reactor design from a competitive solicitation in 
order to deploy and test the design at the Idaho National 
Laboratory where it will serve as a test bed for electric and 
hydrogen cogeneration. The Department had received a strong 
response to the expression of interest and was preparing a 
request for proposal. Unfortunately, the current budget 
recommendation fails to adequately support the Next Generation 
Nuclear Plant. The Committee is concerned that the 
administration's strategy of collaborative international 
research lacks sufficient focus and doesn't support a specific 
schedule to facilitate the construction of a next generation 
reactor at the Idaho National Lab. The Generation IV budget 
should be used as an initiative to build and demonstrate new 
technologies and rebuild U.S. nuclear capabilities as opposed 
to the current proposal of indefinite research.
    This funding shall be used to support a design competition 
conducted by DOE as well as fund R&D efforts linked to the NGNP 
program. The Committee urges the Department to complete the 
competition by the end of fiscal year 2006. The Committee 
expects the Department to submit a budget for fiscal year 2007 
that will fund a pre-engineering design that is consistent with 
the goal of testing hydrogen production or electricity 
generation by 2017 at Idaho National Laboratory. The Committee 
encourages the Department to give priority consideration to 
fast spectrum technologies. Coupled with efforts of the 
Advanced Fuel Cycle initiative, research in this program must 
keep nonproliferation as a primary objective to reduce the 
amount of plutonium and other high level wastes that are a by-
product of current technology. The Committee also recognizes 
that new advances in materials and fuels must be developed 
before these technologies can be deployed. In addition, the 
Department shall develop a R&D road map by which the Department 
identifies the current technical challenges, proposes a 
research and development plan to resolve existing fast spectrum 
challenges within the Generation IV program, and downselects to 
no more than two technologies by the end of fiscal year 2007. 
The Department shall provide a copy of the Generation IV R&D 
roadmap to the Committee by the end of fiscal year 2006.
    The Committee remains interested in the potential use and 
application of small modular reactors that would be inherently 
safe, be relatively cost effective, contain intrinsic design 
features which would deter sabotage or diversion, require 
infrequent refuelings, and be primarily factory constructed and 
deliverable to remote sites. The Committee is particularly 
interested in design of a small modular fast reactor that can 
serve as both a test bed for small commercial reactors and to 
test fast spectrum technologies. Within available funds, 
$5,000,000 is provided for the development of high temperature 
fuel fabrication capabilities in Virginia, in support of the 
Generation IV program, under the direction of the Idaho 
National Laboratory.
    Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $30,000,000, an increase of $10,000,000.
    The Committee provides an additional $7,000,000 above the 
budget request for the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative to 
accelerate essential materials research and development and 
component design, test and evaluation for implementing the high 
temperature sulfur-iodine water spitting process for hydrogen 
production necessary to the advanced reactor hydrogen co-
generation project at Idaho National Laboratory. In addition, 
the Department is directed to establish a 5-year Cooperative 
Agreement with the UNLV Research Foundation for advanced 
Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative materials research and development.
    Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $85,000,000, an increase of $15,000,000 
over the budget request. The initiative should continue to 
focus on development of fuel cycle technologies that minimize 
the toxicity of final waste products resulting from spent fuel 
while recovering energy remaining in spent fuel; minimize 
proliferation concerns and environmental impacts of the fuel 
cycle and minimize the number of reprocessing steps so as to 
minimize system costs. The initiative shall assist the 
Secretary with development of alternative technology options.
    Based on the success learned at the Savannah River 
Technology Center of the Uranium Extraction Technology, known 
as UREX in 2002, the Committee expects the Department to expand 
its efforts to advance research of aqueous spent fuel treatment 
and to begin the engineering scale demonstrations. The 
Committee recommends an additional $10,000,000 to accelerate 
the design activities associated with a proposed Engineering 
Scale Demonstration [ESD]. The ESD will provide the United 
States with the capability to conduct research and development 
into advanced spent fuel separations and transmutation from 
laboratory scale through engineering scale prior to commercial 
deployment. The budget request provided funds for pre-
conceptual design activities only. This funding will allow 
completion of the conceptual design in fiscal year 2006 and 
enable preengineering design to commence in fiscal year 2007. 
In addition to studying light water reactors, the Committee 
expects the Department to evaluate fast reactors that are 
capable of destroying larger amounts of long-lived radioactive 
material.
    To provide confidence in the technology options proposed, 
the project will use Department of Energy national laboratory 
and university expertise to perform research and development of 
advanced technologies for spent fuel treatment and 
transmutation of plutonium, higher actinides and long-lived 
fission products. Advanced nuclear material recycle and 
safeguard technologies, proliferation-resistant nuclear fuels, 
and transmutation systems shall be investigated. Both reactor-
based and a combination of reactor and accelerator-based 
transmutation approaches may be included as part of the 
research and systems analysis.
    The project shall use international and university 
collaborations to provide cost effective use of research 
funding. The Committee has provided an additional $6,000,000 to 
the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative for the UNLV Research 
Foundation and directs the Department to enter into a 5-year 
cooperative agreement to study deep burn-up of nuclear fuel and 
other fuel cycle research to eliminate the need for multiple 
spent nuclear fuel repositories, to eliminate weapons useable 
material from disposed spent fuel, and to maintain forever 
potential radiological releases from a repository below 
currently legislated limits.
    The Committee is aware of the excellent recent progress in 
the jointly funded U.S./Russian program to develop the GT-MHR. 
The recent completion of the particle fuel fabrication and 
testing facilities in Russia along with continued progress in 
the area of the power conversion system indicates the continued 
support of the Russians for the development of this option. The 
Committee also notes that the GT-MHR is a leading Gen IV 
reactor type. Within the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, 
$3,000,000 is provided for the Idaho Accelerator Center and the 
Department is directed to enter into a 5-year cooperative 
agreement with IAC. The Department is provided $7,000,000 to 
develop a Nuclear Energy Materials Test Station at Los Alamos 
Neutron Science Center to advance the technology needed to 
support the materials and fuel experiments required by the 
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative and for the exploration of 
Generation IV fast neutron spectrum systems. Since the closure 
of the Fast Flux Test Facility, resulting in no domestic fast 
neutron source for conducting actinide transmutation, the 
Materials Test Station will advance the development of improved 
fuel cycles that can reduce the quantity, heat generation and 
toxicity of spent nuclear fuel. The Committee recommendation 
includes $1,000,000 for the Center for Materials Reliability 
and $750,000 for nuclear transportation hazard research at the 
University of Nevada-Reno.
    The Committee is aware of the fact that the Department is 
responsible for the maintenance of 62 metric tons of sodium 
bonded spent nuclear fuel located in Idaho. Of these amounts, 
the Office of Environmental Management manages 34 tons (55 
percent of the total) from the Detroit Edison Fermi plant which 
is stored at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering 
Center. The remaining 28 tons (45 percent) is from the 
Experimental Breeder Reactor-II and is managed by the Office of 
Nuclear Energy, AFCI program. The AFCI program spends 
$18,000,000 annually to maintain this stockpile, funding that 
could be more effectively used to explore critical materials 
and fuels research and development. The EBR-II reactor fuel 
adds little to the AFCI program, which is focused on Generation 
IV fuel types such as nitride fuels, and not solid metal fuels 
such as the EBR-II fuels. The AFCI program only needs 3 percent 
of the inventory for future pyroprocessing experiments. The 
Committee directs the Department to undertake a study to 
evaluate and propose a disposal solution for the entire 62 tons 
of sodium bonded spent fuel and to consider what minimal amount 
of fuel is needed for future experiments under the AFCI. The 
Department shall provide a report recommending the preferred 
disposal pathway to the Committee no later than March 1, 2006.

                         FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

    Radiological Facilities Management.--The Committee 
recommends $64,800,000. The purpose of this program is to 
maintain the critical user facilities in a safe, 
environmentally compliant and cost-effective manner to support 
national priorities in serving our space missions or medical 
fields. Facilities located at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 
Los Alamos, Sandia, Brookhaven and Idaho National Labs all 
support this mission. The Committee supports the ongoing 
efforts at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The Committee 
recommends the investment of $1,300,000 in new equipment for 
Los Alamos National Lab and $12,700,000 provided to operate the 
bench-scale scrap recovery line and to address the long-term 
storage and disposal of waste residues.
    Idaho National Lab.--This program funds the site-wide 
landlord infrastructure activities for the Idaho National 
Laboratory. These activities are required to support the 
laboratory's technical efforts such as research on the Advanced 
Fuel Cycle Initiative, Generation IV nuclear energy systems, 
the Space and Defense Power Systems program, and the Navy's 
nuclear propulsion research and development program. The 
Committee recommendation for these infrastructure activities is 
$111,362,000. Of this total budget request $80,100,000 is 
funded in the Energy Supply appropriation, which includes 
$10,955,000 for construction activities. The Committee provides 
$17,762,000 in the Other Defense Activities appropriation and 
$13,500,000 to be transferred from Naval Reactors program to 
support the ATR Gas Loop.

                           PROGRAM DIRECTION

    The Committee recommendation includes $30,006,000 for 
program direction, the amount of the request. The Committee has 
also provided $31,103,000 from Other Defense Activities.

                           LEGACY MANAGEMENT

    The Committee recommendation includes $33,522,000 as 
provided in the budget request. Funding is provided to support 
the long-term surveillance and maintenance of non-defense sites 
where remediation has been substantially completed, to oversee 
post-retirement benefits for former DOE contractor employees, 
and for records management and retrieval.

                    ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY, AND HEALTH

Appropriations, 2005....................................     $27,778,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................      30,000,000
House allowance.........................................      26,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      30,000,000

    The Committee recommendation includes $30,000,000 for non-
defense environment, safety, and health, which includes 
$20,900,000 for Program Direction.

                         CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

                               (DEFERRAL)

    The Committee recommends the deferral of $257,000,000 in 
clean coal technology funding until fiscal year 2007. These 
balances are not needed to complete active projects in this 
program.

                 FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2005....................................    $571,854,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................     491,456,000
House allowance.........................................     502,467,000
Committee recommendation................................     641,646,000

    The mission of the Fossil Energy R&D Program is to create 
public benefits by enhancing U.S. economic, environmental, and 
energy security. The program carries out three types of 
activities: (1) managing and performing energy-related research 
that reduces market barriers to the reliable, efficient, and 
environmentally sound use of fossil fuels for power generation 
and conversion to other fuels such as hydrogen; (2) partnering 
with industry and others to advance clean and efficient fossil 
energy technologies toward commercialization in United States 
and international markets; and (3) supporting the development 
of information and policy options that benefit the public by 
ensuring access to adequate supplies of affordable and clean 
energy.
    Clean Coal Power Initiative.--By 2010, demonstration of 
advanced coal-based power generation technologies will be 
initiated that will lead to long-range economic and 
environmental public benefits. The Committee recommends 
$100,000,000 for the Clean Coal Power Initiative, an increase 
of $50,000,000.
    FutureGen.--The FutureGen research prototype facility 
within the Clean Coal Power Initiative subprogram will 
demonstrate the technical feasibility and economic viability of 
the zero emission (including carbon) coal concepts. The 
Committee recommends $18,000,000 for FutureGen as requested.
    Fuels and Power Systems.--The Committee recommends a total 
of $306,550,000 for fuels and power systems, an increase of 
$23,550,000. The recommendation includes $99,850,000 for 
central systems (innovations for existing plants, advanced 
integrated gasification combined cycle, and advanced turbines). 
The Committee recommends $74,200,000 for carbon sequestration, 
including $10,000,000 for the Center for Zero Emissions 
Research and Technology, and $5,000,000 above the request for 
the Energy and Environmental Research Center. The Committee 
recommendation includes $29,000,000 for fuels, $69,000,000 for 
fuel cells, (including $7,500,000 for High Temperature 
Electrochemistry), and $34,500,000 for Advanced Research. 
Within funds made available for Advanced Fuels Research, 
$700,000 is provided for development of continuous solvent 
extraction processes for coal derived carbon products; and 
$500,000 is provided within the amount for fuels to West 
Virginia University to study the long-term environmental and 
economic impacts of the development of coal liquefaction in 
China.
    U.S./China Energy and Environmental Center.--The Committee 
recommends the Department continues support for the U.S./China 
Energy and Environmental Center. The Center provides essential 
services to assist U.S. industries entering the complex and 
expanding Chinese energy market.
    Natural Gas Technologies.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $27,000,000, an increase of $17,000,000 above the 
budget request. The Committee recommends $2,000,000 to support 
the efforts of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission.
    Petroleum--Oil Technologies.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $32,000,000, an increase of $22,000,000 above the 
budget request.
    Program Direction.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$106,941,000, an increase of $8,000,000 above the budget 
request for the National Energy Technology Laboratory.
    Plant and Capital Equipment.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $23,000,000 for plant and capital equipment, an 
increase of $23,000,000 above the budget request. Within these 
funds, $20,000,000 is for the infrastructure improvement 
program at the National Energy Technology Laboratory and 
$3,000,000 is for general plant projects.
    Fossil Energy Environmental Restoration.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $9,600,000, an increase of $1,600,000 
above the budget request.
    Congressionally Directed Projects.--The Committee 
recommendation includes the following congressionally directed 
projects, within available funds.
  --$2,500,000 for the Coal to Liquids program--Phase II, MT 
        (Coal);
  --$2,000,000 for the Utah Center for Ultra-Clean Coal 
        Utilization (Coal);
  --$500,000 for the Coal-Waste Slurry Reburn Project, PA 
        (Coal);
  --$1,500,000 for the Multi-Disciplinary Coal-bed Natural Gas 
        Research Center at the University of Wyoming (Coal);
  --$3,000,000 for the National Center for Hydrogen Technology, 
        ND (Fuels and Power);
  --$5,000,000 for the High Temperature Electrochemistry Center 
        in Montana (Fuels and Power);
  --$5,000,000 for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells, PA (Fuels and 
        Power);
  --$1,500,000 for Fuel Processors for megawatt-scale solid 
        oxide fuel cell systems for stationary power 
        generation, OH (Fuels and Power);
  --$2,000,000 for National Biofuel Energy Laboratory, MI 
        (Fuels and Power);
  --$1,000,000 for the Oil Heat Research Project (Oil and Gas);
  --$7,000,000 for Arctic Energy Office, AK (Oil and Gas);
  --$400,000 Risk Base Data Management System, AK (Oil and 
        Gas);
  --$1,750,000 for the Utah Center for Heavy Oil Research (Oil 
        and Gas); and
  --$1,000,000 for hydrates research at the University of 
        Mississippi (Oil and Gas).

                 NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES

Appropriations, 2005....................................     $17,750,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................      18,500,000
House allowance.........................................      18,500,000
Committee recommendation................................      21,500,000

    The Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves no longer serve 
the national defense purpose envisioned in the early 1900's, 
and consequently the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) required the sale of the 
Government's interest in the Naval Petroleum Reserve 1 [NPR-1]. 
To comply with this requirement, the Elk Hills field in 
California was sold to Occidental Petroleum Corporation in 
1998. Following the sale of Elk Hills and the transfer of the 
oil shale reserves, DOE retains two Naval Petroleum Reserve 
properties: the Naval Petroleum Reserve 3 in Wyoming (Teapot 
Dome field), a stripper well oil field that the Department is 
maintaining until it reaches its economic production limit; and 
the Buena Vista Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve 2 in California, 
a checkerboard pattern of Government and privately owned tracts 
adjacent to the Elk Hills field. The DOE continues to be 
responsible for routine operations and maintenance of NPR-3, 
management of the Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center at 
NPR-3, lease management at NPR-2, and continuing environmental 
and remediation work at Elk Hills.
    The Committee recommends $21,500,000, an increase of 
$3,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee has provided 
the additional funding to support the activities under the NPR/
Colorado, Utah Wyoming program.

                      ELK HILLS SCHOOL LANDS FUND

Appropriations, 2005.................................... \1\ $36,000,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................      48,000,000
House allowance.........................................      48,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      48,000,000

\1\ The fiscal year 2005 enacted level reflects an advanced 
appropriation available on October 1, 2005.

    Payment to the Elk Hills school lands fund was part of the 
settlement associated with the sale of the Naval Petroleum 
Reserve Number 1. Under the settlement, payments to the fund 
are to be made over a period of 7 years. The payments to date 
($216,000,000) were based on an estimate of the amount that 
would be required to pay the State of California nine percent 
of the net sales of proceeds.
    The Committee recommends $48,000,000, the same as the 
budget request, and combined with the fiscal year 2005 advance 
appropriation of $36,000,000, will make available a total of 
$84,000,000 in fiscal year 2006. While this represents Payment 
#7 in a series of seven payments, the Committee understands 
that the final amount due will be based on the resolution of 
equity determinations, which cannot be determined until all 
divestment-related expenses are accounted for.

                      STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

Appropriations, 2005....................................    $169,710,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................     166,000,000
House allowance.........................................     166,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     166,000,000

    The mission of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve [SPR] is to 
store petroleum to reduce the adverse economic impact of a 
major petroleum supply interruption to the United States and to 
carry out obligations under the international energy program. 
The reserve will be filled to 700 million barrels in 2005, 
providing 59 days of net import protection.
    The Committee recommends $166,000,000, the same as the 
budget request, for operation of the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve, a decrease of $3,710,000 from the fiscal year 2005 
level.

                   NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE

Appropriations, 2005....................................      $4,960,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

    The acquisition and storage of heating oil for the 
Northeast States began in August 2000 when the Department of 
Energy, through the Strategic Petroleum Reserve account, 
awarded contracts for the lease of commercial storage 
facilities and acquisition of heating oil. The purpose of the 
reserve is to assure home heating oil supplies for the 
Northeast States during times of very low inventories and 
significant threats to immediate supply of heating oil. The 
Northeast Heating Oil Reserve was established as a separate 
entity from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve on March 6, 2001. 
The 2 million barrel reserve is stored in commercial facilities 
in New York Harbor, New Haven, Connecticut, and the Providence, 
Rhode Island area.
    The Committee recommends no new appropriation, the same as 
the budget request, for the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve, 
a decrease of $4,960,000 from the fiscal 2005 level. All 
activities in fiscal year 2006 are funded from carryover 
balances.

                   ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2005.....................................     $83,819,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................      85,926,000
House allowance.........................................      86,426,000
Committee recommendation................................      85,926,000

    The Committee recommends $85,926,000, the same as the 
budget request.
    The Energy Information Administration is a leader in 
providing high-quality, policy-neutral energy information to 
meet the requirements of Congress, the Federal Government, 
industry, energy markets and the public in a manner that 
promotes sound policymaking and efficient markets. As the 
energy industry becomes more complex and interdependent, it has 
been EIA's responsibility to update its energy data to keep 
pace with changing energy industry and markets. It is critical 
that EIA continue to adapt to rapid changes and provide data 
that is relevant and helpful to industry, policymakers, the 
media and Federal enforcement officials.

                  NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

    The Non-Defense Environmental Management program includes 
funds to manage and clean up sites used for civilian energy 
research, and non-defense related activities. These past 
activities resulted in radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste 
contamination that requires remediation, stabilization, or some 
other type of action.
    The Non-Defense Environmental Management activities were 
previously funded in three separate accounts, two of which are 
now combined: Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion, and 
Non-Defense Environmental Services are now one account, Non-
Defense Environmental Cleanup. The Uranium Enrichment 
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund for environmental 
management responsibilities at the three gaseous diffusion 
enrichment plants (Oak Ridge, Portsmouth, and Paducah) and for 
reimbursement of licensees conducting cleanup of uranium and 
thorium processing sites remains the same.
    The Committee remains committed to the strategy of 
accelerating cleanup and closing sites. However, the 
categorization of funding activities by planning goals has 
diminished in utility over time--dates slip, and activities 
that do not fit the ``2012'' timeframe were merely moved into 
the ``2035'' timeframe as a matter of course. As such, the 
Committee no longer finds this display of activities useful, 
and has moved to a location/site-based display, to increase the 
transparency of where environmental cleanup dollars are being 
spent. The Committee requests that congressional budget 
submissions be submitted in this format in the future.
    Reprogramming Authority.--The Committee continues to 
support the need for flexibility to meet changing funding 
requirements at sites. In fiscal year 2006, the Department may 
transfer up to $2,000,000 between control points, to reduce 
health or safety risks or to gain cost savings as long as no 
program or project is increased or decreased by more than 
$2,000,000 once during the fiscal year. The control points for 
reprogramming are the Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility, West 
Valley Demonstration Project, Gaseous Diffusion Plants, Small 
Sites, and construction line items. This reprogramming 
authority may not be used to initiate new programs or programs 
specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in the 
Act or report. The Committees on Appropriations of the House 
and Senate must be notified within 30 days prior to the use of 
this reprogramming authority.
    Economic Development.--None of the Non-Defense 
Environmental Management funds, including those provided in the 
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup, and Uranium Enrichment 
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, are available for 
economic development activities.

                   Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup

Appropriations, 2005....................................    $439,601,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................     259,934,000
House allowance.........................................     319,934,000
Committee recommendation................................     353,219,000

    The Committee recommendation for Non-Defense Environmental 
Cleanup is $353,219,000, an increase of $3,285,000 above the 
budget request.
    The Committee provides $77,100,000 for solid waste 
stabilization and disposition, and nuclear facility 
decontamination and decommissioning at the West Valley 
Demonstration Project, and $48,813,000 for decontamination and 
decommissioning of the gaseous diffusion plants. The Committee 
provides $46,113,000 for the decontamination and 
decommissioning of the Fast Flux Test Facility [FFTF].
    The Committee provides $85,803,000 for depleted uranium 
hexafluoride conversion at Portsmouth and Paducah. The 
Committee provides $28,006,000, for soil and water remediation 
measures at the former Atlas uranium mill tailings site at 
Moab, Utah.
    Small Sites.--The Committee provides $34,328,000 for soil 
and water remediation, graphite research reactor and high flux 
beam reactor decontamination and decommissioning at Brookhaven 
National Laboratory; $10,487,000 for soil and water remediation 
and nuclear facility decontamination and decommissioning at 
Argonne National Laboratory; and $5,274,000 for spent nuclear 
fuel stabilization and disposition at Idaho National 
Laboratory.
    The Committee recommendation provides $3,900,000 for soil 
and water remediation at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; 
$3,500,000 for soil and water remediation at the Stanford 
Linear Accelerator Center; $9,000,000 for nuclear facility 
decontamination and decommissioning for the Energy Technology 
Engineering Center; $490,000 for decontamination and 
decommissioning of the Tritium System Test Assembly Facility at 
Los Alamos National Laboratory; and $305,000 for soil and water 
remediation at Inhalation Toxicology Laboratory.

      Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund

Appropriations, 2005....................................    $415,655,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................     571,498,000
House allowance.........................................     571,498,000
Committee recommendation................................     561,498,000

    The Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund supports projects to 
maintain, decontaminate, decommission and otherwise remediate 
the gaseous diffusion plants at Portsmouth, Ohio; Paducah, 
Kentucky; and Oak Ridge, Tennessee. In addition, the Uranium/
Thorium Licensee Reimbursement program activities are funded 
within this appropriation.
    Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning.--
The Committee recommendation includes $561,498,000, a decrease 
of $10,000,000 from the budget request. The Committee 
recommendation includes $281,329,000 for activities at Oak 
Ridge, Tennessee. The Committee recommends $105,000,000 at 
Paducah, Kentucky, an increase of $7,000,000 above the budget 
request. The Department shall use the additional funds to 
accelerate the characterization and disposition of waste 
offsite, including the Designated Material Storage Areas, low-
level wastes, TSCA waste, and mixed low level waste. Within the 
funds provided the Department shall undertake a study of the 
potential purchase of property or options to purchase property 
that is located above the plume of contaminated groundwater 
near the facility site. The study shall evaluate the adequate 
protection of human health and environment from exposure to 
contaminated groundwater and consider whether such purchase, 
when taking into account the cost of remediation, long-term 
surveillance, and maintenance, is in the best interest of 
taxpayers.
    The Department of Energy Inspector General published a 
report on March 10, 2005, which found that the Department had 
spent $17,000,000 for ``activities that are not specifically 
related to accelerating the cleanup at Portsmouth''. The IG 
found that $14,000,000 was used to move equipment in order to 
accommodate USEC's schedule to develop a gas centrifuge 
facility. The IG also found that the Department has expended 
$3,000,000 to move equipment to a temporary storage site to 
benefit USEC. The IG believes these expenditures and another 
$16,000,000 in possible future expenditures are in violation of 
the terms of the 2002 Agreement in which the Department agreed 
to clean up the Portsmouth site, leaving USEC to build and 
operate the enrichment facility at its own expense. It was the 
IG's determination that the Department had gone out of its way 
to support the commercial operations. The Committee also 
recognizes that the fiscal year 2003 House Energy and Water 
report (H. Rept. 107-681) provided clear direction that the 
Department was only to provide assistance on a reimbursable 
basis. As such, the Committee recommends a $17,000,000 
reduction in funding and directs the Department to recover the 
funding reduction from USEC. The Committee directs the 
Department to provide a full accounting and justification of 
all future expenditures at Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant 
to the Department of Energy Inspector General for review to 
ensure compliance with the 2002 agreement between the 
Department and USEC in fiscal year 2006. The Committee 
recommends $175,157,000 for cleanup activities at Portsmouth, 
Ohio, a reduction of $17,000,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee does not approve of and has provided no funds 
for direct or indirect costs; and prohibits the Department from 
transferring any uranium assets for trade, sale or barter with 
USEC as proposed in the budget. The Department has failed to 
adequately specify proposed costs associated with these 
activities and the Committee is skeptical that this proposal is 
in the best interests of Federal Government and U.S. taxpayers. 
The Committee understands that the Government Accountability 
Office is undertaking a study of the terms and conditions of 
this arrangement and will provide a report to Congress to 
clarify if this activity is in the best interest of taxpayers. 
Until Congress has an opportunity to review the GAO report, the 
Congress does not provide any funds to support the barter 
arrangement. The Committee is also skeptical of the proposed 
benefits of the USEC-proposed Project Isaiah to down blend 
highly enriched uranium and undertake a complicated scheme of 
transactions to provide low enriched fuel to the market. The 
Committee provides no funding to the Department to undertake 
Project Isaiah or support this effort.
    Uranium/Thorium Reimbursement.--The Committee 
recommendation includes no funding for this activity.

                                Science

Appropriations, 2005....................................  $3,599,871,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................   3,462,718,000
House allowance.........................................   3,666,055,000
Committee recommendation................................   3,702,718,000

    The Committee recommendation for the Office of Science is 
$3,702,718,000, an increase of $240,000,000 above the request 
and $102,847,000 above the current year level.
    The Science account funds investment in basic research 
critical to the success of the Department's missions in 
national security, energy security and economic security. 
Programs funded under this account perform a leadership role in 
advancing the frontiers of knowledge in the physical sciences 
and areas of biological, environmental and computational 
sciences. The Department provides 40 percent of the total 
Federal spending that supports the research of 15,000 PhDs, 
post doctorate and graduate students, as well as operating 10 
facilities used by over 19,000 researchers each year.

              GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF THE PHYSICAL SCIENCES

    Investment in the physical sciences and engineering plays a 
critical role in enabling U.S. technological innovation and 
global economic leadership. It is essential to the development 
and utilization of our energy resources, as well as innovations 
in the areas of defense, the environment, communications and 
information technologies, health care and much more. Over the 
past 50 years, half of U.S. economic growth has come from prior 
investment in science and technological innovation. Life 
expectancy has grown from 55 years in 1900 to nearly 80 years 
today.
    The United States has been the undisputed world leader in 
the physical sciences for the past six decades, an investment 
strategy that has led to huge gains in our national security, 
economic prosperity and overall quality of life for all U.S. 
citizens. Federal support for fundamental research in physics, 
chemistry, materials sciences, and other scientific disciplines 
crucial to U.S. industry has been a major contributor to this 
national success story.
    But the foundations for the future of the physical sciences 
are eroding. The Department of Energy's Office of Science, 
which is the leading source of Federal investment for R&D 
facilities and fundamental research in the physical sciences, 
is at a crossroads. At a time when our international 
competitors are significantly scaling up their investments in 
the physical sciences (the European Union will soon double its 
overall funding for R&D), funding for the Office of Science and 
other U.S. agencies has been flat or even declining. This comes 
at a time when U.S. industry is scaling back its investments in 
long-term research in the physical sciences in an effort to 
remain competitive in the short term.
    This trend is not uniform or irreversible. Significant 
investments in key areas of science, most of which are 
supported by DOE's Office of Science, will keep our Nation at 
the forefront of future research into the physical sciences. 
The future health of our national system of physical sciences 
R&D can be restored by focused investments in three areas: 
major scientific user facilities that support the physical 
sciences; the university scientists who conduct world class 
research and train our next generation of scientific talent; 
and DOE's national laboratories, which are the Nation's 
crucible for multidisciplinary work in challenging aspects of 
the physical sciences that cannot be performed elsewhere.
    The Office of Science has done commendable work planning 
for the future of the physical sciences in the United States. A 
20-year investment plan for the new research facilities that 
our Nation needs is being implemented but existing capabilities 
cannot be sacrificed to purchase new facilities. The Committee 
urges that the Office of Science research programs work closely 
with their university counterparts to make joint investments 
that ensure the vitality of physical science academic 
departments.
    The Government must tap into the enormous capabilities of 
the Office of Science and regain world leadership in the 
physical sciences. DOE user facilities should be operating at 
their designed capacity, providing key discovery opportunities 
for thousands of new researchers every year. University 
research programs in nanoscience, catalysis, mathematics and 
physics should be expanded to ensure training of the next 
generation of outstanding scientists needed to solve important 
national problems. Multidisciplinary research at the national 
laboratories should be encouraged to meet national challenges 
in defense, energy production and the environment. Taken as a 
whole, these investments will ensure U.S. leadership in the 
physical sciences and the vitality of the U.S. economy.
    The Office of Science operates many of the Nation's most 
advanced large-scale user facilities of importance to all areas 
of science. These state-of-the-art facilities are shared with 
the science community world-wide and contain technologies and 
instrumentation that are available nowhere else. These 
facilities serve tens of thousands of users in laboratories, 
universities, industry, and other Federal agencies, and 
represent large Federal capital investments. Over the last 
several years many of these facilities have operated below 
optimal levels. In order to rectify this situation, the 
Committee has provided funding to restore operations of the SC 
user facilities to optimal levels by providing an additional 
$100,000,000 for facility operations allocated as follows: 
$20,000,000 in Basic Energy Sciences; $3,000,000 in High Energy 
Physics; $49,000,000 in Nuclear physics; and $28,000,000 in 
Fusion Energy Sciences.

                          HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

Appropriations, 2005....................................    $735,699,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................     713,933,000
House allowance.........................................     735,933,000
Committee recommendation................................     716,933,000

    The Committee recommendation includes $716,933,000 for high 
energy physics, an increase of $3,000,000, to provide 
operational funding to ensure full utilization of facilities.
    The high energy physics program focuses on gaining insights 
into the fundamental constituents of matter, the fundamental 
forces in nature, and the transformations between matter and 
energy at the most elementary level. The program encompasses 
both experimental and theoretical particle physics research and 
related advanced accelerator and detector technology R&D. The 
primary mode of experimental research involves the study of 
collisions of energetic particles using large particle 
accelerators or colliding beam facilities.
    The Committee recognizes the critical importance of the 
DOE/NASA Joint Dark Energy Mission [JDEM] in answering 
fundamental questions about the nature and substance of the 
universe. Consequently, the Committee encourages the Department 
to move JDEM forward aggressively to ensure the timely 
accomplishment of this important work.

                            NUCLEAR PHYSICS

Appropriations, 2005....................................    $404,778,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................     370,741,000
House allowance.........................................     408,341,000
Committee recommendation................................     419,741,000

    The Committee recommends $419,741,000 for nuclear physics, 
an increase of $49,000,000 to ensure full utilization of 
experimental facilities.
    The nuclear physics program supports and provides 
experimental equipment to qualified scientists and research 
groups conducting experiments at nuclear physics accelerator 
facilities. These facilities provide new insights and advance 
our knowledge of the nature of matter and energy and develop 
the scientific knowledge, technologies and trained manpower 
needed to underpin the Department's nuclear missions.
    Rare Isotope Accelerator.--The Committee requests the 
Department to submit a report within 120 days after the 
enactment of this Act, with information critical to moving 
forward with the site selection of the Rare Isotope 
Accelerator. The report shall include, but not be limited to, 
(1) the status and progress of the conceptual research and 
development supporting the development of RIA over the past 6 
years; (2) the priority research areas the Department will 
complete prior to site selection for RIA; (3) the process by 
which the Department selects recipients for its research and 
development funding; (4) how the results of current and future 
research and development may affect the design of RIA or the 
path forward; (5) what technical hurdles remain before RIA site 
selection can resume; and (6) what funding will be required to 
clear those hurdles and what is the expected length of time for 
completion of these activities.
    Finally, the Committee requests the Department clarify its 
plans to move forward with RIA, provide an estimate of when the 
draft request for proposals will be reissued, and assess 
whether in a constrained budget environment the Department has 
any concern that RIA, as it is currently envisioned, will not 
be built. If the Department anticipates that future budgets 
will not allow for RIA, the Committee requests the report 
provide alternatives and explain how the Nation would meet our 
need for the fundamental physics knowledge and training of 
scientists applicable to national security and homeland 
security that RIA would provide.

                 BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

Appropriations, 2005....................................    $571,922,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................     455,688,000
House allowance.........................................     525,688,000
Committee recommendation................................     503,688,000

    The Committee recommendation includes $503,688,000 for 
biological and environmental research, an increase of 
$48,000,000 over the budget request.
    The biological and environmental research program develops 
the knowledge base necessary to identify, understand, and 
anticipate the long-term health and environmental consequences 
of energy use and development. The program utilizes the 
Department's unique scientific and technological capabilities 
to solve major scientific problems in the environment, 
medicine, and biology. The Committee recommendation includes 
the budget request for low dose radiation research. The 
Department is in the process or reorganizing the National 
Institute for Global Environmental Change [NIGEC] into the 
National Institute for Climatic Change Research [NICCR]. The 
Committee directs that a center be created that will work in 
collaboration with the other four regional centers of NICCR and 
will address the need for the development of methodologies and 
tools for the understanding and modeling of the impacts of 
global and regional climatic changes on riparian and coastal 
environmental and ecological systems that are throughout the 
Nation.
    Genomes.--Funding for the Human Genome program is provided 
to understand the genes identified in the Human Genome Project 
and to meet growing demand for sequencing in the broader 
scientific community. The Genome to Life activity aimed at 
understanding the composition and function of biochemical 
networks that carry our essential processes of living 
organisms. Current estimates project that the energy needs of 
the world will double by the year 2050. Energy supply and 
demand are expected to exert strong economic pressure on the 
United States and become one of the most important factors in 
the security of the country in this time frame. Biology-based 
solutions that contribute to increasing U.S. energy supply and 
decreasing its dependence on foreign sources of energy offer an 
exceptionally attractive alternative to petroleum-based 
sources. Microbes can act as catalysts to convert biomass to 
clean fuels and feedstock for key chemicals. To develop 
practical and economical biology-based systems for generation 
of energy and high-value chemicals, we must increase our 
knowledge of key biological systems, metabolic pathways, gene 
regulatory systems, and molecular structures and function. 
Understanding these key areas will provide new insights in 
microbial systems and permit biology-based resources to be 
harnessed.
    The Committee is supportive of the Department's effort to 
move ahead with a request for proposal for the first of four 
GTL facilities. The Committee is concerned that under the 
current budget and timetable, it is unlikely the Office of 
Science will be able to successfully prepare timely 
procurements for the three remaining facilities unless changes 
are made to the program. The Committee recommends the 
Department apply the same model as was used for the competition 
of the five nanotechnology centers. The Department was able to 
complete the five regional centers for a total cost of 
$301,000,000. Using the nanotechnology centers as the model, 
the Committee directs the Office of Science to accelerate the 
deployment of these world class genomic facilities.
    Each of the four proposed facilities already identified by 
the Office of Science will support research and development to 
understand and develop solutions related to bioenergy and 
biobased products. However, due to the nature of the research 
there is a need for all four facilities to be deployed in order 
to meet the separate scientific challenges of molecular 
characterization, analysis of microbial response, and 
developing a better understanding of biological systems. The 
Committee has provided $40,000,000 to accelerate the Genomics: 
GTL program. Within the funds provided $20,000,000 shall be 
used to support research and development to support the GTL 
program and $20,000,000 to conduct preliminary engineering and 
design for the remaining 3 facilities in the Genomes To Life 
program.
    Molecular Medicine.--The Committee continues to support 
research that brings together PET imaging, systems biology and 
nanotechnology to develop new molecular imaging probes. These 
probes should provide a biological diagnosis of disease that is 
informative of the molecular basis of disease and specific for 
guiding the development of new molecular therapies.
    The Committee is concerned about the consequences 
mitigation activities and public health impact associated with 
the threat of any radiological event and strongly encourages 
the Department to develop therapeutical radiological 
countermeasures to protect against exposure to the effects of 
ionizing radiation. The Committee is aware of the potential of 
inositol signaling molecules as a therapy for exposure to 
ionizing radiation and encourages the Department to support 
research of this emerging technology. The Committee recommends 
$7,000,000 for UCLA Institute for Molecular Medicine to protect 
the public health against radiation exposure.
    The Committee strongly supports DOE's efforts to maintain 
the scientific infrastructure of the Nation's structural 
biology assets, and encourages the Department to work to 
address the needs within the broader community.
    The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for the purchase of 
equipment at the New York Structural Biology Center.
    Within available funds, the Department shall continue to 
fund the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory.
    The Committee recommendation includes an additional 
$3,500,000 to the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory 
[EMSL] for upgrades to instrumentation at this national user 
facility.
    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 attach 
to these projects.
  --$12,000,000 for the Mind Institute in New Mexico;
  --$1,000,000 for the Mississippi State University Bio-fuel 
        Application Center;
  --$1,500,000 for the University of Louisville Institute for 
        Advanced Materials, KY;
  --$400,000 for Center for River Dynamics and Restoration at 
        Utah State University;
  --$3,000,000 for Texas' Metroplex Comprehensive Imaging 
        Center;
  --$1,000,000 for Ultra Dense Memory Storage for 
        Supercomputing in CO;
  --$2,000,000 for Health Sciences Research and Education 
        Facility, MO;
  --$1,500,000 for the National Center for Regenerative 
        Medicine, OH;
  --$1,000,000 for the University of Alabama at Birmingham-
        Radiation Oncology Functional Imaging Program;
  --$1,762,000 for the University City Science Park, 
        Philadelphia, PA;
  --$2,500,000 for Jackson State University Bioengineering 
        Complex, MS;
  --$800,000 for the Science Building Renovation Project, CO;
  --$538,000 for St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital, TN;
  --$500,000 for the California Hospital medical Center PET/CT 
        Fusion imaging system;
  --$1,000,000 for Mount Sinai Medical Center Imaging and 
        Surgical Equipment, FL;
  --$350,000 for Benedictine University Science Lab. & Research 
        Equipment, IL;
  --$350,000 for Swedish American Health Systems, IL;
  --$350,000 for La Rabida Children's Hospital, Chicago, IL;
  --$500,000 for Edward Hospital, Plainfield, IL;
  --$1,000,000 for Morgan State University Center for 
        Environmental Toxicology, MD;
  --$500,000 for the University of Massachusetts at Boston 
        Multidisciplinary Research Facility and Library;
  --$500,000 for the CIBS Solar Cell Development, NE;
  --$1,000,000 for the University Medical Center of Southern 
        Nevada Radiology/Oncology Program Equipment;
  --$1,000,000 for Mega Cargo Imaging Program at the Nevada 
        Test Site;
  --$500,000 for the University of Delaware Medical Research 
        Facility;
  --$500,000 for the St. Francis Hospital Linear Accelerator, 
        DE;
  --$500,000 for the ViaHealth/Rochester General Hospital 
        Emergency Department, NY;
  --$1,000,000 for University of Vermont Functional MRI 
        Research;
  --$1,000,000 for the Nevada Cancer Institute;
  --$3,000,000 for the Vermont Institute of Natural Sciences;
  --$500,000 for the Queen's Medical Center Telemedicine 
        Project, HI;
  --$250,000 for the Sarcoma Alliance for Research through 
        Collaboration, MI;
  --$250,000 for Rush Medical Center, IL;
  --$500,000 for the North Shore Long Island Jewish Health 
        System, NY;
  --$250,000 for the Hackensack University Medical Center 
        Ambulatory Adult Cancer Center, NJ;
  --$250,000 for the College of New Jersey Genomic Analysis 
        Facility;
  --$500,000 for the Western Michigan University Expanded 
        Energy and Natural Resources Learning Center;
  --$500,000 for the Arnold Palmer Prostate Center, CA;
  --$500,000 for the Louisiana Immersive Tech Enterprise 
        program at the University of Louisiana-Lafayette;
  --$500,000 for the Brown University MRI Scanner, RI;
  --$350,000 for the University of Dubuque Environmental 
        Science Center, IA;
  --$500,000 for the New School University in New York City, 
        NY;
  --$500,000 for the Oregon Nanoscience and Microbiologies 
        Institute;
  --$350,000 for Mt. Sinai Hospital Cardiac Catheterization 
        Lab, MD;
  --$250,000 for the University of Massachusetts Medical School 
        NMR Spectrophotometer;
  --$250,000 for the Mojave Bird Study, NV;
  --$250,000 for the Science Center at Maltby Nature Preserve 
        in Minnesota; and
  --$2,000,000 for the Existing Business Enhancement Program 
        Building, University of Northern IA.

                         BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

Appropriations, 2005....................................  $1,104,632,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................   1,146,017,000
House allowance.........................................   1,173,149,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,241,017,000

    The Committee recommendation provides $1,241,017,000, an 
increase of $95,000,000.
    The basic energy sciences [BES] program funds basic 
research in the physical, biological and engineering sciences 
that support the Department's nuclear and non-nuclear 
technology programs. The BES program is responsible for 
operating large national user research facilities, including 
synchrotron light and neutron sources, and a combustion 
research facility, as well as smaller user facilities such as 
materials preparation and electron microscopy centers. The BES 
program supports a substantial basic research budget for 
materials sciences, chemical sciences, energy biosciences, 
engineering and geosciences.
    Within available funds, the Committee recommendation 
includes $7,280,000 for the Department's Experimental Program 
to Stimulate Competitive Research. The Committee provides 
$5,000,000 to purchase additional fuel for the High Flux 
Isotope Reactor.

Research

    The Committee recommendation includes $1,062,944,000, the 
amount of the request, for materials sciences, engineering 
research, chemical sciences, geosciences, and energy 
biosciences. The Committee recommendation includes $4,500,000 
for Altair Nanotech for nanotechnology, nanosensors, and 
nanomaterials research, development, and deployment.
    Energy-Water Supply Technologies.--The Committee 
recommendation includes an additional $25,000,000, within the 
chemical sciences, geosciences, and energy biosciences account, 
to support a research and demonstration program to study 
energy-related issues associated with water resources and 
issues associated with sustainable water supplies for energy 
production. Within available funds, the Committee recommends 
$25,000,000 for energy and water resources management including 
$8,000,000 for advanced concept desalination and arsenic 
treatment research in partnership with American Water Works 
Research Foundation and WERC; $12,000,000 for water supply 
technology development in partnership with other national 
laboratories to initiate demonstration projects and technology 
transfer activities; and $5,000,000 for water management 
decision support including demonstration programs in 
partnership with the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 
transboundary applications and support for international energy 
and water efficiency.

Construction

    Spallation Neutron Source.--The Committee recommendation 
includes the budget request of $41,744,000 to continue 
construction at Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the 
Spallation Neutron Source [SNS] to meet the Nation's neutron 
scattering needs.
    Nanoscale Science Research Centers.--The Committee 
recommendation supports the high priority given to nanoscale 
research and has included the budget request for the nanoscale 
science research centers at Lawrence Berkeley National 
Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Argonne National 
Laboratory, Brookhaven National Laboratory, and the joint 
effort between Sandia National Laboratories and Los Alamos 
National Laboratory.
    National Nanotechnology Enterprise Development Center.--The 
Committee directs $30,000,000 for the establishment of the 
National Nanotechnology Enterprise Development Center [NNEDC], 
to be co-located with the Center for Integrated 
Nanotechnologies [CINT], a joint facility of Sandia National 
Laboratory and Los Alamos National Laboratory. The Committee 
intends that the NNEDC will assist in the technological 
maturation of nanotechnologies developed at the National 
Nanoscience Initiative facilities. The mission of the NNEDC 
will be to identify nanotechnologies developed at the national 
laboratories and partnered universities that are promising 
candidates for commercialization and to assist in their 
transition to the marketplace. The Center will be directed by 
employees of Sandia National Laboratory and Los Alamos National 
Laboratory and will emphasize opportunities for industry 
partnership with the CINT.

                 ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

    The Committee recommendation provides $207,055,000 for 
advanced scientific computing research. The Advanced Scientific 
Computing Research [ASCR] program supports advanced 
computational research--applied mathematics, computer science, 
and networking--to enable the analysis, simulation and 
prediction of complex physical phenomena. The program also 
supports the operation of large supercomputer user facilities.
    The National Leadership Computing Facility at Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory will provide the scientific community with 
the computing capability needed to solve problems out of reach 
of currently available systems and lead to significant 
advancements in areas such as biology, fusion, and climate 
change. Unfortunately, the budget request for this effort would 
halt the next phase of machine acquisitions and provides 
inadequate funding to operate the system that will be installed 
during fiscal year 2005.
    The Committee strongly supports the National Leadership 
Computing Facility and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory's 
leadership in this important area. Full operation of the 
National Leadership Computing Facility at ORNL is necessary to 
keep domestic researchers and industries competitive with their 
global counterparts. The Committee will work to ensure that 
sufficient funding is provided to meet the next phase of 
machine acquisitions and encourages the Department to focus its 
efforts on enhancing and expanding activities at the National 
Leadership Computing Facility.

                  SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

    The Committee recommends $40,105,000, to support 
infrastructure activities at the five national labs under the 
direction of the Office of Science.

                         FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

    Fusion Energy.--The Committee provides $290,550,000, the 
same as the budget request. The Committee has provided 
$28,000,000 in additional funding to ensure the full operations 
on the DIII-D, Alcator C-Mod, and NSTX fusion research 
facilities. The current budget reduces operations from 48 weeks 
to just 17 weeks, which the Committee believes is an 
irresponsible use of the taxpayer investment in these 
facilities. The Committee has reduced funding for the 
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor [ITER] by 
$28,000,000, equal to the amount domestic research has been 
increased. The Committee is disappointed that a decision has 
not been made in selecting a site for the location of this 
international burning plasma user facility. Without a final 
decision on a location or allocation, the Committee is 
skeptical the Department will be able to expend the full budget 
request for this project in fiscal year 2006. If a site is 
selected, the Committee will work with the Department to 
provide an allocation that is consistent with the expected 
needs for this project. Within available funds, the Committee 
includes $1,000,000 for non-defense research activities at the 
Atlas Pulse Power facility.

                        SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

    The Committee recommendation provides $74,317,000 for 
safeguards and security, the same level as the request.
    The safeguards and security line identifies the funding 
necessary for the physical protection, protective forces, 
physical security, protective systems, information security, 
cyber security, personnel security, materials control and 
accountability and program management activities for national 
laboratories and facilities of the Office of Science.

                     SCIENCE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

    The Committee recommendation provides $7,192,000 for 
science workforce development.
    The science workforce development program provides limited 
funding to train young scientists, engineers, and technicians 
to meet the demand for a well trained scientific and technical 
workforce, including the teachers that educate the workforce.
    The Committee encourages the Department of Energy to 
provide funds and technical expertise for high school students 
to participate in the 2005 For Inspiration and Recognition of 
Science and Technology [FIRST] Robotics competition. FIRST has 
proven to be a valuable program to introduce and mentor 
students in math and science.

                       SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION

    The Committee recommendation provides $207,725,000 for 
science program direction.
    Within available funds, the Committee provides $5,000,000 
for the Office of Science to conduct project engineering and 
design in support of replacement facilities at the Pacific 
Northwest National Laboratory in order to support accelerated 
cleanup of Hanford site. The Committee has provided a total of 
$18,000,000 for preliminary engineering and design in this 
account and in Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.

                      Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund

Appropriations, 2005....................................    $343,232,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................     300,000,000
House allowance.........................................     310,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     300,000,000

    The Committee provides $300,000,000 from fees collected by 
the Secretary and deposited into the fund established by Public 
Law 97-425 as amended. In addition to the defense contribution 
of $277,000,000, funding for Yucca Mountain will be provided at 
the fiscal year 2004 level of $577,000,000.
    The Department plans to submit its nuclear waste repository 
license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission during 
fiscal year 2006. In view of the authority granted to the State 
of Nevada and the affected units of local government to 
participate in licensing activities under this Act, the 
Congress wants to ensure that conflicts of interest are avoided 
between the Department as license applicant and the affected 
governments as potential parties to the license proceeding. The 
Department's practice of reviewing and approving annual work 
plans for affected government oversight programs is 
inconsistent with its role as a license applicant because the 
affected governments are potential parties to the proceeding. 
In place of an approval function, the Department shall advise 
and consult with affected governments for the sole purpose of 
assisting them to comply with the requirements of the Nuclear 
Waste Policy Act (Public Law 97-425). The affected governments 
are required, under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act [NWPA], to 
provide certification to the Department that all funds have 
been expended for activities authorized by the NWPA and this 
Appropriations Act. The prior approval of the Department is not 
required by these acts. Such certification and any audits 
carried out by the Department or others are sufficient to 
ensure that affected governments are using funds for the 
purpose intended. Audits shall be carried out at regular 
intervals by auditors from the Office of Civilian Radioactive 
Waste Management, or by independent auditors, using uniform 
criteria and procedures. Funds appropriated under this Act may 
be used for review of repository activities authorized in 
Section 116(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, for review of 
any proposal to develop a Monitored Retrievable Storage 
facility or an Interim Storage facility, and for monitoring 
lessons learned from related facilities for the storage and 
disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive 
waste. Such review activities may include potential economic, 
social, public health and safety, and environmental impacts of 
the transportation, storage and disposal of nuclear wastes.
    The Committee has provided $3,500,000 for the State of 
Nevada and $8,500,000 for the affected units of local 
government in accordance with the statutory restrictions 
contained in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The Committee 
directs that $500,000 be provided to Nye County, Nevada, to 
conduct on-site activities pursuant to Section 117(d) of that 
Act. These funds shall be separate and apart from oversight 
funding under Section 116(c) of the Act, and shall be made 
available to Nye County by direct payment subject to the same 
restrictions as apply to oversight payments for affected units 
of local government. Nye County is still permitted to seek 
funding under the Section 116(c) program, but the Committee 
expects the county to seek a lesser percentage of that 
program's annual funding.
    The administration has requested that the funds provided to 
the AULG's be provided for a period of 21 months. The Committee 
rejects this approach and directs the Department to provide 
this funding in the traditional annual (i.e., 12 month) manner. 
The Committee expects to provide fiscal year 2007 funding in 
the fiscal year 2007 Appropriations bill.

                      Departmental Administration

                                (GROSS)

Appropriations, 2005....................................    $238,503,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................     279,976,000
House allowance.........................................     252,909,000
Committee recommendation................................     280,976,000

                        (MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES)

Appropriations, 2005....................................    $121,024,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................     123,000,000
House allowance.........................................     123,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     123,000,000

    The Committee recommends $280,976,000 for departmental 
administration, a net appropriation of $157,976,000.
    The Departmental Administration account funds policy 
development and analysis activities, institutional and public 
liaison functions, and other program support requirements 
necessary to ensure effective operation and management. The 
account also covers salaries and expenses for the Office of the 
Secretary; Board of Contract Appeals; Chief Information 
Officer; Congressional and intergovernmental affairs; Economic 
impact and diversity; General Counsel; Office of Management, 
Budget and Evaluation; Policy and International Affairs; and 
Public Affairs. The Committee recommends an increase of 
$1,000,000 for Public Affairs.

                           Inspector General

Appropriations, 2005....................................     $41,176,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................      43,000,000
House allowance.........................................      43,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      43,000,000

    The Committee has provided $43,000,000 for the Office of 
the Inspector General, the same as the budget request.
    The Office of the Inspector General provides agency-wide 
audit, inspection, and investigative functions to identify and 
correct management and administrative deficiencies which create 
conditions for existing or potential instances of fraud, waste, 
and mismanagement.

                    ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

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

                National Nuclear Security Administration

    The National Nuclear Security Administration [NNSA], a 
separately organized and semi-autonomous agency within the 
Department of Energy, came into existence on March 1, 2000. The 
missions of the NNSA are: (1) to enhance United States national 
security through the military application of nuclear energy; 
(2) to maintain and enhance the safety, reliability, and 
performance of the United States nuclear weapons stockpile, 
including the ability to design, produce, and test, in order to 
meet national security requirements; (3) to provide the United 
States Navy with safe, militarily effective nuclear propulsion 
plants and to ensure the safe and reliable operation of those 
plants; (4) to promote international nuclear safety and 
nonproliferation; (5) to reduce global danger from weapons of 
mass destruction; and (6) to support United States leadership 
in science and technology. The programs and activities of the 
NNSA are funded through the following appropriation accounts: 
Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval 
Reactors, and Office of the Administrator.
    The committee is pleased that the administration has 
submitted the revised nuclear weapons stockpile plan as 
required by the fiscal year 2004 Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act (Public Law 108-137). The plan outlines how 
the Nation will achieve the 1,700-2,200 operationally deployed 
strategic warheads first outlined by the President in 2001 and 
subsequently codified in the Moscow Treaty. Once the reductions 
are achieved, the U.S. active nuclear weapons stockpile will be 
the smallest since the Eisenhower Administration. It clearly 
shows that the Administration undertook a careful analysis of 
the size and composition of the nuclear weapons stockpile that 
will be needed in the years ahead to ensure U.S. national 
security. To mitigate the risks of a smaller stockpile requires 
the United States must make continued progress in restoring a 
modern nuclear weapons infrastructure that can rapidly respond 
to geopolitical changes that may challenge U.S. national 
security or address potential problems in the Nation's nuclear 
deterrent.
    NNSA Complex Review.--Initiated under former Secretary 
Abraham, a task force was commissioned to study potential 
reforms to the nuclear weapons complex. This is the ninth such 
study commissioned since 1988. Previous studies have proposed a 
multitude of wide-ranging proposals, of which many were 
justifiably ignored. The challenge for the latest study panel 
will be to develop a modest package of reforms that identify 
cost savings and improvement to the complex without undermining 
the safety and security of our nuclear deterrent. It is the 
hope of this Committee that the study group will support the 
ongoing reforms to modernize the stockpile, through the 
Reliable Replacement Warhead program. This initiative, which 
was first proposed in the fiscal year 2005 Consolidated 
Appropriations Conference Report (H. Rept. 108-447) by the 
Energy and Water subcommittee, is a means to assure continued 
certification of the existing stockpile and to make it more 
affordable to manufacture, maintain and secure weapons. Such a 
plan will challenge weapons designers, manufacturing experts, 
computer scientists and experimentalists at our national labs 
to modernize the stockpile and will require sufficient funding 
in Science and Engineering Campaigns. The RRW program is not a 
new weapon, and this fact should be clear to the study panel 
members.
    The Committee recognizes the temptation for panel members 
to recommend comprehensive changes to shake up the complex and 
set it on a new direction. However, the Committee disagrees 
with the purported proposal to consolidate all of the nuclear 
material and the entire weapons manufacturing capability, 
including the construction of a Modern Pit Facility, at a 
single location. There are very strong opinions in Congress 
regarding the siting of a new pit facility or changing the 
military capability of the existing weapons. As such, the 
Committee believes it is unlikely that Congress would support 
such comprehensive reforms as currently proposed by the NNSA 
Complex study panel.
    It would be premature for this study to recommend 
significant changes to the complex until it is clear to both 
the Department of Defense and the Department of the Energy 
agree on what the stockpile will look like in the future and 
has the concurrence of the Congress before policy makers are 
likely to support the deployment of a brand new weapon into the 
stockpile, even if the military requirements remain the same. 
Those who support broad complex-wide reforms to the complex 
must be realistic in their expectations in reinventing the 
complex. Such a task will take time to ensure that the 
necessary improvement adequately supports science based 
stockpile stewardship.
    To protect the interests of the Committee and to ensure 
that this report and it proposed recommendations are carefully 
considered, no funds shall be used to implement any of the 
panel's recommendations in fiscal year 2006. This delay will 
provide Congress the opportunity to fully review the impact of 
the proposed recommendations. Since this report was not 
contemplated in President's fiscal year 2006 request, Congress 
will consider the implementation of any reforms as part the 
President's fiscal year 2007 budget request.

                           Weapons Activities

Appropriations, 2005....................................  $6,331,590,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................   6,630,133,000
House allowance.........................................   6,181,121,000
Committee recommendation................................    6,554,354,00

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

                        DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK

    The Committee recommendation includes $1,458,786,000 for 
directed stockpile work.
    Directed Stockpile Work [DSW] includes all activities that 
directly support weapons in the nuclear stockpile, including 
maintenance, research, development, engineering, certification 
and dismantlement and disposal activities.
    The Committee supports a degree of flexibility in executing 
this budget by providing limited reprogramming authority within 
Directed Stockpile Work [DSW]. The control levels for the DSW 
program are:
    (1) Life Extension Programs;
    (2) Stockpile Systems;
    (3) Retired Warhead Stockpile Systems; and
    (4) Stockpile Services.
    Life Extension Program.--Within Life Extension Programs, 
the Committee fully funds LEP activities at $348,318,000 
including the administration's request for the B61 at 
$50,810,000 to refurbish the canned subassembly and replacement 
of associated seals, supports, cables and connectors. The 
Committee provides full funding of $162,268,000 for the W76 to 
provide among other activities funding to support the design of 
the refurbished warheads to meet the military characteristics. 
The Committee provides for the W80 at $135,240,000 in order to 
accelerate process prove-in activities, ground qualification 
tests for hardware that supports future flight tests, 
hydrodynamic tests, the system thermal mechanical tests and the 
full system engineering tests.
    Stockpile System.--Within Stockpile Systems, the Committee 
fully endorses $311,804,000 for Stockpile Systems including the 
W80 at $26,315,000 in order to conduct vital surveillance lab 
tests, Canned Subassembly [CSA] surveillance and significantly 
decrease the current surveillance backlog of work. Other 
critical activities include support of the annual assessment 
process, providing support for all agency safety studies, 
accelerating completion of Significant Finding Investigations 
[SFIs], conducting key integrated experiments per the baseline 
plan; maintain steady production of the 1K reservoir, timely 
production of telemetry units and other Joint Test Assembly 
[JTA] hardware for support of flight tests. Also, these 
improvements and acceleration of activities will support the 
Seamless Safety for the 21st Century [SS-21] initiative. Within 
the Stockpile Systems program the Committee supports the budget 
request and provides $66,050,000 for the B61; $8,967,000 for 
the W62; $63,538,000 for the W76; $32,632,000 for W78; 
$26,315,000 for the W80; $26,391,000 for B83; $4,402,000 for 
the W84; $50,678,000 for the W87; and $32,831,000 for the W88.
    Stockpile Services.--The Committee fully endorses the 
President's request at $798,664,000 for Stockpile Services with 
the areas of: Production Support; Research and Development 
Support; Research and Development Certification and Safety; 
Management, Technology, and Production; and, the Robust Nuclear 
Earth Penetrator. The Stockpile Services Program provides 
essential funding for production activities that supports all 
of the weapons systems. Any reduction to this program would 
undermine the U.S. infrastructure and the critical R&D and 
production support, including quality control, certification, 
and training.
    The Committee recommends $267,246,000 for Production 
Support in order to facilitate, expedite and improve activities 
in the areas of Engineering Support; Manufacturing Support; 
Quality Supervision and Control; Tool, Gage and Test Equipment 
support; Purchasing and Material Support; and, Information 
Systems Support that were previously allocated to weapon types.
    The Committee recommends $71,753,000 for R&D Support in 
order to continue to conduct timely and essential activities 
directly supporting research, development, design, and 
maintenance functions where the work is performed by the same 
functional organization, the work supports two or more weapon 
types, and the work is essentially the same for each weapon-
type and association of project costs to a weapon type would be 
arbitrary and are not directly identified or allocated to 
specific weapon types. The Committee directs the NNSA to fund 
the Nevada Test Site at $40,000,000, $5,000,000 above the 
request, to maintain the Subcritical Experiment Program, 
including the Phoenix Explosive Pulse Power program.
    The Committee recommends $243,727,000 for R&D Certification 
and Safety in order to promote core competencies and 
capabilities not directly attributable to a single warhead 
type. Critical activities include modeling and assessment; 
safety, surety, and quality; warhead effects and system 
analysis studies, and model-based engineering and 
manufacturing; preparing and performing hydrodynamic tests; 
providing engineering and infrastructure support; multi-system 
surveillance; material science support and legacy archiving. 
The Committee recommends that an additional $21,000,000 be 
provided for Research and Development Certification and Safety 
to integrate new technologies into the stockpile consistent 
with the RRW program. The Committee provides an additional 
$10,000,000 to Los Alamos National Laboratory to conduct 
hydrodynamic testing in support of the Stockpile Stewardship 
program.
    The Committee recommends $171,587,000 for Management, 
Technology, and Production in order to continue key management 
and workload activities, not associated with a particular 
weapon type, which includes updating the Stockpile 
Dismantlement Database for the Nuclear Weapons Complex; Gas 
Transfer System [GTS] Redevelopment Reclamation for the First 
Production Unit [FPU]; core surveillance diagnostics; timely 
close-out of Significant Finding Investigations [SFIs]; 
conducting component engineering activities, reservoir forging 
development and special stockpile studies. The Committee 
provides $4,000,000 above the request to fund independent 
assessments of the safety of the stockpile and secure 
information exchange within the weapons complex.
    Reliable Replacement Warhead.--In response to a Los Alamos 
National Lab proposal to improve the sustainability of our 
national nuclear deterrent, Congress adopted the Reliable 
Replacement Warhead [RRW] Program in the fiscal year 2005 
Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 108-447). NNSA is 
undertaking the RRW Program to understand if warhead design 
constraints imposed on Cold War systems (e.g. high yield to 
weight ratios that have typically driven ``tight'' performance 
margins in nuclear design) are relaxed, could replacement 
components for existing stockpile weapons be more easily 
manufactured with more readily available and more 
environmentally benign materials, and whose safety and 
reliability could be assured with high confidence, without 
nuclear testing. This effort does not call into question the 
safety or reliability of the current stockpile but acknowledges 
the long-term sustainability of the legacy stockpile will be 
difficult. Implementation of RRW should also result in reduced 
life-cycle costs for supporting the stockpile. The Committee 
recognizes that RRW is early in its development and will not 
significantly alter the near-term plans for stockpile support 
such as LEPs, but NNSA is encouraged to move aggressively to 
incorporate benefits from RRW into the stockpile as soon as 
possible.
    The Committee recommends $25,351,000 for RRW to accelerate 
the planning, development and design for a comprehensive RRW 
strategy that improves the reliability, longevity and 
certifiability of existing weapons and their components.
    Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator.--The Committee recommends 
$4,000,000 to support the funding of the Air Force led study. 
The NNSA-DOD teams will conduct B83 impact studies and analyze 
test data. Sandia National Laboratory is the site of the RNEP 
tests and the Laboratory possesses a unique set of capabilities 
to conduct the test on a qualified test track where they are 
able to design and produce necessary instrumentation. Sandia is 
also able to maintain a Secret/Restricted Data Protected 
Environment in which to conduct the test and disassemble test 
materials that include hazardous material such as depleted 
uranium and insensitive high explosives. There are no other 
facilities aside from Sandia and Lawrence Livermore National 
Laboratory where the test data can be readily used to validate 
computer models that require terra-scale computers to model the 
data. If this test were moved to another site, it would cost at 
least 100 percent more than the existing budget request in 
order to replicate the test facility, prepare the test in a 
Secret/Restricted Data environment and handle the appropriate 
material. Any alternative site would need to conduct the 
appropriate environmental impact statement to ensure full 
compliance with environmental statutes. The Committee urges the 
Department to quickly complete the testing and opposes the 
Department moving this test to any other facility, as it would 
be a waste of taxpayer resources. The Committee reminds the 
administration that none of the funds provided may be used for 
activities at the engineering development phases, phase 3 or 
6.3 or beyond, in support of the Robust Nuclear Earth 
Penetrator.
    The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for the warhead 
dismantlement program within stockpile services. The Committee 
urges the NNSA to explore alternatives to more aggressively 
work off the dismantlement backlog, but acknowledges that 
effectively utilizing NNSA site/plant space and throughput 
capacities is challenging in order to balance the priority 
commitment to support the Life Extension Programs.

                               CAMPAIGNS

    Campaigns focus on scientific, technical and engineering 
efforts to develop and maintain critical capabilities and tools 
needed to support stockpile refurbishment and continued 
assessment and certification of the stockpile for the long term 
in the absence of underground nuclear testing. The major 
elements of the campaigns are: science campaigns, engineering 
campaigns, inertial confinement fusion and high yield, advanced 
simulation and computing, pit manufacturing and certification, 
and readiness campaigns.
    Within available funds, the Department is directed to work 
with the UNLV Research Foundation and a consortium of 
universities to continue design, preparation and 
experimentation on the Atlas Machine.
    Science Campaigns.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$307,925,000 for the Science campaign, an increase of 
$46,000,000 above fiscal year 2005 levels. The Science Campaign 
is the principal mechanism for supporting the science required 
to maintain the technical viability of the national nuclear 
weapons laboratories to enable them to respond to emerging 
national security needs. As such the campaign maintains the 
scientific infrastructure of the three weapons laboratories.
    The Department is directed to renew for 5 years the 
existing cooperative agreements with the University of Nevada 
Las Vegas and the University of Nevada Reno. The Department is 
also directed to provide funding of $3,000,000 to each 
institution per year.
    Primary Assessment Technologies.--The Committee recommends 
$55,179,000, an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget 
request, to improve the understanding of boost physics, one of 
the most complex challenges facing weapons designers. To 
understand the performance of materials subjected to extreme 
pressures that occur during a nuclear event, the laboratories 
have developed the capabilities to replicate the extreme 
physical environment in order to support the stockpile 
stewardship activities. The Committee expects the laboratories 
to support these activities with experiments using radiography 
and hydrotests. This data will be used to reduce the 
uncertainties in performance codes. Within the increased level 
of funding $5,000,000 is provided to Los Alamos to initiate 
preliminary design activities and demonstrate the capability of 
proton radiography of the LANSCE facilities in supporting 
stockpile stewardship activities.
    The Committee directs NNSA to fund the Nevada Test Site at 
$15,000,000, an increase of $5,000,000 to maintain NTS dynamic 
experiments, diagnostics, and data analysis, including past UGT 
analysis, at the level necessary to sustain the critical 
personnel skills and institutional viability to meet national 
program goals.
    Test Readiness.--The Committee recommends $25,000,000, the 
same as the budget request and a decrease of $1,784,000 below 
fiscal year 2005 funding levels.
    Dynamic Materials Properties.--The Committee recommends 
$90,894,000, an increase of $10,000,000 above the budget 
request. The Committee provides an additional $5,000,000 above 
the budget request of $20,000,000 to fund the Dynamic Materials 
Properties at the Nevada Test Site [NTS], and directs NNSA to 
make full use of plutonium experiments at the Joint Actinide 
Shock Physics Experimental Research facility [JASPER] and 
experiments on dynamic materials properties at the Atlas 
facility. The Committee opposes the budget request since it is 
unable to adequately support necessary experiments to validate 
thermodynamic properties and better understand material 
properties. Without additional funding, the Atlas Machine at 
the Nevada Test Site would be put on standby. The Committee 
directs the Department to use the increased funds to support 
experiments using the Z machine at Sandia National Lab, gas 
guns at Los Alamos, dynamic materials property tests using 
Atlas and plutonium experiments at the Joint Actinide Shock 
Physics Experimental facility [JASPER] located at the Nevada 
Test Site. The Committee directs the Department to support 
additional funding to Lawrence Livermore National Lab for 
experiments on equation-of-state measurements at JASPER needed 
for primary certification. The Committee recommendation 
includes $1,000,000 for LCS laser upgrades to the Idaho 
Accelerator Center.
    Advanced Radiography.--The Committee recommends 
$59,520,000, an increase of $10,000,000 above the budget 
request. The goal of the Advanced Radiography program is to 
develop multi-axis, multi-time radiographic hydrotest 
capability and to develop techniques for focused physical 
studies. The top priority for NNSA has been the refurbishment 
and reinstallation of the 2nd axis on DARHT. This is a joint 
effort among LANL, LLNL and Lawrence Berkley National Lab. The 
Committee recommends $10,000,000 to support improvements in 
radiography improvements to better diagnostic support on future 
subcritical experiments ad to ensure timely completion of the 
DARHT 2nd axis.
    Secondary Assessment Technologies.--The Committee 
recommends $77,332,000, an increase of $16,000,000. This 
program plays a critical role in developing the Advanced 
Scientific Computing effort to validate experimental data in 
modeling the yield performance of our nuclear systems and the 
impact of aging of materials. This program supports 
hydrodynamic and high-energy-density experiments.
    As a result of NNSA's decision to focus on construction of 
the National Ignition Facility [NIF] rather than focus on 
stockpile research there will be an increased reliance on the Z 
facility at Sandia and the Omega laser at the University of 
Rochester to support critical R&D efforts. As such, the 
Committee directs the NNSA to support additional experiments on 
Z machine and Omega laser using the increase in funding. 
Failure to provide adequate funding would prevent the labs from 
meeting the necessary campaign milestones.

Engineering Campaigns

    The Committee recommends $272,756,000 for the Engineering 
Campaign, an increase of $14,013,000 over fiscal year 2005 
levels. This campaign provides validation of engineering 
science, modeling and simulation tools necessary to support 
design, qualification and the certification of the stockpile. 
This campaign also supports at an increased level the 
development of surety technologies that are critical to 
ensuring the safe storage and transportation of these weapons.
    Enhanced Surety.--The Committee recommends $45,845,000, an 
increase of $16,000,000 above the request, to provide 
validation technology for inclusion in the stockpile 
refurbishment program to assure that modern nuclear safety 
standards are fully met and a new level of use-denial 
performance is achieved. The Committee recommends $16,000,000 
in additional funding to be provided to research, develop and 
design architectures to integrate required safety, security, 
reliability and use control functions. Work performed under 
this campaign supports all of the current and future stockpile 
activities that will utilize MESA developed micro technologies. 
This funding increase will allow restoration of activities for 
developing surety architectures that will provide increased 
security during storage, transportation and mission-related 
activities. This funding should be used to supplement the 
increased investment in the RRW initiative to ensure that 
enhanced safeguards are included in future modifications to the 
stockpile.
    Weapons Systems.--The Committee recommends $20,040,000, to 
accelerate the acquisition of experimental data necessary to 
validate new models and simulation tools being developed in the 
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign.
    Nuclear Survivability.--The Committee recommends 
$25,386,000, an increase of $16,000,000 above the budget 
request to develop and validate tools to simulate nuclear 
environments for survivability assessments and certification; 
restore the capability to provide nuclear-hardened 
microelectronics and microsystem components for the enduring 
stockpile; and accelerate the qualification and certification 
of the neutron generator and the arming, fusing and firing 
system for the refurbished W76. The Committee provides 
$16,000,000 to support work at the MESA facility to design work 
for the W76-1 and other reentry systems to meet the requirement 
for radiation hardening. Sandia National Laboratory retains the 
only expertise in the Nation to develop equipment and 
electronics capable of withstanding intense radiation 
environments.
    Enhanced Surveillance.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $111,207,000 for the Enhanced Surveillance Campaign, 
$15,000,000 above the request. The increase is provided to 
begin enhanced surveillance work to take advantage of the 
accelerated MESA completion and newly-developed ASC simulation 
codes, as well as to encourage the development and deployment 
of advanced surveillance technologies and techniques into RRW 
and the sustainable stockpile. Modern stockpile evaluation 
based upon the enhanced surveillance program activities is 
intended to provide an accurate, more timely and more cost-
effective means for assuring performance of existing stockpile 
systems, upcoming LEPs, and RRW. Funding increases will enable 
the development and implementation of these new techniques, and 
improving their readiness for RRW and the sustainable 
stockpile.
    The Enhanced Surveillance program provides component and 
material lifetime assessments and develops predictive 
capabilities for early identification and assessment of 
stockpile aging concerns. This program supports the University 
Research Program in Robotics at $4,465,000.
    Project 01-D-108 Microsystem and Engineering Science 
Applications [MESA], SNL, Albuquerque, New Mexico.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $65,564,000 to maintain the 
construction schedule consistent with projected stockpile 
needs. The budget also provides $4,714,000 in operating funds 
to support other project costs that are related to the MESA 
line item construction project but are not capitalized.

Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield

    The Committee recommends $314,023,000, a reduction of 
$4,482,000 from the budget request for the Inertial Confinement 
Fusion and High Yield Campaign. This allocation restores 
$61,000,000 in funding to the Support of Stockpile and Inertial 
Fusion Technology program that was cut from the budget request.
    National Ignition Facility [NIF].--The Committee is 
disappointed in the long-term funding outlook for Weapons 
Activities contained in the fiscal year 2006 FYNSP. Compared to 
the budget request in fiscal year 2005, Weapons Activities 
funding is reduced by $3,000,000,000 over the next 5 years. 
This decline is likely to have significant programmatic impacts 
and drastically curtail NNSA's scientific capabilities. It is 
difficult to conceive of a single program not being severely 
impacted, including NIF, as a result of the declining budget. 
The Committee is cognizant that the modest funding reduction of 
$25,000,000 in fiscal year 2005 to the NIF program forced NNSA 
managers to rebaseline the entire project. As a result of the 
rebaselining effort, the NNSA has made the decision to support 
the NIF construction effort at the expense of the Inertial 
Confinement Fusion and High Yield Campaigns, putting in 
jeopardy critical high energy stewardship research at Los 
Alamos, Sandia, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories. 
The fiscal year 2006 budget cuts experimental programs that are 
essential in obtaining scientific data for ASC codes. The 
budget proposes the elimination of the Inertial Fusion 
Technology program that supported research on the Z machine and 
High Average Power Laser program. Currently, NIF is able to 
operate four beamlines, making NIF the most powerful laser in 
the world.
    The NNSA has not completed the rebaselining of the NIF 
program, and the Committee directs that no funds be expended on 
project 96-D-111 in order to focus on supporting a 
comprehensive stewardship program.
    Ignition.--The Committee recommends $68,800,000 to support 
experiments at Inertial Confinement facilities to demonstrate 
the principles of thermonuclear fusion. Sufficient funding is 
provided to support computer simulation, target fabrication, 
and target design calculation.
    Support for Other Stockpile Programs.--In order to avoid 
drastic cuts to the ICF program, the Committee recommends 
restoring funding to $41,000,000 to perform experiments on the 
Z-machine to validate computer models as well as experiments on 
OMEGA at the University of Rochester, NY. This is an increase 
of $31,128,000 above the budget request.
    NIF Diagnostics, Cryogenics and Experimental Support.--The 
Committee provides $30,000,000. It is clear from recent 
advances in target research that targets may hold the key to 
significant increases in efficiency. Targets with cryogenic 
fuel, composite ablators, foams, double shells and advanced 
hohlraum designs can compensate for limitation for both 
indirect and direct target concepts. The Committee directs the 
Department to provide $10,000,000 from within available funds 
to accelerate development of targets to support experiments on 
NIF, OMEGA and Z-machine.
    Pulsed Power Inertial Confinement Fusion.--The Committee's 
recommendation provides $10,900,000, a $910,000 increase over 
the budget request for pulsed power ICF to assess Z pinches as 
drivers for ignition and high yield fusion.
    University Grants/Other ICF Support.--The Committee 
provides $7,700,000 for research assistance in high energy 
density science, a level consistent with fiscal year 2005.
    The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 to Nevada 
Terawatt Facility. Within the funds provided, $3,000,000 is for 
research into strongly magnetized highly density energy matter 
and $2,000,000 is for construction of the high energy, short-
pulse laser system.
    Facility Operations and Target Production.--The Committee 
provides $54,623,000 as requested to support operations on 
OMEGA and Z-machine. Funds will support target production, 
engineering support, and maintenance.
    Inertial Fusion Technology.--The Committee is disappointed 
that the budget completely eliminated funding with this 
account. As such the Committee has restored the funding to 
$41,000,000 and provides $6,000,000 to prepare Z-machine to 
support extended operations.
    NIF Demonstration.--The Committee recommends $50,000,000 to 
support the NIF Demonstration program. The committee directs 
the NNSA to use this funding to support Stockpile Stewardship 
responsibilities necessary for closeout costs or other impacts 
as a result of the halt in construction and installation.
    High Energy Petawatt Laser Development.--The Committee 
strongly supports the OMEGA petawatt laser and provides 
$10,000,000 an increase of $7,000,000 above the request. The 
funding supports the development and testing of two short 
pulsed laser beams to support the existing capabilities at 
OMEGA in Rochester, New York. The Committee recommendation 
includes an additional $7,000,000 for university grants and 
other support. Of this amount, $3,000,000 is provided for 
continued development of petawatt laser at the University of 
Texas at Austin; $2,000,000 is provided to the University of 
Nevada, Reno to continue its collaboration with Sandia National 
Laboratories on highly diagnosed studies of exploding wire 
arrays and implosion dynamics. The Committee provides 
$2,000,000 to Sandia National Laboratories for Z-Petawatt 
Consortium experiments using the Sandia Z-Beamlet and Z-
Petawatt lasers.
    Construction--Project 96-D-111.--The Committee directs that 
no funds shall be expended for this project.
    The Committee directs the NNSA to continue working with the 
Office of Science and the NSF on interagency coordination and 
support of high energy density physics and high intensity laser 
science. The Committee recommends that the Department form a 
High Energy Density Physics Advisory Committee, drawn from the 
scientific and technical community, to assist in this effort. 
The Committee further directs the Department to provide to the 
Committee a plan for funding and managing non-defense high 
energy density physics research and facilities development by 
March 1, 2006.

Advanced Simulation and Computing

    The Committee recommends $735,830,000, an increase of 
$75,000,000 above the President's budget request, to support 
stockpile refurbishments, annual assessment and certification. 
The Committee acknowledges the important role of the ASC 
Program in Stockpile Stewardship as affirmed by the JASONs' 
study directed by Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003, 
Public Law 108-7. The Committee shares the concerns raised by 
the JASONs about ensuring both adequate capacity and capability 
to meet the growing computational demands of the weapons 
designers and engineers at the laboratories. The Committee 
urges NNSA to further improve code confidence through more 
rigorous analysis. The Committee recognizes that without the 
Advanced Computing program the labs will be unable to certify 
the life extension program designs in the required timeframes. 
Codes based in experimental data are critical to validating the 
calculated changes to a physics package that will be included 
in the life extension program. As the labs enter a new phase in 
the life extension program through the RRW program, improved 
computer modeling will be critical to designing and deploying 
more reliable and interchangeable parts.
    The Committee is aware of the enormous management and 
technical challenge the NNSA has faced in establishing the ASC 
program over the past 10 years. The Committee is supportive of 
NNSA's proposed transition to a product-focused initiative that 
will integrate the experimental data and enhance the 
predictability to answer challenging questions researchers have 
yet to solve. In fiscal year 2006, the ASC program is expected 
to deliver an advanced physics and engineering simulation 
capability to support the W76 and the W80 life extension 
certifications. The Committee supports the ASC challenge to 
complete the modern baseline that reflects the comprehensive 
physics baseline of our enduring stockpile with ASC codes by 
fiscal year 2009. In order for the NNSA to meet these 
milestones and complete its transition to a product based 
program that serves, the Committee directs the Secretary to 
withhold funding of earmarks that do not directly support the 
stockpile stewardship mission within the ASC program until the 
Secretary certifies in writing to Congress on an annual basis 
that the ASC program remains on track to meet the annual 
milestones, as well as goals laid out in the NNSA 5-year plan.
    The Committee recognizes that there is a need for much 
faster computer systems to perform the most complicated weapons 
systems analyses. The Committee recommends an increase of 
$75,000,000 to acquire a 150 teraflop computing system at Los 
Alamos to decrease the time required for the large weapons 
related calculations and to increase the productivity of the 
scientists. Currently, Los Alamos is working on a life 
extension program for the W76. The Committee has been informed 
that one calculation to support the LEP has been running for 19 
months on a 20 teraflop machine. This is an unacceptable 
timeframe. The purchase of the new 150 TF machine will reduce 
the runtime from 19 months to just 3 months for the same 
calculation. In 2003 the Committee charged JASON and the 
National Academies to report on the requirements drivers and 
computer architectural directions chosen by the Advanced 
Simulation and Computing program. The studies recognized that 
Stockpile Stewardship simulation demands oversubscribe current 
resources and that a diversity of supercomputer architectures 
is needed to meet the demanding obligations of Stewardship. 
Demands of the Life Extension Programs in particular and 
Stockpile Stewardship in general do not allow the reallocation 
of leading systems to single problems for any extended period 
of time. The Blue Gene/L system at Lawrence Livermore National 
Laboratory, and its focus on critical nuclear weapons science, 
only fulfills part of the mission needs. While this system 
effectively targets weapons aging issues, by design it is not 
suited to advance the complex full-weapons-systems simulation. 
The Committee agrees with study recommendations and recognizes 
the need to support the most demanding requirements.
    From within amounts provided, the Committee recommends that 
no less than $269,800,000 is provided to Los Alamos National 
Laboratory; $243,700,000 for Lawrence Livermore National 
Laboratory; and $162,500,000 for Sandia National Laboratory to 
support the Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign. In 
addition, the Committee provides $55,000,000 for the capacity 
computing requirements to support the W76-1 LEP.

Pit Manufacturing and Certification

    The Committee recommendation includes a total of 
$248,760,000 for the pit manufacturing and certification 
campaign, the same as the budget request. This amount includes 
$182,821,000 to support the manufacturing and certification of 
a W88 pit consistent with the project baseline. The Committee 
directs the NNSA to revise as appropriate the pit production 
and certification plan and submit the report to the relevant 
congressional committees by March 31, 2005, and annually 
thereafter.
    Modern Pit Facility.--The Committee recommendation includes 
a total of $7,686,000, the same as the budget request.

Readiness Campaigns

    Stockpile Readiness Campaign.--The Committee recommends 
$218,755,000 for the stockpile readiness campaign, the amount 
of the request. This program, initiated in fiscal year 2001, 
enables the Y-12 National Security Complex to replace or 
restore production capability and to modernize aging 
facilities. At present, all of the critical manufacturing 
capabilities required for weapons refurbishments at Y-12 do not 
exist.
    High Explosives and Weapons Operations.--The Committee 
recommends $17,097,000 to establish production-scale high 
explosives manufacturing and qualification; to deploy and 
validate technologies and facilities for production re-
qualification; and, to demonstrate and validate Enterprise 
Integration and Collaborative Manufacturing.
    Non-Nuclear Readiness.--The Committee recommends 
$28,630,000, to deploy commercial products and processes for 
components supporting the B61, W80, and W76 stockpile life 
extension programs; to modify existing tritium loading and 
cleaning facilities to support stockpile life extension 
programs; and, to support neutron target loading and detonator 
production.
    Tritium Readiness.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$87,588,000 for the tritium readiness campaign, the same as the 
request. This includes funding for the construction of the 
Tritium extraction facility at the requested level of 
$24,894,000.
    Advanced Design and Production Technologies.--The Committee 
recommends $54,040,000.
    Cooperative Agreements.--The Committee recognizes that 
cooperative agreements with universities are important 
resources for developing essential technical data for stockpile 
stewardship. Additionally, such long-term relationships with 
universities allow considerable opportunity for promoting 
advanced studies and recruiting the future workforce in 
technical areas that are critical to the continuing stewardship 
enterprise. The Committee remains supportive of this activity 
and directs the administration to honor existing cooperative 
agreements as this new office implements its responsibilities. 
The Committee is aware of the successful partnerships between 
the NNSA and the University of Nevada-Las Vegas and the 
University of Nevada-Reno that have been fostered through a 
series of cooperative agreements. The Department is encouraged 
to renew these agreements.

               READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES

    The Committee recommendation includes $1,696,336,000 an 
increase of $64,950,000 from the budget request.
    The readiness in technical base and facilities [RTBF] 
program provides the underlying physical infrastructure and 
operational readiness for the directed stockpile work and 
campaign programs. RTBF activities include ensuring that 
facilities are operational, safe, secure, and in compliance 
with regulatory requirements, and that a defined level of 
readiness is sustained at facilities funded by the Office of 
Defense Programs.
    Operations of Facilities.--The Committee recommends 
$1,200,483,000, an increase of $39,700,000, to maintain 
readiness for all RTBF facilities. The Committee provides an 
additional $15,000,000 above the budget request to support 
operation and recapitalization of facilities at the Nevada Test 
Site [NTS], specifically the Device Assembly Facility 
preparations for expanded missions, the Joint Actinide Shock 
Physics Experimental Research facility, Big Explosive 
Experimental Facility [BEEF], U1a Complex, and other projects. 
The Committee recommendation includes an additional $11,000,000 
within the funds provided for modification of the Z-Beamlet 
laser at the Z Pinch at Sandia National Laboratories. The 
Committee provides $12,000,000 from within available funds to 
support MESA Operations. The Committee provides an additional 
$20,000,000 for facility upgrades at the Kansas City Plant, to 
be distributed as follows: $5,000,000 is provided to replace 
machinery essential to support the Life Extension Programs; 
$7,000,000 to address deferred maintenance to machinery; and 
$5,700,000 to support infrastructure improvement.
    The Committee recommendation includes $2,500,000 for the 
UNLV Research Foundation to support the ongoing programs of the 
Institute for Security Studies. The Committee provides an 
additional $3,000,000 above the budget request for the Advanced 
Monitoring Systems Initiative at the NTS to continue micro-
sensing technology deployment and prototype deployment of 
remote monitoring systems for the underground test area.
    The Committee recommendation provides an additional 
$15,000,000 to improve and upgrade existing roads at the Nevada 
Test Site and an additional $4,000,000 to install two new water 
storage tanks in Area 6 of the NTS. The Committee provides 
$1,000,000 to purchase and install a Geographic Information 
Center at the NTS. Additionally, the Committee recommendation 
provides $4,000,000 to install a 17-mile fiber optic link 
between the Nevada Test Site and Indians Springs Air Force 
Base; and $4,500,000 to upgrade the Emergency Operations Center 
within the Nevada Support Facility to meet national program 
goals.
    The recommendation also includes, within funds provided, 
$3,000,000 for the Consortium for Terrorism and Fire Science at 
UNR.
    Program Readiness.--The Committee recommends $105,738,000, 
the same as the budget request, to enhance readiness and 
maintain materials processing and component manufacturing 
readiness.
    Special Projects.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$19,869,000 for special projects. Within the available funds, 
$250,000 for the continuing operations and security at the 
Atomic Testing History Institute; $2,000,000 to the UNLV 
Research Foundation to continue support of the radioanalytical 
services laboratory. The Committee provides $3,500,000 to the 
not-for-profit Technology Ventures Corporations to continue the 
successful technology transfer and commercialization efforts at 
the National Laboratories and the Nevada Test Site. The 
Committee provides $2,500,000 for the National Museum of 
Nuclear Science and History.
    The Committee recommends $1,250,000 for the Arrowhead 
Center at New Mexico State University. The Committee provides 
$2,000,000 for Rapid Prototyping activities at the Special 
Technology Laboratory in Santa Barbara, CA to accelerate 
development of sensor and live plume tracking capabilities at 
the Nevada Test Site. The Committee recommendation also 
includes $2,000,000 for a public-private partnership to 
continue the test and evaluation of water filtration technology 
to protect the public against nuclear, biological, and chemical 
threats. The Committee recommends $1,000,000 to continue the 
ongoing administration infrastructure support grant for the 
UNLV Research Foundation.
    Material Recycle and Recovery.--The Committee recommends 
$72,730,000, the amount of the budget request.
    Construction Projects.--The Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $255,047,000, for construction projects under 
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities.
    The Committee continues to be concerned about the fire 
station support at the Nevada Test Site and is pleased by the 
decision to use a design-build acquisition strategy for the 
fire stations and encourages completion at the earliest 
possible time within the funding that has been provided. 
$65,000,000 is provided to the 4-D-125 the CMR Replacement 
facility. In 1999, NNSA approved a strategy to managing risk at 
CMR that recognized the facility could not continue its mission 
at acceptable level of risk to the workforce without 
operational restrictions. The CMRR project will allow the NNSA 
to consolidate the critical stewardship mission support 
functions including analytical chemistry, materials 
characterization, and actinide R&D located in the existing 
facility. The Committee recognizes and fully supports the 
NNSA's efforts to construct the CMR Replacement facility near 
the TA-55 plutonium facility to ensure Los Alamos will be able 
to fully support its ongoing plutonium mission.
    Project 05-D-140, Project Engineering and Design [PED]--
RTBF, Various Locations.--The Committee recommends an 
additional $2,000,000 for the Test Capabilities Revitalization 
project at Sandia National Laboratory.

         FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE RECAPITALIZATION PROGRAM

    The Committee recommendation includes $261,809,000, a 
reduction of $21,700,000 below the request.
    The facilities and infrastructure recapitalization program 
is a multi-year but limited term effort to restore the physical 
infrastructure of the weapons complex and eliminate the 
maintenance backlog. The program provides funds to accomplish 
deferred maintenance and utilities replacement while improving 
facility management practices to preclude further 
deterioration.

                      SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET

    The Committee recommendation includes a total of 
$212,100,000.
    The secure transportation asset program provides for the 
safe, secure movement of nuclear weapons, special nuclear 
material, and weapon components between military locations and 
nuclear complex facilities within the United States.

                   NUCLEAR WEAPONS INCIDENT RESPONSE

    Formerly funded in the Readiness in Technical Base and 
Facilities account, the program funding for emergency 
management and radiological emergency response activities 
ensures a central point of contact and an integrated response 
to radiological emergencies. The Committee recommends 
$118,796,000, the amount of the request.

                        SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

    The Committee recommendation includes $740,478,000, the 
same as the request.
    The safeguards and security line identifies the funding 
necessary for all safeguard and security requirements (except 
for personnel security investigations) at NNSA landlord sites, 
specifically the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los 
Alamos National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, the 
Nevada Test Site, Kansas City Plant, Pantex Plant, Y-12 Plant, 
and the Savannah River Site Tritium Facilities. The Committee 
directs NNSA to fund the Nevada Site Office security budget at 
the fiscal year 2006 request of $62,000,000 and provide an 
additional $20,000,000 to fully staff the security force at the 
Device Assembly Facility, including the full implementation of 
the protective force Special Response Team program. The 
Committee provides $20,000,000 to complete the expansion of the 
red network at Los Alamos in order to reduce the necessity for 
CREM. The Committee provides within available funds $12,000,000 
to reinvigorate security research development, test and 
evaluation. Without the assistance of innovative technological 
solutions, most sites are forced to rely on protective forces. 
Technology can be a force multiplier, but without investment in 
advanced security technology research and development new 
technologies will not be realized. The Committee provides 
$1,900,000 to deploy and demonstrate an enterprise PKI for 
secure authentication and communication at Sandia National 
Laboratory.

                    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

Appropriations, 2005....................................  $1,409,033,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................   1,637,239,000
House allowance.........................................   1,500,959,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,729,066,000

    The Committee recommendation includes $1,729,066,000 for 
defense nuclear nonproliferation, an increase of $91,827,000.
    The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account funds programs 
and activities to (1) prevent the spread of materials, 
technology, and expertise relating to weapons of mass 
destruction; (2) detect the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction worldwide; (3) provide for international nuclear 
safety, and (4) eliminate inventories of surplus fissile 
materials usable for nuclear weapons. These highly important 
initiatives address the danger that hostile nations or 
terrorist groups may acquire weapons of mass destruction or 
weapons-usable material, dual-use production technology or 
weapons of mass destruction expertise. The major elements of 
the program include the following: nonproliferation and 
verification research and development, nonproliferation and 
international security, and nonproliferation programs with 
Russia.
    The Committee recognizes the importance of the Nuclear 
Nonproliferation Treaty [NPT] in preventing states of concern 
and terrorists from acquiring or developing nuclear weapons. 
Developments with North Korea and Iran as well as the A.Q. Khan 
nuclear black market underscore the need to strengthen the NPT. 
The Committee is concerned that efforts to strengthen the NPT 
have been weakened by the allegation that U.S. nuclear weapons 
policy is not consistent with its commitment under Article VI 
of the NPT to work toward general and complete disarmament. The 
nuclear posture and nonproliferation policies of the United 
States are consistent with its obligations under Article VI. 
The United States nuclear stockpile is the smallest in many 
decades, and it is not developing new generations of nuclear 
weapons. The Committee urges the Department of Energy to focus 
on the primary challenge of strengthening the NPT by closing 
the loopholes that enable countries to develop weapons programs 
under the guise of peaceful nuclear energy programs. The 
Committee also urges the Department to use any and all 
incentives available to accelerate conversion of research 
reactors fueled with highly-enriched uranium [HEU] to low 
enriched uranium to eliminate the use of HEU in the civilian 
sector.

         NONPROLIFERATION VERIFICATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

    The Committee recommendation includes $297,218,000, an 
increase of $30,000,000.
    The nonproliferation and verification research and 
development program conducts applied research, development, 
testing, and evaluation leading to prototype demonstrations and 
detection systems that are critical to the United States 
response to current and projected threats posed by the 
proliferation of nuclear weapons, and diversion of special 
nuclear material. The program works directly with agencies 
responsible for monitoring proliferation and combating 
terrorism.
    The Committee recommendation includes $2,500,000 for the 
UNLV Research Foundation support of nonproliferation activities 
at Institute for Security Studies.
    The Committee supports the nuclear and radiological 
national security program. The NNSA is directed to provide for 
the sustained development of advanced technologies needed to 
counter nuclear terrorism threats and should focus on improving 
capabilities through research and development in threat 
assessment and prediction, basic nuclear understanding, sensors 
and detection systems, consequence mitigation, forensics and 
attribution and render-safe technologies.
    The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to support a research 
and development program in the NNSA, through the national 
laboratories and drawing on the expertise of the Science 
programs, to provide a foundation and long term R&D capability 
in chemical and biological detection.
    Project 06-D-180, National Nuclear Security Administration 
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program, Project Engineering 
and Design [PED], National Security Laboratory, PPNL, 
Washington.--The Committee recommendation includes $13,000,000.
    The Committee recommends $2,000,000 to begin the conceptual 
design effort to design a facility to accommodate the security 
category of III/IV radiological mission, materials and 
activities currently housed at TA-18.

              NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

    The Committee recommendation includes $90,173,000, an 
increase of $9,827,000 from the request to adequately fund 
Global Threat Reduction Initiative. The Committee supports the 
administration's efforts to remove and secure high-risk nuclear 
and radiological materials and equipment around the world that 
pose a threat to the United States and its allies by: 
consolidating, accelerating, and expanding the Department's 
nuclear materials removal efforts; enhancing the security of 
vulnerable radiological materials worldwide; and identifying 
nuclear and radiological materials and equipment not being 
addressed by current nonproliferation activities.
    The nonproliferation and international security program 
supports activities to: control the export of items and 
technology useful for weapons of mass destruction [WMD]; 
implement international safeguards in conjunction with the 
International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA]; monitor and 
implement treaties and agreements; develop and implement policy 
in support of international security efforts aimed at securing 
high-risk nuclear material; develop and implement transparency 
measures to assure international nonproliferation and arms 
control commitments; and explore and implement innovative 
approaches to improve regional security. The Committee directs 
the Department to provide $5,000,000 in grants to institutions 
of higher learning and non-profit entities for research related 
to nuclear nonproliferation and chemical and biological weapons 
detection. Each individual grant provided shall not exceed 
$500,000.
    The recommendation includes $10,000,000 to reinvigorate 
initiatives focused on removing nuclear materials from 
vulnerable sites around the world. These activities are 
essential to prevent terrorist groups or states hostile to the 
United States from acquiring destructive nuclear capabilities.

       INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS PROTECTION AND COOPERATION

    The Committee recommendation includes $343,435,000, the 
same as the request. This program will continue to improve the 
security for nuclear material and weapons in Russia by 
installing basic rapid upgrades and through comprehensive 
security improvements.
    The Committee continues to believe that these activities 
are critical elements of the United States nonproliferation 
efforts.
    Regarding the second line of defense activities, the 
Committee urges the NNSA to continue its efforts in the use of 
integrated monitoring methodology for special nuclear 
monitoring detection at airports, ports, and border crossing in 
the former Soviet Union and newly independent States. The 
Committee provides $97,929,000 for Second Line of Defense 
Activities, including $73,929,000 for the Megaports program.

             GLOBAL INITIATIVE FOR PROLIFERATION PREVENTION

    The Committee recommendation includes $50,890,000 to 
support the Global Initiative for Proliferation Prevention 
[GIPP]. In fiscal year 2005, this account was formerly named 
the Russian Transition Initiatives [RTI] and supported the 
funding for the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention and 
the Nuclear Cities Initiative [NCI]. Although the names have 
changed the purpose remains the same. The Department recognizes 
that scientists in other countries are seeking to, or are 
already working on developing the capability for nuclear, 
biological, or chemical weapons. Consistent with the successful 
mission of the former RTI programs, the Department should look 
to engage scientists outside the former Soviet Union in useful 
scientific discovery and cooperation. The Department should 
continue to support the original activities within Russia, but 
seek to expand its cooperation with other countries that pose 
the highest risk of developing weapons of mass destruction.
    HEU Transparency Implementation.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $20,483,000 to support continued work 
with Russia to provide confidence to the United States that the 
Russian highly enriched uranium [HEU] being converted is from 
its military stockpile, consistent with the 1993 United States-
Russia HEU Purchase Agreement.
    Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production 
Program.--The Committee recommendation includes $152,000,000 
for this program to assist the Russian Federation in ceasing 
its production of weapons-grade plutonium production by 
providing replacement power production capacity.
    The Committee recommends $20,000,000 to support conversion 
of the Zheleznogorsk plutonium reactor.
    In 2004, Congress authorized the Department to use 
international funds for the EWGPP program without further 
appropriation and without fiscal year limitation. Additionally, 
the Department is authorized and encouraged to develop and 
implement cost-sharing options with the Russian Federation, 
when practicable.
    Fissile Materials Disposition.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $653,065,000. This program conducts 
activities in both the United States and Russia to dispose of 
fissile materials that would pose a threat to the United States 
if acquired by hostile nations or terrorist groups.
    Excess weapons grade plutonium in Russia is a clear and 
present danger to the security of the United States because of 
the possibility that it will fall into the hands of non-Russian 
entities or provide Russia with the ability to rebuild its 
nuclear arsenal at a rate the United States may be unable to 
equal. For that reason, the Committee considers the 
Department's material disposition program of comparable 
importance to weapons activities; both are integral components 
of our national effort to reduce any threat posed to the United 
States and to deter the threat that remains.
    The Committee understands the important role the U.S. 
plutonium disposition program plays in the Department's 
domestic efforts to consolidate and dispose of inventories of 
surplus weapons-grade plutonium. The consolidation and the safe 
disposals of this material from across the complex will 
significantly lower safety and security costs, and facilitate 
the closure of former nuclear weapons sites across the NNSA 
complex. Any effort to eliminate funding for this project will 
likely foreclose a disposal pathway for plutonium stored at 
Savannah River causing the Department to pay the State of South 
Carolina up to $100,000,000 per year in fines starting in 2011. 
Without a viable disposal solution, the cleanup of the Hanford 
Site and arrangements for decreasing inventories of plutonium 
at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the Pantex Plant 
will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars annually 
for storage and related Design Basis Threat activities.

                              CONSTRUCTION

    Project 99-D-141 Pit Disassembly & Conversion Facility.--
The Committee recommends $24,000,000, the same as the budget 
request.
    Project 99-D-143 Mixed Oxide [MOX] Fuel Fabrication 
Facility.--The Committee recommends $338,565,000, the same as 
the request.

                   GLOBAL THREAT REDUCTION INITIATIVE

    The Global Threat Reduction Initiative mission is to 
identify, secure, remove high-risk, vulnerable nuclear and 
radiological materials and equipment around the world that pose 
a potential threat to the United States and the International 
community. The Committee encourages the Department to increase 
its efforts to accelerate the return of highly enriched uranium 
[HEU] from research and test reactors worldwide. The Committee 
provides $108,975,000, an increase of $11,000,000 above the 
budget request. The Committee has provided this funding 
increase to the Radiological Threat Reduction program to 
establish a pilot program that would utilize commercial or non-
governmental resources for recovery, storage and monitoring of 
greater than class C domestic radiological sealed sources.
    The Committee provides an addition $7,000,000 to support 
the conversion of highly enriched uranium core to a low 
enriched uranium core for as many as four university research 
reactors located in the United States. The reactors targeted 
for conversion are Purdue University, Oregon State, University 
of Wisconsin and Washington State.

                             Naval Reactors

Appropriations, 2005....................................    $801,437,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................     786,000,000
House allowance.........................................     799,500,000
Committee recommendation................................     799,500,000

    The Committee recommendation includes $799,500,000, an 
increase of $13,500,000 above the budget request. The increase 
is to be transferred to the office of Nuclear Energy to support 
the Idaho National Laboratory's Advanced Test Reactor.
    The Naval Reactors account funds the design, development, 
and testing necessary to provide the Navy with safe, militarily 
effective nuclear propulsion plants in keeping with the 
Nation's nuclear-powered fleet defense requirements. Naval 
Reactors will continue to develop nuclear reactor plant 
components and systems for the Navy's new attack submarine and 
next-generation aircraft carriers, and continue to maintain the 
highest standards of environmental stewardship by responsibly 
inactivating shut down prototype reactor plants.

                      Office of the Administrator

Appropriations, 2005....................................    $353,350,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................     343,869,000
House allowance.........................................     366,869,000
Committee recommendation................................     343,869,000

    The Committee recommendation includes the budget request of 
$343,869,000.
    The Office of the Administrator account provides corporate 
planning and oversight for programs funded by the Weapons 
Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and Naval 
Reactors appropriations including the National Nuclear Security 
Administration field offices. This account provides the Federal 
salaries and other expenses of the Administrator's direct 
staff, headquarters employees, and employees at the field 
service center and site offices. Program Direction for Naval 
Reactors remains within that program's account, and program 
direction for the Secure Transportation Asset remains in 
Weapons Activities.
    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.--The Committee provides 
$70,000,000 for the Federal Employees in Office of Defense 
Nuclear Nonproliferation to allow for greater flexibility for 
that office for hiring and supporting the Federal staff. Both 
the budget request and the Committee recognize the increasing 
role this office and staff play in global nonproliferation 
efforts. As such it is critical that this office is provided 
sufficient funding and support to fulfill it national security 
mission.

               ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

              Environmental Management Transition to NNSA

    On March 24, 2004, the Administrator of the National 
Nuclear Security Administration [NNSA] announced that NNSA 
would assume responsibilities for both newly generated and 
legacy wastes, and environmental remediation at NNSA sites 
beginning in fiscal year 2006. In his announcement, the 
Administrator stated that NNSA management of newly generated 
waste would reside with the generator, in this case principally 
the Office of Defense Programs [NA-10]. Having been assigned 
authority for the long-term stewardship of the Nation's nuclear 
weapons program by the NNSA Act, the Committee was concerned 
that in accepting responsibility for managing legacy waste and 
environmental remediation, the NNSA may be forced to divert 
funds from or dilute its focus on weapons activities. As such, 
the Committee does not support the transfer of cleanup 
responsibility to the NNSA and expects the Office of 
Environmental Management make environmental remediation its 
sole responsibility. The Committee has adopted a new budget 
structure that more accurately tracks environmental cleanup 
expenditures by site and project.
    The mission of the Office of Environmental Management is 
the cleanup and risk reduction of the environmental impact as a 
result of the nuclear weapons program. For over 50 years, the 
Department and its predecessor agencies supported nuclear 
weapons production and energy research that has created million 
of gallons of waste and thousands of tons of contaminated soil, 
material and nuclear fuel. All of this legacy material must be 
addressed in an effective way.
    Since 2001 the program has succeeded in making significant 
progress by reducing the life-cycle cost on a comparable scope 
basis by $50,000,000,000 and reducing the time frame by 35 
years. The Committee is supportive of these efforts and 
encourages the Department to continue keep the remaining sites 
on track.
    Reprogramming.--The Committee continues to support the need 
for flexibility to meet the changing funding requirements at 
the sites. In fiscal year 2006, the Department may transfer up 
to $5,000,000 between control points, as noted in the table 
below, to reduce health or safety risks or to gain cost savings 
as long as no program or project is increase or decreased by 
more than $5,000,000 once during the fiscal year. This 
reprogramming authority may not be used to initiate new program 
or programs specifically denied, limited, or increased by 
Congress in the Act or report. The Committees on Appropriations 
of the House and the Senate must be notified within 30 days of 
the use of this reprogramming authority.

                    CONTROL LEVELS FOR REPROGRAMMING

Savannah River site, 2012 accelerations
Savannah River site, 2035 accelerations
Savannah River Tank Farm
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
Idaho National Laboratory
Oak Ridge Reservation
Hanford site, 2012 accelerated completions
Hanford site, 2035 accelerated completions
Office of River Protection, waste treatment & immobilization
Office of River Protection, tank farm activities
Closure sites
Program direction
Program support
UE D&D fund contribution
Technology development
All construction line items
NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites
Safeguards and Security.

                     Defense Environmental Cleanup

Appropriations, 2005....................................  $6,808,319,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................   6,015,044,000
House allowance.........................................   6,468,366,000
Committee recommendation................................   6,366,441,000

    The Committee's recommendation for Defense Environmental 
Cleanup totals $6,366,441,000, an increase of $351,397,000 
above budget request of $6,015,044,000. The Committee does not 
support the proposed transfer of environmental cleanup 
responsibilities from the Office of Environmental Management to 
the National Nuclear Security Administration [NNSA]. By 
restoring these core cleanup responsibilities to the Office of 
Environmental Management the Defense Environmental Cleanup 
budget is increased by $222,887,000. The Committee recommends 
that the Department provide any carry over balances for WERC a 
consortium for environmental education and technology 
development, be provided to support an educational foundation 
with that organization. Within the amounts provided, the 
Department is directed to fund hazardous waste worker training 
at $10,000,000.
    Closure Sites.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$1,008,589,000, the same as the budget request. Cleanup of this 
category of sites is expected to be complete in fiscal year 
2006. The recommendation provides $579,950,000 for Rocky Flats, 
Colorado; $327,609,000 for Fernald, Ohio; $16,000,000 for 
Ashtabula, Ohio; $75,530,000 for Miamisburg, Ohio; and 
$9,500,000 for West Jefferson site, Columbus, Ohio.
    Savannah River Site.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$1,247,082,000, an increase of $18,000,000 to address solid 
waste stabilization and soil and water remediation for cleanup 
at the Savannah River Site. The Committee supports the request 
of $10,000,000 for the melt and dilute technology for excess 
weapons-grade plutonium. The Committee believes this project is 
appropriately managed by the Office of Environmental 
Management.
    Waste Isolation Pilot Plant [WIPP].--The Committee 
recommendation provides $230,629,000 for the Waste Isolation 
Pilot Project. The Committee recommends $6,000,000 to purchase 
TRUPACT-III shipping containers which will allow the Department 
to accommodate large shipments to WIPP and reduce worker 
exposure by not requiring materials to be repackaged. The 
recommendation includes an additional $3,500,000 which shall be 
made available to the Carlsbad community for educational 
support, infrastructure improvements, and related initiatives 
to address the impacts of accelerated operations.
    The Committee understands that the Carlsbad Field Office 
has established a joint task force with the City of Carlsbad to 
evaluate the needs, functions, and requirements of a record 
center in Carlsbad. In order to provide more timely information 
in a useable format to citizens, researchers, stakeholders, and 
regulators, the Committee provides an additional $5,000,000 and 
directs the Department to consolidate at Carlsbad all record 
archives relevant to the operations of WIPP and the TRU waste 
in the repository under a new contract.
    The Committee directs the Department to utilize up to 
$2,000,000 from within funds available to the Office of 
Environmental Management to support the important work of the 
Center for Excellence in Hazardous Materials.
    The Committee provides $1,500,000 from within available 
funds for Neutrino research.
    Waste Analysis Requirements for the Waste Isolation Pilot 
Plant [WIPP].--The Committee recognizes that the WIPP facility 
is central to the cleanup of the nuclear weapons complex and 
that waste should be emplaced as quickly and safely as 
possible--for reasons of reducing clean-up costs, public 
safety, and with the growing threat of radiological terrorism 
and for national security. Current law and regulation regarding 
the sampling and analysis of waste destined for WIPP produces 
substantial health and safety risks to workers with little if 
any corresponding public benefit.
    Idaho National Laboratory.--The Committee recommendation 
provides $544,725,000, an increase of $13,000,000 above the 
request. The Committee has modified the request to accelerate 
the construction of the Sodium Bearing Waste Treatment Project 
at Idaho National Laboratory. The Committee recommends an 
additional $39,270,000 to begin construction of Project 06-D-
401, Sodium Bearing Waste Treatment Project. The Committee has 
offset this increase by reducing PBS ID-0014B, operating 
expenses by $26,700,000 and $13,000,000 in additional budget 
authority.
    Oak Ridge Reservation.--The Committee recommendation 
provides $221,854,000, an increase of $25,302,000 above the 
budget request. The Committee recommends reallocating funds to 
restore funding to the original closure contract baseline for 
the Melton Valley. The Department has recommended offsets be 
taken from Safeguards and Security PBS OR-0040 without any 
impact to the program.
    Hanford Site.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$749,717,000, the same as the budget request for the Hanford 
Site.
    The Committee recommendation provides $5,861,000 to operate 
the waste disposal facility, $1,813,000 for spent fuel 
stabilization and storage, and $15,411,000 for Richland 
community and regulatory support, the same as the budget 
request. Within available funds, the Committee recommendation 
includes $6,500,000 for the Volpentest Hazardous Materials 
Management and Emergency Response [HAMMER] training and 
education center. The Department is expected to continue making 
PILT payments at last year's level to counties that have the 
Hanford reservation within their boundaries. The Committee 
recognizes that the Department has been taking steps to 
increase the involvement of, and cooperation with, its co-
trustees on natural resource damages issues. The Committee 
encourages the Department to continue those efforts, including 
funding for the other natural resource trustees to provide 
technical assistance in cleanup matters.
    Office of River Protection.--The Committee recommendation 
provides $962,699,000, an increase of $34,393,000 above the 
budget request. Within the available funds, the Committee 
recommends $328,840,000 an increase of $34,393,000 to address 
tank waste stabilization and disposition.
    Program Direction.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$230,931,000.
    Program Support.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$32,846,000 for program support, the same as the budget 
request.
    Federal Contribution to Uranium Enrichment Decontamination 
and Decommissioning Fund.--The Energy Policy Act of 1992 
(Public Law 102-486) created the Uranium Enrichment 
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund to pay for the cost of 
cleanup of the gaseous diffusion facilities located in Oak 
Ridge, Tennessee; Paducah, Kentucky; and Portsmouth, Ohio. The 
Committee recommendation includes the budget request of 
$451,000,000 for the Federal contribution to the Uranium 
Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund as 
authorized in Public Law 102-486.
    Technology Development and Deployment.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $56,389,000, an increase of $35,000,000 
over the budget request. This program focuses on high priority 
technical needs at near-term closure sites and projects. In 
addition, the technology program will focus on identifying 
technical vulnerabilities and alternative solutions in support 
of the Department's accelerated cleanup strategies.
    Within available funds, the Committee provides $6,000,000 
for the Western Environmental Technology Office; $5,000,000 for 
the UNR School of Medicine Core Facilities equipment; 
$4,500,000 for the Great Basin Science Sample and Records 
Library; $2,000,000 for the Desert Research Institute's CAVE 
project; $1,000,000 to the UNLV Research Foundation to continue 
earthquake hazard and seismic risk research; and $1,500,000 is 
provided for work on the subsurface science research institute 
by Idaho National Laboratory and the Inland Northwest Research 
Alliance institutions; $5,000,000 is provided for the 
Diagnostic Instrumentation and Analysis Laboratory.
    The Department is directed to renew its cooperative 
agreements with the University of Nevada-Las Vegas and the 
University of Nevada-Reno. The Committee is concerned that the 
Department has ignored direction in prior Conference Reports 
regarding these cooperative agreements. The Department is 
specifically directed to reinstitute the NRAMP cooperative 
agreement at a level consistent with the original agreement.
    Within available funds, $3,000,000 is provided to continue 
the development of an electrochemical system utilizing ceramic 
ionic transport membranes for the recycle and disposal of 
radioactive sodium ion waste.
    The Department shall continue its support of the Tribal 
Colleges Initiative grant, involving Crownpoint Institute of 
Technology, Dine College, Southwestern Indian Polytechnic 
Institute, to develop high-quality environmental programs at 
tribal colleges. The Committee recommendation includes 
$5,000,000 for the continued support of the international 
agreement and collaboration with AEA Technology to address 
alternative cost effective technologies for cleaning up legacy 
waste.
    Within available funds, $3,000,000 is provided for the 
Desert Research Institute's Environmental Monitoring Program; 
$2,000,000 for the Nye County Groundwater Evaluation Program; 
$2,000,000 for emergency and non-emergency communications 
systems upgrades in Nye County, Nevada, for areas closest to 
the Nevada Test Site and Yucca Mountain; and $1,500,000 for the 
City of Caliente, Nevada.
    NNSA Sites and Nevada Off-sites.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $352,757,000, an increase of 
$207,702,000 over the budget request. The increase reflects the 
return of cleanup activities to the Environmental Management 
program that otherwise would have transferred to the NNSA. The 
Committee recommends $5,300,000 for Stabilization of Los Alamos 
Airport Landfill.
    Safeguards and Security.--The Committee recommendation 
provides $287,223,000, the same as the budget request.

                        Other Defense Activities

Appropriations, 2005....................................    $687,149,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................     635,998,000
House allowance.........................................     702,498,000
Committee recommendation................................     661,998,000

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

              OFFICE OF SECURITY AND PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE

    The Committee recommendation includes $321,095,000, 
$20,000,000 above the budget request.
    The security program consists of the following elements: 
nuclear safeguards and security, security investigations, and 
program direction. These programs provide policy for the 
protection of the Department's nuclear weapons, nuclear 
materials, classified information, and facilities. They ensure 
a Department-wide capability to continue essential functions 
across a wide range of potential emergencies, allowing DOE to 
uphold its national security responsibilities and provide 
security clearances for Federal and contractor personnel.

                     ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

    The Committee recommendation includes a total of 
$83,029,000 in the budget request. The Committee provides 
$7,000,000 to undertake the Chernobyl Research and Service 
Project.
    The defense-related environment, safety and health program 
is a corporate resource that provides Departmental leadership 
and management to protect the workers, public, and environment 
in the areas of oversight, health studies, radiation effects 
research, employee compensation support, and program direction.
    The Committee supports the Radiation Effects Research 
Foundation at the requested level to carry out the scientific 
work, which the United States has funded since 1947, to study 
the health effects associated with the atomic blast over 
Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
    The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 for the 
DOE Worker Records Digitization project in Nevada.
    Former Worker Medical Screening.--The Committee directs the 
Secretary to allocate $16,500,000 for the former worker medical 
screening programs, $4,000,000 above the budget request. From 
within available funds the Committee directs $465,000 to extend 
medical screening and outreach to current and former workers at 
the three gaseous diffusion plants [GDP] in Portsmouth, Ohio, 
Paducah, Kentucky and Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The Committee 
directs the Secretary to allocate $1,000,000 to carry out 
medical screening and outreach to former workers at the Mound 
facility in Miamisburg, Ohio; and $1,000,000 for medical 
screening and outreach for former workers at the Fernald 
facility in Harrison, Ohio, who were employed after 1985. The 
Committee directs the Secretary to commence a program of early 
lung cancer detection using helical low dose CT technology for 
all workers who are at elevated risk of lung cancer at the Y-12 
and X-10 facilities in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, consistent with 
the eligibility protocols established for the three GDPs. Given 
that the cancer screening program carried out at the three GDPs 
since 2000 has identified the majority of lung cancers at early 
stages where surgical intervention is likely to be successful, 
and which has led to an increase in survival rates; and given 
the increased rates of lung cancer identified in health studies 
at Y-12, it is appropriate to extend lung screening to at-risk 
workers at the Oak Ridge Y-12 and X-10 facilities. The 
Committee supports DOE's plan to continue and extend its 
regional medical screening projects in fiscal year 2006. To 
offset the increases, the Committee allocates $2,700,000 in 
fiscal year 2006, for activities under the DOE-HHS Memorandum 
of Agreement, and directs the Department to prioritize funds 
for the work of the National Center for Environmental Health at 
Los Alamos National Labs, and to fully support the research 
work of the Health Energy Related Branch of the National 
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

                           LEGACY MANAGEMENT

    The Committee recommendation includes $45,076,000, the same 
as the budget request.

                 DEFENSE-RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

    The Committee recommendation includes $87,575,000 for 
National Security Programs Administrative support. This fund 
pays for departmental services that are provided in support of 
the National Nuclear Security Administration.

                FUNDING FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES IN IDAHO

    The Committee recommendation includes $123,873,000 to fund 
the defense-related activities at the Idaho National Laboratory 
[INL] and associated Idaho cleanup sites. This amount includes 
$17,762,000 for INL infrastructure, the same as the budget 
request, $75,008,000 for Idaho site-wide safeguards and 
security, the same as the budget request; and $31,103,000 for 
program direction to support headquarters and Idaho Field 
Office personnel.

                     OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

    The Committee recommendation includes $4,353,000 for the 
Office of Hearings and Appeals, the same as the budget request.
    The Office of Hearings and Appeals conducts all of the 
Department's adjudicative processes and provides various 
administrative remedies as may be required.

                     Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal

Appropriations, 2005....................................    $229,152,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................     351,447,000
House allowance.........................................     351,447,000
Committee recommendation................................     277,000,000

    The Committee recommends $277,000,000 for defense nuclear 
waste disposal.
    This account provides the Federal Government's fiscal year 
2006 contribution to the nuclear waste repository program to 
support nuclear waste repository activities attributed to 
atomic energy defense activities.
    The Committee understands that the Department formally 
approved in 1995 the right of the Affected Units of Local 
Government to retain interest earned on unexpended balances in 
their oversight accounts. The Committee affirms that this 
policy reflects the intent of Congress and should be maintained 
by the Department.

                    Power Marketing Administrations

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

                  BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION FUND

    The Bonneville Power Administration [BPA] is the Federal 
electric power marketing agency in the Pacific Northwest, a 
300,000 square-mile service area that encompasses Oregon, 
Washington, Idaho, western Montana, and small portions of 
adjacent States in the Columbia River basin. BPA markets 
hydroelectric power from 21 multipurpose water resource 
projects of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and 10 projects of 
the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, plus some energy from non-
Federal generating projects in the region. These generating 
resources and BPA's transmission system are operated as an 
integrated power system with operating and financial results 
combined and reported as the Federal Columbia River Power 
System [FCRPS]. BPA is the largest power wholesaler in the 
Northwest and provides about 45 percent of the region's 
electric energy supply and about three-fourths of the region's 
electric power transmission capacity.
    BPA finances its operations on the basis of the self-
financing authority provided by Federal Columbia River 
Transmission System Act of 1974 (Transmission Act) (Public Law 
93-454) and the borrowing authority provided by the Pacific 
Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (Pacific 
Northwest Power Act) (Public Law 96-501) for energy 
conservation, renewable energy resources and capital fish 
facilities. Authority to borrow is available to the BPA on a 
permanent, indefinite basis.
    The Committee is concerned about the increasing cost of 
salmon recovery efforts in the Columbia River Basin, and about 
the potential adverse impact of those increased costs on 
customers of the Bonneville Power Administration. The Committee 
also is concerned about the quality and efficiency of some of 
the fish data collection efforts and analyses being performed. 
As a result, during fiscal year 2006, the Bonneville Power 
Administration may make no new obligations from the Bonneville 
Power Administration Fund in support of the Fish Passage 
Center. The Committee understands that there are universities 
in the Pacific Northwest that already collect fish data for the 
region and are well-positioned to take on the responsibilities 
now being performed by the Fish Passage Center, and that the 
universities can carry out those responsibilities at a savings 
to the region's ratepayers that fund these programs.

      OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2005....................................      $5,158,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................................
House allowance.........................................       5,600,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,600,000

    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.
    The Committee recommendation includes $32,713,000 for 
purchase power and wheeling activities.

      OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2005....................................     $29,117,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................       3,166,000
House allowance.........................................      30,166,000
Committee recommendation................................      30,166,000

    The Southwestern Power Administration is the marketing 
agent for the power generated at Corps of Engineers' 
hydroelectric plants in the six-State area of Kansas, Oklahoma, 
Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana with a total installed 
capacity of 2,158 megawatts. It operates and maintains some 
1,380 miles of transmission lines, 24 generating projects, and 
24 substations, and sells its power at wholesale primarily to 
publicly and cooperatively owned electric distribution 
utilities.
    The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 for 
purchase power and wheeling activities.

 CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE WESTERN AREA 
                          POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2005....................................    $171,715,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................      53,957,000
House allowance.........................................     226,992,000
Committee recommendation................................     240,757,000

    The Western Area Power Administration is responsible for 
marketing electric power generated by the Bureau of 
Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers, and the International 
Boundary and Water Commission which operate hydropower 
generating plants in 15 Central and Western States encompassing 
a 1.3-million-square-mile geographic area. Western is also 
responsible for the operation and maintenance of almost 17,000 
miles of high-voltage transmission lines with more than 260 
substations.
    Utah Mitigation and Conservation Fund.--This fund is 
dedicated primarily for environmental mitigation expenditures 
covering fish and wildlife, and recreation resources impacted 
by the Central Utah Project and the Colorado River Storage 
Project in the State of Utah. For fiscal year 2004, the 
President's Budget proposes to transfer the authorities and 
future contributions for the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and 
Conservation Account from the Secretary of Energy, Western Area 
Power Administration, to the Secretary of the Interior, Bureau 
of Reclamation.
    The Committee recommendation includes $279,500,000 for 
purchase power and wheeling activities, and provides 
$53,957,000 for construction and rehabilitation as requested.

           FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

    The Committee recommendation is $2,692,000, the same as the 
budget request.
    Creation of the Falcon and Amistad Operating and 
Maintenance Fund was directed by the Foreign Relations 
Authorization Act, fiscal years 1994-95 (Public Law 103-236). 
This legislation also directed that the fund be administered by 
the Administrator of the Western Area Power Administration for 
use by the Commissioner of the United States Section of the 
International Boundary and Water Commission to defray 
operation, maintenance, and emergency costs for the 
hydroelectric facilities at the Falcon and Amistad Dams in 
Texas.
    The Committee understands that WAPA has included $6,700,000 
in its request to be transferred to the Utah Reclamation 
Mitigation and Conservation Fund. The Committee expects WAPA to 
continue budgeting for and transferring these funds to the fund 
as required by section 214 of Public Law 108-137.

                  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2005....................................    $210,000,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................     220,400,000
House allowance.........................................     220,400,000
Committee recommendation................................     220,400,000

                SALARIES AND EXPENSES--REVENUES APPLIED

Appropriations, 2005....................................    $210,000,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................     220,400,000
House allowance.........................................     220,400,000
Committee recommendation................................     220,400,000

    The Committee recommendation includes $220,400,000, the 
amount of the budget request, for the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission [FERC]. Revenues are established at a rate equal to 
the amount provided for program activities, resulting in a net 
appropriation of zero.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

                                                                  DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             Committee recommendation compared to--
          Project title            Revised enacted  Budget estimate  House allowance     Committee    --------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       recommendation  Revised enacted  Budget estimate  House allowance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  ENERGY SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION

  ENERGY EFFICENCY AND RENEWABLE
              ENERGY

Hydrogen Technology:
    Hydrogen technology..........          94,562           99,094           99,094           99,094           +4,532   ...............  ...............
    Fuel cell technologies.......          74,944           83,600           83,600           83,600           +8,656   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, hydrogen                  169,506          182,694          182,694          182,694          +13,188   ...............  ...............
       technology................

Biomass and Biorefinery Systems            89,063           72,164           86,164           92,164           +3,101          +20,000           +6,000
 R&D.............................
Solar energy.....................          85,841           83,953           83,953           83,953           -1,888   ...............  ...............
Wind energy systems..............          41,267           44,249           44,249           34,249           -7,018          -10,000          -10,000
Geothermal technology............          25,594           23,299           23,299           23,299           -2,295   ...............  ...............
Hydropower.......................           4,960              500              500              500           -4,460   ...............  ...............
Vehicle technologies.............         166,905          165,943          167,943          199,943          +33,038          +34,000          +32,000
Building technologies............          67,138           57,966           64,966           67,000             -138           +9,034           +2,034
Industrial technologies..........          75,349           56,489           58,891           56,489          -18,860   ...............          -2,402
Distributed energy and                     60,626           56,629           56,629   ...............         -60,626          -56,629          -56,629
 electricity reliability.........

Federal Energy Management
 Program:
    Departmental energy                     1,951            2,019            2,019            2,019              +68   ...............  ...............
     management program..........
    Federal energy management              18,144           17,147           17,147           17,147             -997   ...............  ...............
     program.....................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Federal Energy             20,095           19,166           19,166           19,166             -929   ...............  ...............
       Management Program........

Facilities and infrastructure:
    National Renewable Energy               4,762            5,800            5,800            5,800           +1,038   ...............  ...............
     Laboratory..................
    Construction: 02-E-001                  6,627           10,515           10,515           10,515           +3,888   ...............  ...............
     Science and technology
     facility, NREL..............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Facilities and                11,389           16,315           16,315           16,315           +4,926   ...............  ...............
       infrastructure............

Weatherization and
 Intergovernmental program:
    Weatherization assistance....         224,738          225,400          235,400          240,400          +15,662          +15,000           +5,000
    Training and technical                  3,422            4,600            4,600            4,600           +1,178   ...............  ...............
     assistance..................
    State energy program grants..          44,176           41,000           41,000           41,000           -3,176   ...............  ...............
    State energy activities......           2,320              500              500              500           -1,820   ...............  ...............
    Gateway deployment...........          34,973           26,657           26,657           26,657           -8,316   ...............  ...............
    International renewable                 6,449            2,910            3,910            2,910           -3,539   ...............          -1,000
     energy program..............
    Tribal energy activities.....           5,457            4,000            4,000            4,000           -1,457   ...............  ...............
    Renewable energy production             4,960            5,000            5,000            5,000              +40   ...............  ...............
     incentive...................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Weatherization            326,495          310,067          321,067          325,067           -1,428          +15,000           +4,000
       and Intergovernmental
       program...................

Congressionally directed           ...............  ...............  ...............          57,000          +57,000          +57,000          +57,000
 priorities......................
Program Direction................          93,129          101,524          101,524           86,524           -6,605          -15,000          -15,000
Program Support..................          16,837            9,456            9,456            9,456           -7,381   ...............  ...............

Use of prior year balances.......          -5,318   ...............  ...............  ...............          +5,318   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, ENERGY EFFICENCY AND       1,248,876        1,200,414        1,236,816        1,253,819           +4,943          +53,405          +17,003
       RENEWABLE ENERGY..........
                                  ======================================================================================================================
   ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION AND
           DISTRIBUTION

Research and development.........  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
High temperature                           54,560           45,000           45,000           50,500           -4,060           +5,500           +5,500
 superconductivity R&D...........
Transmission reliability R&D.....          15,594            9,220           13,220           14,220           -1,374           +5,000           +1,000
Electricity distribution                    5,415            4,037            4,037           60,666          +55,251          +56,629          +56,629
 transformation R&D..............
Energy storage R&D...............           3,968            3,000            3,000            3,000             -968   ...............  ...............
Gridwise.........................           6,448            5,500            6,745   ...............          -6,448           -5,500           -6,745
Gridworks........................           5,456            5,000            5,000   ...............          -5,456           -5,000           -5,000
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Research and                  91,441           71,757           77,002          128,386          +36,945          +56,629          +51,384
       development...............

Electricity restructuring........          19,840           12,400           12,400           12,400           -7,440   ...............  ...............
Congressionally directed           ...............  ...............  ...............          21,850          +21,850          +21,850          +21,850
 priorities......................
Program direction................           8,135           11,447           10,447           15,447           +7,312           +4,000           +5,000
Construction: 04-E-001 Project                769   ...............  ...............  ...............            -769   ...............  ...............
 engineering and design (PED),
 Energy Reliability and
 Efficiency Laboratory...........
Use of prior year balances.......  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, ELECTRICITY                  120,185           95,604           99,849          178,083          +57,898          +82,479          +78,234
       TRANSMISSION AND
       DISTRIBUTION..............

          NUCLEAR ENERGY

University reactor infrastructure          23,808           24,000           24,000           24,000             +192   ...............  ...............
 and education assist............

Research and development:
    Nuclear energy plant                    2,480   ...............  ...............  ...............          -2,480   ...............  ...............
     optimization................
    Nuclear energy research                 2,480   ...............  ...............  ...............          -2,480   ...............  ...............
     initiative..................
    Nuclear power 2010...........          49,600           56,000           46,000           76,000          +26,400          +20,000          +30,000
    Generation IV nuclear energy           39,680           45,000           45,000           60,000          +20,320          +15,000          +15,000
     systems initiative..........
    Nuclear hydrogen initiative..           8,928           20,000           20,000           30,000          +21,072          +10,000          +10,000
    Advanced fuel cycle                    67,456           70,000           75,500           85,000          +17,544          +15,000           +9,500
     initiative..................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Research and                 170,624          191,000          186,500          251,000          +80,376          +60,000          +64,500
       development...............

Infrastructure:
    Radiological facilities
     management:
        Space and defense                  33,530           31,200           39,700           31,200           -2,330   ...............          -8,500
         infrastructure..........
        Medical isotopes                   21,024           14,395           14,395           14,395           -6,629   ...............  ...............
         infrastructure..........
    Construction: 05-E-203                 13,507           18,705   ...............          18,705           +5,198   ...............         +18,705
     Facility modifications for U-
     233 di disposition, Oak
     Ridge National Laboratory,
     Oak Ridge, TN...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Medical                  34,531           33,100           14,395           33,100           -1,431   ...............         +18,705
         isotopes infrastructure.

Enrichment facility and uranium               496              500              500              500               +4   ...............  ...............
 management......................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Radiological               68,557           64,800           54,595           64,800           -3,757   ...............         +10,205
       facilities management.....

Idaho facilities management:
    INL Operations and                    120,555           86,907          102,907           86,907          -33,648   ...............         -16,000
     infrastructure..............
    ANL--West operations.........  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............

    INL infrastructure...........  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
        Construction:
            06-E-200 Project       ...............           7,870            7,870            7,870           +7,870   ...............  ...............
             engineering and
             design (PED), INL,
             ID..................
            06-E-201 Gas test      ...............           3,085            3,085            3,085           +3,085   ...............  ...............
             loop in the ATR,
             INL, ID.............
            99-E-200 Test reactor           1,511   ...............  ...............  ...............          -1,511   ...............  ...............
             area electrical
             utility upgrade,
             Idaho National
             Engineering Lab, ID.
            95-E-201 Test reactor  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
             area fire and life
             safety improvements
             (INEL)..............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Subtotal,                   1,511           10,955           10,955           10,955           +9,444   ...............  ...............
                 Construction....
                                  ======================================================================================================================
              Subtotal, Idaho             122,066           97,862          113,862           97,862          -24,204   ...............         -16,000
               facilities
               management........

Idaho sitewide safeguards and              58,103           75,008           75,008           75,008          +16,905   ...............  ...............
 security........................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Infrastructure......         248,726          237,670          243,465          237,670          -11,056   ...............          -5,795

Spent nuclear fuel management....           6,681   ...............  ...............  ...............          -6,681   ...............  ...............
Program direction................          60,076           61,109           61,109           61,109           +1,033   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Nuclear Energy...         509,915          513,779          515,074          573,779          +63,864          +60,000          +58,705
                                  ======================================================================================================================
Funding from other defense               -114,347         -123,873         -123,873         -123,873           -9,526   ...............  ...............
 activities......................
Funding from Naval Reactors......         -10,000   ...............         -13,500   ...............         +10,000   ...............         +13,500
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY......         385,568          389,906          377,701          449,906          +64,338          +60,000          +72,205
                                  ======================================================================================================================
  ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

Office of Environment, Safety and           7,936            9,100            5,100            9,100           +1,164   ...............          +4,000
 Health (non-defense)............
Program direction................          19,842           20,900           20,900           20,900           +1,058   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY           27,778           30,000           26,000           30,000           +2,222   ...............          +4,000
       AND HEALTH................

   OFFICE OF LEGACY MANAGEMENT

Legacy management................          30,881           33,522           23,522           33,522           +2,641   ...............         +10,000
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Energy supply and       1,813,288        1,749,446        1,763,888        1,945,330         +132,042         +195,884         +181,442
       conservation..............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
Use of prior year balances.......          -6,352   ...............  ...............  ...............          +6,352   ...............  ...............
Less security charge from          ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
 reimbursable work...............
Miscellaneous appropriations       ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
 (Public Law 108-199)............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPLY AND          1,806,936        1,749,446        1,763,888        1,945,330         +138,394         +195,884         +181,442
       CONSERVATION..............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

Deferral of unobligated balances,        -257,000          257,000          257,000          257,000         +514,000   ...............  ...............
 fiscal year 2005................
Deferral of unobligated balances,  ...............  ...............        -257,000         -257,000         -257,000         -257,000   ...............
 fiscal year 2007................
Rescission.......................  ...............        -257,000   ...............  ...............  ...............        +257,000   ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Clean Coal                  -257,000   ...............  ...............  ...............        +257,000   ...............  ...............
       Technology................

    FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND
           DEVELOPMENT

Clean coal power initiative......          49,305           50,000           50,000          100,000          +50,695          +50,000          +50,000
FutureGen........................          17,750           18,000           18,000           18,000             +250   ...............  ...............
Advance appropriation, fiscal      ...............         257,000   ...............  ...............  ...............        -257,000   ...............
 year 2007.......................

Fuels and Power Systems:
    Innovations for existing               19,081           23,850           23,850           25,400           +6,319           +1,550           +1,550
     plants......................
    Advanced integrated                    45,805           56,450           56,450           56,450          +10,645   ...............  ...............
     gasification combined cycle.
    Advanced turbines............          15,383           18,000           18,000           18,000           +2,617   ...............  ...............
    Carbon sequestration.........          45,361           67,200           50,000           74,200          +28,839           +7,000          +24,200
    Fuels........................          32,147           22,000           22,000           29,000           -3,147           +7,000           +7,000
    Fuel cells...................          77,386           65,000           65,000           69,000           -8,386           +4,000           +4,000
    Advanced research............          42,699           30,500           30,500           34,500           -8,199           +4,000           +4,000
    Combustion systems...........           5,227   ...............  ...............  ...............          -5,227   ...............  ...............
    U.S./China Energy and                     986   ...............  ...............  ...............            -986   ...............  ...............
     Environmental Center........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Fuels and power           284,075          283,000          265,800          306,550          +22,475          +23,550          +40,750
       systems...................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Coal.............         351,130          608,000          333,800          424,550          +73,420         -183,450          +90,750

Natural Gas Technologies.........          44,839           10,000           33,000           27,000          -17,839          +17,000           -6,000
Petroleum--Oil Technologies......          33,921           10,000           29,000           32,000           -1,921          +22,000           +3,000
Program direction................         104,528           98,941          105,152          106,941           +2,413           +8,000           +1,789
Plant and Capital Equipment......           6,902   ...............  ...............          23,000          +16,098          +23,000          +23,000
Fossil energy environmental                 9,467            8,060            8,060            9,600             +133           +1,540           +1,540
 restoration.....................
Import/export authorization......           1,774            1,799            1,799            1,799              +25   ...............  ...............
Advanced metallurgical research..           9,861            8,000            8,000            8,000           -1,861   ...............  ...............
National Academy of Sciences                  493   ...............  ...............  ...............            -493   ...............  ...............
 program review..................
Special recruitment programs.....             656              656              656              656   ...............  ...............  ...............
Cooperative research and                    8,283            3,000            3,000            3,000           -5,283   ...............  ...............
 development.....................
Congressionally directed           ...............  ...............  ...............          25,100          +25,100          +25,100          +25,100
 priorities......................
    Use of prior year balances...  ...............  ...............         -20,000          -20,000          -20,000          -20,000   ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, FOSSIL ENERGY             571,854          491,456          502,467          641,646          +69,792         +150,190         +139,179
       RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT..
          Advance appropriations.  ...............         257,000   ...............  ...............  ...............        -257,000   ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            TOTAL, FOSSIL ENERGY          571,854          748,456          502,467          641,646          +69,792         -106,810         +139,179
             R&D INCLUDING
             ADVANCES............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE              17,750           18,500           18,500           21,500           +3,750           +3,000           +3,000
 RESERVES........................
ELK HILLS SCHOOL LANDS FUNDS.....          72,000           84,000           84,000           84,000          +12,000   ...............  ...............
STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE......         169,710          166,000          166,000          166,000           -3,710   ...............  ...............
NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL                  4,930   ...............  ...............  ...............          -4,930   ...............  ...............
 RESERVE.........................
ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION          83,819           85,926           86,426           85,926           +2,107   ...............            -500

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

West Valley Demonstration Project          73,628           77,100           77,100           77,100           +3,472   ...............  ...............
Gaseous Diffusion Plants.........         143,962           45,528           45,528           48,813          -95,149           +3,285           +3,285
Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride              99,200           85,803           70,803           85,803          -13,397   ...............         +15,000
 Conversion, 02-U-101............
Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility            45,715           46,113           41,113           46,113             +398   ...............          +5,000
 (WA)............................

Small Sites:
    Argonne National Lab.........             785           10,487           10,487           10,487           +9,702   ...............  ...............
    Brookhaven National Lab......          42,316           34,328           34,328           34,328           -7,988   ...............  ...............
    Idaho National Lab...........  ...............           5,274            5,274            5,274           +5,274   ...............  ...............
    Consolidated Business Center:
        California Site support..              98              100              100              100               +2   ...............  ...............
        Inhalation Toxicology Lab             487              305              305              305             -182   ...............  ...............
        Lawrence Berkeley                   4,038            3,900            3,900            3,900             -138   ...............  ...............
         National Lab............
        Stanford Linear                     2,480            3,500            3,500            3,500           +1,020   ...............  ...............
         Accelerator Center......
        Energy Technology                  18,238            9,000            9,000            9,000           -9,238   ...............  ...............
         Engineering Center......
        Los Alamos National Lab..             447              490              490              490              +43   ...............  ...............
        Lab for Energy-Related                496   ...............  ...............  ...............            -496   ...............  ...............
         Health Research.........
        Moab.....................           7,711           28,006           18,006           28,006          +20,295   ...............         +10,000
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, small sites..          77,096           95,390           85,390           95,390          +18,294   ...............         +10,000
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL, NON-DEFENSE              439,601          349,934          319,934          353,219          -86,382           +3,285          +33,285
           ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP.
                                  ======================================================================================================================
        URANIUM ENRICHMENT
       DECONTAMINATION AND
       DECOMMISSIONING FUND

Decontamination and                       415,655          571,498          571,498          561,498         +145,843          -10,000          -10,000
 decommissioning.................
Uranium/thorium reimbursement....          79,360           20,000           20,000   ...............         -79,360          -20,000          -20,000
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, URANIUM ENRICHMENT           495,015          591,498          591,498          561,498          +66,483          -30,000          -30,000
       D&D FUND..................

             SCIENCE

High energy physics:
    Proton accelerator-based              401,120          387,093          398,093          390,093          -11,027           +3,000           -8,000
     physics.....................
    Electron accelerator-based            143,929          132,822          132,822          132,822          -11,107   ...............  ...............
     physics.....................
    Non-accelerator physics......          46,934           38,589           38,589           38,589           -8,345   ...............  ...............
    Theoretical physics..........          48,995           49,103           49,103           49,103             +108   ...............  ...............
    Advanced technology R&D......          94,721          106,326          117,326          106,326          +11,605   ...............         -11,000
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................         735,699          713,933          735,933          716,933          -18,766           +3,000          -19,000

    Construction: 98-G-304                    745   ...............  ...............  ...............            -745   ...............  ...............
     Neutrinos at the main
     injector, Fermilab..........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, High energy physics.         736,444          713,933          735,933          716,933          -19,511           +3,000          -19,000

Nuclear physics..................         404,778          368,741          406,341          417,741          +12,963          +49,000          +11,400
    Construction: 06-SC-02         ...............           2,000            2,000            2,000           +2,000   ...............  ...............
     Project engineering and
     design (PED), Electron beam
     ion source, Brookhaven
     National Laboratory, Upton,
     NY..........................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total, Nuclear physics...         404,778          370,741          408,341          419,741          +14,963          +49,000          +11,400

Biological and environmental              571,992          455,688          525,688          503,688          -68,304          +48,000          -22,000
 research........................
    Construction: 05-SC-004                 9,920   ...............  ...............  ...............          -9,920   ...............  ...............
     Project engineering and
     design (PED), Facility for
     the Production and
     Characterization of Proteins
     and Molecular Tags..........

Basic energy sciences:
    Research:
        Materials sciences and            635,132          746,143          772,025          816,143         +181,011          +70,000          +44,118
         engineering research....
        Chemical sciences,                239,475          221,801          223,051          246,801           +7,326          +25,000          +23,750
         geosciences and energy
         biosciences.............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Research.....         874,607          967,944          995,076        1,062,944         +188,337          +95,000          +67,868

    Construction:
        05-R-320 LINAC coherent            29,760           83,000           83,000           83,000          +53,240   ...............  ...............
         light source (LCLS).....
        05-R-321 Center for                18,317           36,553           36,553           36,553          +18,236   ...............  ...............
         Functional Nanomaterials
         (BNL)...................
        04-R-313 The molecular             31,828            9,606            9,606            9,606          -22,222   ...............  ...............
         foundry (LBNL)..........
        03-SC-002 Project                  19,914            2,544            2,544            2,544          -17,370   ...............  ...............
         engineering & design
         (PED) SLAC..............
        03-R-312 Center for                17,669   ...............  ...............  ...............         -17,669   ...............  ...............
         Nanophase Materials
         Sciences, ORNL..........
        03-R-313 Center for                30,650            4,626            4,626            4,626          -26,024   ...............  ...............
         Integrated
         Nanotechnology..........
        02-SC-002 Project                   1,996   ...............  ...............  ...............          -1,996   ...............  ...............
         engineering and design
         (VL)....................
        99-E-334 Spallation                79,891           41,744           41,744           41,744          -38,147   ...............  ...............
         neutron source (ORNL)...
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Construction.         230,025          178,073          178,073          178,073          -51,952   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Basic energy           1,104,632        1,146,017        1,173,149        1,241,017         +136,385          +95,000          +67,868
           sciences..............

Advanced scientific computing             232,468          207,055          246,055          207,055          -25,413   ...............         -39,000
 research........................

Science laboratories
 infrastructure:
    Laboratories facilities
     support:
        Infrastructure support...           1,752            1,520            1,520            1,520             -232   ...............  ...............
        General plant projects...  ...............           3,000            3,000            3,000           +3,000   ...............  ...............
        Construction:
            04-SC-001 Project               4,960            3,000            3,000            3,000           -1,960   ...............  ...............
             engineering and
             design (PED),
             various locations...
            03-SC-001 Science      ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
             laboratories
             infrastructure......
            MEL-001 Multiprogram           19,236           12,869           14,869           12,869           -6,367   ...............          -2,000
             Energy Laboratory
             infrastructure
             projects, various
             locations...........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Subtotal,                  24,196           15,869           17,869           15,869           -8,327   ...............          -2,000
                 Construction....
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Subtotal,                  25,948           20,389           22,389           20,389           -5,559   ...............          -2,000
                 Laboratories
                 facilities
                 support.........

    Oak Ridge landlord...........           5,039            5,079            5,079            5,079              +40   ...............  ...............
    Excess facilities disposal...           6,051           14,637           14,637           14,637           +8,586   ...............  ...............
    Safety-related corrective               4,960   ...............  ...............  ...............          -4,960   ...............  ...............
     actions.....................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Science laboratories          41,998           40,105           42,105           40,105           -1,893   ...............          -2,000
       infrastructure............

Fusion energy sciences program...         273,903          290,550          296,155          290,550          +16,647   ...............          -5,605
Safeguards and security..........          72,773           74,317           74,317           74,317           +1,544   ...............  ...............
Workforce development for                   7,599            7,192            7,192            7,192             -407   ...............  ...............
 teachers and scientists.........

Science program direction:
    Field offices................          88,809           92,593           92,593           92,593           +3,784   ...............  ...............
    Headquarters.................          65,222           70,132           70,132           70,132           +4,910   ...............  ...............
    Technical information          ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
     management program..........
    Energy research analyses.....  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
Congressionally directed           ...............  ...............  ...............          45,000          +45,000          +45,000          +45,000
 priorities......................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Science program              154,031          162,725          162,725          207,725          +53,694          +45,000          +45,000
       direction.................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Science..........       3,610,538        3,468,323        3,671,660        3,708,323          +97,785         +240,000          +36,663
                                  ======================================================================================================================
Use of prior year balances.......          -5,062   ...............  ...............  ...............          +5,062   ...............  ...............
Less security charge for                   -5,605           -5,605           -5,605           -5,605   ...............  ...............  ...............
 reimbursable work...............
Miscellaneous appropriations       ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
 (Public Law 108-199)............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      TOTAL, SCIENCE.............       3,599,871        3,462,718        3,666,055        3,702,718         +102,847         +240,000          +36,663
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Repository program...............         263,872          218,536          228,536          218,536          -45,336   ...............         -10,000
Program direction................          79,360           81,464           81,464           81,464           +2,104   ...............  ...............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      TOTAL, NUCLEAR WASTE                343,232          300,000          310,000          300,000          -43,232   ...............         -10,000
       DISPOSAL..................
                                  ======================================================================================================================
   DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

Administrative operations:
    Salaries and expenses:
        Office of the Secretary..           4,644            5,399            4,843            5,399             +755   ...............            +556
        Board of Contract Appeals             648              648              680              648   ...............  ...............             -32
        Chief Information Officer          37,967           51,122           39,865           51,122          +13,155   ...............         +11,257
        Congressional and                   4,826            5,089            5,067            5,089             +263   ...............             +22
         intergovernmental
         affairs.................
        Economic impact and                 5,099            5,352            5,352            5,352             +253   ...............  ...............
         diversity...............
        General Counsel..........          21,774           24,217           22,780           24,217           +2,443   ...............          +1,437
        Office of Management,             106,850          111,806          110,300          111,806           +4,956   ...............          +1,506
         Budget and Evaluation...
        Policy and international           14,993           18,844           15,743           18,844           +3,851   ...............          +3,101
         affairs.................
        Public affairs...........           2,459            4,504            2,566            5,504           +3,045           +1,000           +2,938
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Salaries and          199,260          226,981          207,196          227,981          +28,721           +1,000          +20,785
           expenses..............

Program support:
    Minority economic impact.....             823              830              823              830               +7   ...............              +7
    Policy analysis and system                392              395              392              395               +3   ...............              +3
     studies.....................
    Environmental policy studies.             562              567              562              567               +5   ...............              +5
    Cybersecurity and secure               24,733           32,000           24,733           32,000           +7,267   ...............          +7,267
     communications..............
    Corporate management                   31,881           23,055           23,055           23,055           -8,826   ...............  ...............
     information program.........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Program support..          58,391           56,847           49,565           56,847           -1,544   ...............          +7,282

Competitive sourcing initiative             2,480            3,000            3,000            3,000             +520   ...............  ...............
 (A-76)..........................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Administrative               260,131          286,828          259,761          287,828          +27,697           +1,000          +28,067
       operations................

Cost of work for others..........          71,048           80,723           80,723           80,723           +9,675   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Departmental              331,179          367,551          340,484          368,551          +37,372           +1,000          +28,067
       Administration............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
Use of prior year balances and     ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
 other adjustments...............
Funding from other defense                -91,700          -87,575          -87,575          -87,575           +4,125   ...............  ...............
 activities......................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Departmental                 239,479          279,976          252,909          280,976          +41,497           +1,000          +28,067
       administration (gross)....
                                  ======================================================================================================================
Miscellaneous revenues...........        -122,000         -123,000         -123,000         -123,000           -1,000   ...............  ...............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      TOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL                 117,479          156,976          129,909          157,976          +40,497           +1,000          +28,067
       ADMINISTRATION (net)......
                                  ======================================================================================================================
Office of Inspector General......          41,176           43,000           43,000           43,000           +1,824   ...............  ...............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
 ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

    NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY
          ADMINISTRATION

        WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Directed stockpile work:
    Stockpile research and         ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
     development.................
    Stockpile maintenance........  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
    Stockpile evaluation.........  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
    Dismantlement/disposal.......  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
    Production support...........  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
    Field engineering, training    ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
     and manuals.................
    Life extension program.......  ...............  ...............  ...............         348,318         +348,318         +348,318         +348,318
        B61......................         116,984           50,810           50,810   ...............        -116,984          -50,810          -50,810
        W76......................         234,536          162,268          162,268   ...............        -234,536         -162,268         -162,268
        W80......................         145,239          135,240          100,240   ...............        -145,239         -135,240         -100,240
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Life                  496,759          348,318          313,318          348,318         -148,441   ...............         +35,000
           extension program.....

Stockpile systems:...............  ...............  ...............  ...............         311,804         +311,804         +311,804         +311,804
    B61..........................          90,526           66,050           66,050   ...............         -90,526          -66,050          -66,050
    W62..........................          18,254            8,967            8,967   ...............         -18,254           -8,967           -8,967
    W76..........................         136,427           63,538           63,538   ...............        -136,427          -63,538          -63,538
    W78..........................          43,958           32,632           32,632   ...............         -43,958          -32,632          -32,632
    W80..........................          39,191           26,315           16,315   ...............         -39,191          -26,315          -16,315
    B83..........................          44,635           26,391           26,391   ...............         -44,635          -26,391          -26,391
    W84..........................           6,070            4,402            4,402   ...............          -6,070           -4,402           -4,402
    W87..........................          79,245           50,678           50,678   ...............         -79,245          -50,678          -50,678
    W88..........................          48,700           32,831           32,831   ...............         -48,700          -32,831          -32,831
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Stockpile systems         507,006          311,804          301,804          311,804         -195,202   ...............         +10,000

Stockpile services:
    Production support...........  ...............         267,246          200,246          267,246         +267,246   ...............         +67,000
    Research and development.....  ...............          66,753           50,753           71,753          +71,753           +5,000          +21,000
    Research and development              146,802          211,727          150,727          243,727          +96,925          +32,000          +93,000
     certification and safety....
    Management, technology, and           112,196          166,587          131,589          171,587          +59,391           +5,000          +39,998
     production..................
    Reliable replacement warhead.           8,928            9,351           25,000           25,351          +16,423          +16,000             +351
    Robust nuclear earth           ...............           4,000   ...............           4,000           +4,000   ...............          +4,000
     penetrator..................
    Warheads Dismantlement.......          74,400           35,245          110,245           15,000          -59,400          -20,245          -95,245
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Stockpile                 342,326          760,909          668,560          798,664         +456,338          +37,755         +130,104
       services..................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Directed stockpile         1,346,091        1,421,031        1,283,682        1,458,786         +112,695          +37,755         +175,104
       work......................

Campaigns:
    Science campaigns:
        Primary assessment                 73,381           45,179           35,179           55,179          -18,202          +10,000          +20,000
         technologies............
        Test readiness...........  ...............          25,000           15,000           25,000          +25,000   ...............         +10,000
        Dynamic materials                  85,829           80,894           70,894           90,894           +5,065          +10,000          +20,000
         properties..............
        Advanced radiography.....          54,928           49,520           40,500           59,520           +4,592          +10,000          +19,020
        Secondary assessment               63,088           61,332           55,332           77,332          +14,244          +16,000          +22,000
         technologies............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Science               277,226          261,925          216,905          307,925          +30,699          +46,000          +91,020
           campaigns.............

    Engineering campaign:
        Enhanced surety..........          32,856           29,845           22,000           45,845          +12,989          +16,000          +23,845
        Weapons system                     27,052           24,040           15,040           20,040           -7,012           -4,000           +5,000
         engineering assessment
         technology..............
        Nuclear survivability....           9,384            9,386            9,386           25,386          +16,002          +16,000          +16,000
        Enhanced surveillance....          99,080           96,207           76,000          111,207          +12,127          +15,000          +35,207

        Microsystem and                     4,563            4,714            4,714            4,714             +151   ...............  ...............
         engineering science
         applications (MESA),
         other project costs.....
        Construction: 01-D-108             85,808           65,564           65,564           65,564          -20,244   ...............  ...............
         Microsystem and
         engineering science
         applications (MESA),
         SNL, Albuquerque, NM....
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, MESA.......          90,371           70,278           70,278           70,278          -20,093   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, Engineering         258,743          229,756          192,704          272,756          +14,013          +43,000          +80,052
             campaign............

Inertial confinement fusion        ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
 ignition and high yield campaign
    Ignition.....................          68,882           75,615           75,615           68,800              -82           -6,815           -6,815
    Support of stockpile program.          38,675            9,872            9,872           41,000           +2,325          +31,128          +31,128
    NIF diagnostics, cryogenics            48,631           43,008           43,008           30,000          -18,631          -13,008          -13,008
     and experiment support......
    Pulsed power inertial                  10,991           10,111           10,111           10,900              -91             +789             +789
     confinement fusion..........
    University grants/other                 7,714            9,946            9,946            7,700              -14           -2,246           -2,246
     support.....................
    Facility operations and                62,552           54,623           69,623           54,623           -7,929   ...............         -15,000
     target production...........
    Inertial fusion technology...          33,728   ...............          40,000           41,000           +7,272          +41,000           +1,000
    NIF demonstration program....          94,934          112,330          112,330           50,000          -44,934          -62,330          -62,330
    High-energy petawatt laser             41,639            3,000           29,000           10,000          -31,639           +7,000          -19,000
     development.................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................         407,746          318,505          399,505          314,023          -93,723           -4,482          -85,482
    Construction: 96-D-111                128,960          141,913          141,913   ...............        -128,960         -141,913         -141,913
     National ignition facility,
     LLNL........................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Inertial                  536,706          460,418          541,418          314,023         -222,683         -146,395         -227,395
       confinement fusion........

Advanced simulation and computing         694,928          660,830          500,830          735,830          +40,902          +75,000         +235,000
    Construction:
        01-D-101 Distributed       ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
         information systems
         laboratory, SNL,
         Livermore, CA...........
        00-D-103, Terascale                 3,202   ...............  ...............  ...............          -3,202   ...............  ...............
         simulation facility,
         LLNL, Livermore, CA.....
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Construction.           3,202   ...............  ...............  ...............          -3,202   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Advanced              698,130          660,830          500,830          735,830          +37,700          +75,000         +235,000
           simulation and
           computing.............

Pit manufacturing and
 certification:
    W88 pit manufacturing........         130,949          120,926          120,926          120,926          -10,023   ...............  ...............
    W88 pit certification........          60,472           61,895           61,895           61,895           +1,423   ...............  ...............
    Pit manufacturing capability.          13,392           23,071           23,071           23,071           +9,679   ...............  ...............
    Modern pit facility..........           6,944            7,686   ...............           7,686             +742   ...............          +7,686
    Pit campaign support                   51,788           35,182           35,182           35,182          -16,606   ...............  ...............
     activities at NTS...........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Pit manufacturing         263,545          248,760          241,074          248,760          -14,785   ...............          +7,686
       and certification.........

Readiness campaign:
    Stockpile readiness..........          45,446           31,400           31,400           31,400          -14,046   ...............  ...............
    High explosives readiness/             33,946           17,097           17,097           17,097          -16,849   ...............  ...............
     assembly campaign...........
    Non-nuclear readiness........          32,693           28,630           28,630           28,630           -4,063   ...............  ...............
    Advanced design and                    79,150           54,040           54,040           54,040          -25,110   ...............  ...............
     production technologies.....

    Tritium readiness............          58,379           62,694           62,694           62,694           +4,315   ...............  ...............
        Construction: 98-D-125             20,832           24,894           24,894           24,894           +4,062   ...............  ...............
         Tritium extraction
         facility, SR............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Tritium                79,211           87,588           87,588           87,588           +8,377   ...............  ...............
           readiness.............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Readiness             270,446          218,755          218,755          218,755          -51,691   ...............  ...............
           campaign..............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Campaigns.......       2,304,796        2,080,444        1,911,686        2,098,049         -206,747          +17,605         +186,363

Readiness in technical base and
 facilities:
    Operations of facilities.....       1,112,585        1,160,783        1,204,786        1,200,483          +87,898          +39,700           -4,303
    Program readiness............         105,354          105,738          105,738          105,738             +384   ...............  ...............
    Special projects.............          41,168            6,619   ...............          19,869          -21,299          +13,250          +19,869
    Material recycle and recovery          86,269           72,730           72,730           72,730          -13,539   ...............  ...............
    Containers...................          17,767           17,247           17,247           17,247             -520   ...............  ...............
    Storage......................          18,830           25,222           25,322           25,222           +6,392   ...............            -100
    Nuclear weapons incident       ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
     response....................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Readiness in          1,381,973        1,388,339        1,425,823        1,441,289          +59,316          +52,950          +15,466
         technical base and
         facilities..............

    Construction:
        06-D-140 Project           ...............          14,113           14,113           14,113          +14,113   ...............  ...............
         engineering and design
         (PED), various loca-
         tions...................
        06-D-402 NTS replace fire  ...............           8,284            8,284            8,284           +8,284   ...............  ...............
         stations 1 & 2 Nevada
         Test Site, NV...........
        06-D-403 Tritium facility  ...............           2,600            2,600            2,600           +2,600   ...............  ...............
         modernization Lawrence
         Livermore National
         Laboratory, Livermore,
         CA......................
        06-D-404 Building          ...............          16,000           16,000           16,000          +16,000   ...............  ...............
         remediation,
         restoration, and
         upgrade, Nevada Test
         Site, NV................
        05-D-140 Project                   16,467            5,000            5,000            7,000           -9,467           +2,000           +2,000
         engineering and design
         (PED), various loca-
         tions...................
        05-D-401 Building 12-64            24,899           11,000           11,000           11,000          -13,899   ...............  ...............
         production bays
         upgrades, Pantex plant,
         Amarillo, TX............
        05-D-402 Berylium                   3,598            7,700            7,700            7,700           +4,102   ...............  ...............
         capability (BEC)
         project, Y-12 National
         security complex, Oak
         Ridge, TN...............
        04-D-101 Test              ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
         capabilities
         revitalization, Sandia
         National Laboratories,
         Albuquerque, NM.........
        04-D-102 Exterior          ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
         communications
         infrastructure
         modernization, Sandia
         National Laboratories...
        04-D-103 Project                    1,488            2,000            2,000            2,000             +512   ...............  ...............
         engineering and design
         (PED), various loca-
         tions...................
        04-D-104 National          ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
         security sciences
         building, Los Alamos
         National Laboratory, Los
         Alamos, NM..............
        04-D-125 Chemistry and             39,680           55,000   ...............          65,000          +25,320          +10,000          +65,000
         metallurgy facility
         replacement project, Los
         Alamos National
         Laboratory, Los Alamos,
         NM......................
        04-D-126 Building 12-44             2,579   ...............  ...............  ...............          -2,579   ...............  ...............
         production cells
         upgrade, Pantex plant,
         Amarillo, TX............
        04-D-127 Cleaning and      ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
         loading modifications,
         Savannah River site,
         Aiken, SC...............
        04-D-128 TA-18 mission     ...............          13,000           13,000           13,000          +13,000   ...............  ...............
         relocation project, Los
         Alamos Laboratory, Los
         Alamos, NM..............
        03-D-102, National                 37,049   ...............  ...............  ...............         -37,049   ...............  ...............
         Security Sciences
         building, Los Alamos
         National Laboratory, Los
         Alamos, NM..............
        03-D-103 Project                   15,153           29,000           15,000           29,000          +13,847   ...............         +14,000
         engineering and design
         (PED), various loca-
         tions...................
        03-D-121 Gas transfer      ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
         capacity expansion,
         Kansas City Plant,
         Kansas City, MO.........
        03-D-122 Purification      ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
         facility, Y-12 plant,...
        3-D-123 Special nuclear             4,565   ...............  ...............  ...............          -4,565   ...............  ...............
         materials
         requalification, Pantex
         plant, Amarillo, TX.....
        02-D-103 Project                    5,208   ...............  ...............  ...............          -5,208   ...............  ...............
         engineering and design
         (PED), various loca-
         tions...................
        02-D-105 Engineering                5,357   ...............  ...............  ...............          -5,357   ...............  ...............
         technology complex
         upgrade, LLNL, CA.......
        02-D-107 Electrical power  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
         systems safety
         communications and bus
         upgrades, NV............
        01-D-103 Project                    5,952            9,000            9,000            9,000           +3,048   ...............  ...............
         engineering and design
         (PED), various loca-
         tions...................
        01-D-124 HEU materials            113,088           70,350           81,350           70,350          -42,738   ...............         -11,000
         facility, Y-12 plant,
         Oak Ridge, TN...........
        01-D-126 Weapons           ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
         Evaluation Test
         Laboratory, Pantex
         Plant, Amarillo, TX.....
        99-D-104 Protection of     ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
         real property (roof
         reconstruction--Phase
         II), LLNL, Livermore, CA
        99-D-127 Stockpile         ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
         management restructuring
         initiative, Kansas City
         plant, Kansas City, MO..
        96-D-102 Stockpile         ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
         stewardship facilities
         revitalization (Phase
         VI), various locations..
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal,                     275,083          243,047          185,047          255,047          -20,036          +12,000          +70,000
             Construction........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Total, Readiness in         1,657,056        1,631,386        1,610,870        1,696,336          +39,280          +64,950          +85,466
             technical base and
             facilities..........

Facilities and infrastructure             289,239          233,484          200,484          211,784          -77,455          -21,700          +11,300
 recapitalization program........
    Construction:
        06-D-160 Project           ...............           5,811            5,811            5,811           +5,811   ...............  ...............
         engioneering and design
         (PED), various loca-
         tions...................
        06-D-601 Electrical        ...............           4,000            4,000            4,000           +4,000   ...............  ...............
         distribution system
         upgrade, Pantex Plant,
         Amarillo, TX............
        06-D-602 Gas main and      ...............           3,700            3,700            3,700           +3,700   ...............  ...............
         distribution system
         upgrade, Pantex Plant,
         Amarillo, TX............
        06-D-603 Steam plant life  ...............             729              729              729             +729   ...............  ...............
         extension project
         (SLEP), Y-12 National
         Security Complex, Oak
         Ridge, TN...............
        05-D-160 Facilities and             8,630           10,644           10,644           10,644           +2,014   ...............  ...............
         infrastructure
         recapitalization program
         project engineering
         design (PED), various
         locations...............
        05-D-601 Compressed air             4,365            9,741            9,741            9,741           +5,376   ...............  ...............
         upgrades project (CAUP),
         Y-12, National security
         complex, Oak Ridge, TN..
        05-D-602 Power grid                 9,920            8,500            8,500            8,500           -1,420   ...............  ...............
         infrastructure upgrade
         (PGIU), Los Alamos
         National Laboratory, Los
         Alamos, NM..............
        05-D-603 New master                   595            6,900            6,900            6,900           +6,305   ...............  ...............
         substation (NMSU), SNL..
        04-D-203 Facilities and               973   ...............  ...............  ...............            -973   ...............  ...............
         infrastructure
         recapitalization program
         (FIRP), project
         engineering design
         (PED), various locations
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal,                      24,483           50,025           50,025           50,025          +25,542   ...............  ...............
             Construction........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Total, Facilities and         313,722          283,509          250,509          261,809          -51,913          -21,700          +11,300
             infrastructure
             recapitalization
             program.............

Secure transportation asset:
    Operations and equipment.....         142,722          143,766          143,766          143,766           +1,044   ...............  ...............
    Program direction............          56,968           68,334           68,334           68,334          +11,366   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Secure                    199,690          212,100          212,100          212,100          +12,410   ...............  ...............
       transportation asset......

    Use of prior year balances...  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Secure                       199,690          212,100          212,100          212,100          +12,410   ...............  ...............
       transportation asset......

Nuclear weapons incident response          98,415          118,796          118,796          118,796          +20,381   ...............  ...............

Environmental projects and
 operations:
    Environmental projects and     ...............         156,504   ...............  ...............  ...............        -156,504   ...............
     operations program..........
    Program direction............  ...............          17,885   ...............  ...............  ...............         -17,885   ...............
      Subtotal, Environmental      ...............         174,389   ...............  ...............  ...............        -174,389   ...............
       projects and operations...

Safeguards and security..........         714,913          699,478          784,478          699,478          -15,435   ...............         -85,000
    Construction:
        05-D-170 Project                   16,864           41,000           41,000           41,000          +24,136   ...............  ...............
         engineering and design
         (PED), various loca-
         tions...................
        05-D-701 Security                  19,840   ...............  ...............  ...............         -19,840   ...............  ...............
         perimeter project, Los
         Alamos, National
         Laboratory, Los Alamos,
         NM......................
        99-D-132 SMRI nuclear      ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
         material safeguards and
         security upgrade project
         (LANL), Los Alamos, NM..
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Total, Safeguards and         751,617          740,478          825,478          740,478          -11,139   ...............         -85,000
             security............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, Weapons           6,671,387        6,662,133        6,213,121        6,586,354          -85,033          -75,779         +373,233
             activities..........

Use of prior year balances.......         -14,039   ...............  ...............  ...............         +14,039   ...............  ...............
Less security charge for                  -29,760          -32,000          -32,000          -32,000           -2,240   ...............  ...............
 reimbursable work...............
Undistributed miscellaneous                 4,002   ...............  ...............  ...............          -4,002   ...............  ...............
 adjustment......................
Excluding transfer of DOD                -300,000   ...............  ...............  ...............        +300,000   ...............  ...............
 ppropriations...................
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES..       6,331,590        6,630,133        6,181,121        6,554,354         +222,764          -75,779         +373,233
                                  ======================================================================================================================
Transfer from Department of              (300,000)  ...............  ...............  ...............       (-300,000)  ...............  ...............
 Defense appropriations..........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Weapons Activities        (6,631,590)      (6,630,133)      (6,181,121)      (6,554,354)        (-77,236)        (-75,779)       (+373,233)
       (program level)...........
                                  ======================================================================================================================
 DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Nonproliferation and                      223,944          267,218          322,218          297,218          +73,274          +30,000          -25,000
 verification, R&D...............
Construction: 06-D-180 Project     ...............           5,000           13,000           13,000          +13,000           +8,000   ...............
 engineering and design (PED),
 National Security Laboratory,
 PNNL............................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Nonproliferation          223,944          272,218          335,218          310,218          +86,274          +38,000          -25,000
       & verification R & D......

Nonproliferation and                      152,768           80,173           75,836           90,000          -62,768           +9,827          +14,164
 international security..........
    International nuclear                 319,424          343,435          428,435          343,435          +24,011   ...............         -85,000
     materials protection and
     cooperation.................
    Accelerated highly enriched    ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
     uranium (HEU)...............
    Global initiatives for                 40,672           37,890           30,312           50,890          +10,218          +13,000          +20,578
     proliferation prevention....
    HEU transparency                       20,782           20,483           20,483           20,483             -299   ...............  ...............
     implementation..............
    International nuclear safety.  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
    Elimination of weapons-grade           39,776          132,000          197,000          152,000         +112,224          +20,000          -45,000
     plutonium production program

    Fissile materials
     disposition:
        U.S. surplus materials            158,422          226,500          168,700          226,500          +68,078   ...............         +57,800
         disposition.............
        Russian surplus materials          63,488           64,000           64,000           64,000             +512   ...............  ...............
         disposition.............
        Construction:
            01-D-407 Highly        ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
             enriched uranium
             (HEU) blend.........
            99-D-141 Pit                   32,042           24,000           24,000           24,000           -8,042   ...............  ...............
             disassembly and
             conversion facility,
             Savannah River, SC..
            99-D-143 Mixed oxide          365,056          338,565           35,000          338,565          -26,491   ...............        +303,565
             fuel fabrication
             facility, Savannah
             River, SC...........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Subtotal,                 397,098          362,565           59,000          362,565          -34,533   ...............        +303,565
                 Construction....

    Melt and dilute                ...............  ...............          10,000   ...............  ...............  ...............         -10,000
     immobilization project......
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Fissile materials         619,008          653,065          301,700          653,065          +34,057   ...............        +351,365
       disposition...............

Offsite source recovery project..           7,539   ...............  ...............  ...............          -7,539   ...............  ...............
Global threat reduction            ...............          97,975          111,975          108,975         +108,975          +11,000           -3,000
 initiative......................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Defense Nuclear         1,423,913        1,637,239        1,500,959        1,729,066         +305,153          +91,827         +228,107
       Nonproliferation..........
                                  ======================================================================================================================
Use of prior year balances.......         -14,880   ...............  ...............  ...............         +14,880   ...............  ...............
Emergency appropriations (Public           84,000   ...............  ...............  ...............         -84,000   ...............  ...............
 Law 109-13).....................
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR            1,493,033        1,637,239        1,500,959        1,729,066         +236,033          +91,827         +228,107
       NONPROLIFERATION..........
                                  ======================================================================================================================
          NAVAL REACTORS

Naval reactors development.......         755,121          738,800          738,800          738,800          -16,321   ...............  ...............
    Construction:
        06-D-901 Central office    ...............           7,000            7,000            7,000           +7,000   ...............  ...............
         building II.............
        Transfer to Nuclear                 9,920   ...............          13,500           13,500           +3,580          +13,500   ...............
         Energy..................
        05-N-900 Materials                  6,151            9,900            9,900            9,900           +3,749   ...............  ...............
         development facility
         building, Schenectady,
         NY......................
        03-D-201 Cleanroom         ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
         technology facility,
         Bettis atomic power lab,
         West Mifflin, PA........
        90-N-102 Expended core                981   ...............  ...............  ...............            -981   ...............  ...............
         facility dry cell
         project, Naval Reactors
         Facility, ID............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal,                      17,052           16,900           30,400           30,400          +13,348          +13,500   ...............
             Construction........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Total, Naval reactors         772,173          755,700          769,200          769,200           -2,973          +13,500   ...............
             development.........
Program direction................          29,264           30,300           30,300           30,300           +1,036   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Naval Reactors...         801,437          786,000          799,500          799,500           -1,937          +13,500   ...............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
Use of prior year balances.......  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      TOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS......         801,437          786,000          799,500          799,500           -1,937          +13,500   ...............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
   OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

Office of the Administrator......         353,350          350,765          373,765          350,765           -2,585   ...............         -23,000
Defense nuclear nonproliferation.  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
Use of prior year balances.......  ...............          -6,896           -6,896           -6,896           -6,896   ...............  ...............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE                353,350          343,869          366,869          343,869           -9,481   ...............         -23,000
       ADMINISTRATOR.............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      TOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR           8,979,410        9,397,241        8,848,449        9,426,789         +447,379          +29,548         +578,340
       SECURITY ADMINISTRATION...
                                  ======================================================================================================================
  DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Closure Sites:
    Ashtabula....................          15,752           16,000           16,000           16,000             +248   ...............  ...............
    Columbus.....................          19,690            9,500            9,500            9,500          -10,190   ...............  ...............
    Fernald......................         317,725          327,609          327,609          327,609           +9,884   ...............  ...............
    Miamisburg...................         110,905           75,530          105,530           75,530          -35,375   ...............         -30,000
    Rocky Flats..................         641,700          579,950          579,950          579,950          -61,750   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, closure sites.......       1,105,772        1,008,589        1,038,589        1,008,589          -97,183   ...............         -30,000

Savannah River site:
    04-D-423 Container                     20,475   ...............  ...............  ...............         -20,475   ...............  ...............
     surveillance capability in
     235F........................
    04-D-414 Container                      2,976   ...............  ...............  ...............          -2,976   ...............  ...............
     surveillance capability in
     235F PED....................
    Nuclear material                      355,111          250,303          250,303          250,303         -104,808   ...............  ...............
     stabilization and
     disposition 2012............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, 2012 accelerated          378,562          250,303          250,303          250,303         -128,259   ...............  ...............
       completions...............

    SNF stabilization,                     11,240           13,889           13,889           13,889           +2,649   ...............  ...............
     disposition/storage.........
    SR community and regulatory            11,592           13,046           13,046           13,046           +1,454   ...............  ...............
     support.....................
    Nuclear material                       43,218           75,105           65,105           75,105          +31,887   ...............         +10,000
     stabilization and
     disposition.................
    Spent nuclear fuel                     22,767           11,273           11,273           11,273          -11,494   ...............  ...............
     stabilization and
     disposition.................
    Solid waste stabilization and          88,313          112,993          112,993          112,993          +24,680   ...............  ...............
     disposition.................
    Soil and water remediation...         100,896          103,665          103,665          112,665          +11,769           +9,000           +9,000
    Nuclear facility D&D.........          68,198           66,516           66,516           75,516           +7,318           +9,000           +9,000
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, 2035 accelerated          346,224          396,487          386,487          414,487          +68,263          +18,000          +28,000
       completions...............

    Radioactive liquid tank waste         381,858          500,975          500,975          500,975         +119,117   ...............  ...............
     stabil. & disposition.......
    HLW legislative proposal.....         112,039   ...............  ...............  ...............        -112,039   ...............  ...............
    03-D-414, Salt waste                   23,469            4,342            4,342            4,342          -19,127   ...............  ...............
     processing facility PED SR..
    04-D-408, Glass waste storage          43,476            6,975            6,975            6,975          -36,501   ...............  ...............
     building #2.................
    05-D-405, Salt waste                   25,792           70,000           70,000           70,000          +44,208   ...............  ...............
     processing facility.........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Tank farm                 586,634          582,292          582,292          582,292           -4,342   ...............  ...............
       activities................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Savannah River site.       1,311,420        1,229,082        1,219,082        1,247,082          -64,338          +18,000          +28,000

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant:
    Operate WIPP.................         146,430          111,948          111,948          117,948          -28,482           +6,000           +6,000
    Central Characterization               26,242           38,502           38,502           38,502          +12,260   ...............  ...............
     Project.....................
    Transportation...............          29,248           37,631           37,631           37,631           +8,383   ...............  ...............
    Community and regulatory               23,452           24,548           24,548           36,548          +13,096          +12,000          +12,000
     support.....................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Waste Isolation              225,372          212,629          212,629          230,629           +5,257          +18,000          +18,000
       Pilot Plant...............

Idaho National Laboratory:
    SNF stabilization and                  32,419           12,666           12,666           12,666          -19,753   ...............  ...............
     disposition/storage.........
    Nuclear material                        1,889            1,555            1,555            1,555             -334   ...............  ...............
     stabilization and
     disposition.................
    SNF stabilization and                  10,224           19,158           19,158           19,158           +8,934   ...............  ...............
     disposition--2012...........
    Solid waste stabilization and         109,472          140,015          140,015          140,015          +30,543   ...............  ...............
     disposition.................
    Radioactive liquid tank waste         127,635          124,965          124,965           98,695          -28,940          -26,270          -26,270
     stabilization and
     disposition.................
    06-D-401, Sodium bearing       ...............          15,000           15,000           54,270          +54,270          +39,270          +39,270
     waste treatment project, ID.
    04-D-414, Sodium bearing       ...............           9,200            9,200            9,200           +9,200   ...............  ...............
     waste treatment facility,
     PED ID......................
    04-D-402, Cathodic Protection  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
     System Expansion PED ID.....
    Soil and water remediation--          124,994          161,489          161,489          161,489          +36,495   ...............  ...............
     2012........................
    Nuclear facility D&D.........           5,425            5,026            5,026            5,026             -399   ...............  ...............
    Non-nuclear facility D&D.....          26,993           39,105           39,105           39,105          +12,112   ...............  ...............
    Soil and water remediation--            1,984   ...............  ...............  ...............          -1,984   ...............  ...............
     2035........................
    Idaho community and                     3,088            3,546            3,546            3,546             +458   ...............  ...............
     regulatory support..........
    HLW legislative proposal.....          96,522   ...............  ...............  ...............         -96,522   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Idaho National               540,645          531,725          531,725          544,725           +4,080          +13,000          +13,000
       Laboratory................

Oak Ridge Reservation:
    Solid waste stabilization and          39,775   ...............  ...............           4,630          -35,145           +4,630           +4,630
     completion--2006............
    Soil and water remediation--           71,099           15,146           15,146           35,818          -35,281          +20,672          +20,672
     Melton Valley...............
    Solid waste stabilization and          46,744           68,360           68,360           68,360          +21,616   ...............  ...............
     disposition--2012...........
    Soil and water remediation--           12,753           16,483           16,483           16,483           +3,730   ...............  ...............
     offsites....................
    Nuclear facility D&D, E.                6,540            6,034           12,534            6,034             -506   ...............          -6,500
     Tenn. Technology Park.......
    Nuclear facility D&D Y-12....          27,323           40,558           40,558           40,558          +13,235   ...............  ...............
    Nuclear facility D&D ORNL....          19,626           16,034           25,634           16,034           -3,592   ...............          -9,600
    Solid waste stabilization &            18,220           18,267           18,267           18,267              +47   ...............  ...............
     disp.--science current gen..
    Solid waste stabilization &            19,619   ...............  ...............  ...............         -19,619   ...............  ...............
     disp--NNSA current gen......
    OR contract/post closure               14,583   ...............  ...............  ...............         -14,583   ...............  ...............
     liabilites/admin............
    OR reservation community &              3,592            5,670            5,670            5,670           +2,078   ...............  ...............
     regulatory support..........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Oak Ridge                    279,874          186,552          202,652          211,854          -68,020          +25,302           +9,202
       Reservation...............

Hanford Site:
    Nuclear material                      179,097          190,772          206,565          190,772          +11,675   ...............         -15,793
     stabilization & disposition
     PFP.........................
    SNF stabilization and                 122,885           58,479           58,479           58,479          -64,406   ...............  ...............
     disposition.................
    Nuclear facility D&D, river           212,033          168,501          188,501          168,501          -43,532   ...............         -20,000
     corridor closure project....
    HAMMER facility..............  ...............  ...............           7,500   ...............  ...............  ...............          -7,500
    B-reactor museum.............  ...............  ...............           1,000   ...............  ...............  ...............          -1,000
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, 2012 accelerated          514,015          417,752          462,045          417,752          -96,263   ...............         -44,293
       completions...............

    Solid waste stabilization &           219,139          165,113          173,113          165,113          -54,026   ...............          -8,000
     disposition 200 Area........
    Soil & water remediation--             50,231           72,955           86,955           72,955          +22,724   ...............         -14,000
     groundwater/vadose zone.....
    Nuclear facility D&D--                118,182           70,812           75,812           70,812          -47,370   ...............          -5,000
     remainder of Hanford........
    Operate waste disposal                  6,103            5,861            5,861            5,861             -242   ...............  ...............
     facility....................
    SNF stabilization and                     991            1,813            1,813            1,813             +822   ...............  ...............
     disposition/storage.........
    Richland community and                 13,124           15,411           15,411           15,411           +2,287   ...............  ...............
     regulatory support..........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, 2035 accelerated          407,770          331,965          358,965          331,965          -75,805   ...............         -27,000
       completions...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Hanford Site........         921,785          749,717          821,010          749,717         -172,068   ...............         -71,293

Office of River Protection:
    01-D-416 Waste treatment &            684,480          625,893          690,000          625,893          -58,587   ...............         -64,107
     immobilization plant........

    Tank Farm activities:
        Rad liquid tank waste             332,878          294,447          361,447          328,840           -4,038          +34,393          -32,607
         stabil. and disposition.
        HLW rad liquid tank waste          31,793   ...............  ...............  ...............         -31,793   ...............  ...............
         stabil & disp leg prop..
        03-D-403 Immobilized HLW   ...............           7,495   ...............           7,495           +7,495   ...............          +7,495
         interim storage facility
        River protection           ...............             471              471              471             +471   ...............  ...............
         community and regulatory
         support.................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Tank Farm             364,671          302,413          361,918          336,806          -27,865          +34,393          -25,112
           activities............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Office of River        1,049,151          928,306        1,051,918          962,699          -86,452          +34,393          -89,219
           Protection............

Program direction................         270,016          230,931          248,816          230,931          -39,085   ...............         -17,885
Program support..................          32,707           32,846           32,846           32,846             +139   ...............  ...............
Uranium enrichment D&D fund               459,296          451,000          451,000          451,000           -8,296   ...............  ...............
 contribution....................
Technology development...........          59,726           21,389           21,389           56,389           -3,337          +35,000          +35,000

NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites:
    Lawrence Livermore National            57,948   ...............          54,578           54,578           -3,370          +54,578   ...............
     Laboratory..................
    NNSA Service Center..........           9,002   ...............           8,304            8,304             -698           +8,304   ...............
    Nevada.......................          90,095   ...............          85,024           85,024           -5,071          +85,024   ...............
    Kansas City Plant............           3,478   ...............           4,526            4,526           +1,048           +4,526   ...............
    California site support......             746   ...............             550              550             -196             +550   ...............
    Pantex.......................          24,016   ...............          19,654           19,654           -4,362          +19,654   ...............
    Pinellas (Post Closure         ...............  ...............  ...............           9,769           +9,769           +9,769           +9,769
     Benefits)...................
    Sandia National Laboratories.          20,084   ...............           9,769           21,997           +1,913          +21,997          +12,228
    Y-12 newly generated waste...  ...............  ...............          21,997   ...............  ...............  ...............         -21,997
    Nevada off-sites.............  ...............           2,846            2,846            2,846           +2,846   ...............  ...............
    Los Alamos National                   116,752          142,209          142,209          145,509          +28,757           +3,300           +3,300
     Laboratory..................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, NNSA sites and               322,121          145,055          349,457          352,757          +30,636         +207,702           +3,300
       Nevada off-sites..........

Safeguards and Security:
    Waste Isolation Pilot Project           4,072            4,223            4,223            4,223             +151   ...............  ...............
    Oak Ridge Reservation........          21,850           28,855           28,855           28,855           +7,005   ...............  ...............
    Fernald......................           1,157            1,391            1,391            1,391             +234   ...............  ...............
    Miamisburg...................             524   ...............  ...............  ...............            -524   ...............  ...............
    West Valley..................           2,648            1,800            1,800            1,800             -848   ...............  ...............
    Paducah......................           7,760           11,014           11,014           11,014           +3,254   ...............  ...............
    Portsmouth...................          16,009           17,842           17,842           17,842           +1,833   ...............  ...............
    Richland/Hanford Site........          56,276           82,155           82,155           82,155          +25,879   ...............  ...............
    Rocky Flats..................          16,455            3,200            3,200            3,200          -13,255   ...............  ...............
    Savannah River Site..........         136,191          136,743          136,743          136,743             +552   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Safeguards and               262,942          287,223          287,223          287,223          +24,281   ...............  ...............
       Security..................

Use of prior year balances.......         -32,508   ...............  ...............  ...............         +32,508   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, DEFENSE                    6,808,319        6,015,044        6,468,336        6,366,441         -441,878         +351,397         -101,895
       ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN UP....
                                  ======================================================================================================================
     OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

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

    Office of Security:
        Nuclear safeguards and            193,794   ...............  ...............  ...............        -193,794   ...............  ...............
         security................
        Security investigations..          44,561   ...............  ...............  ...............         -44,561   ...............  ...............
        Program direction........          57,763   ...............  ...............  ...............         -57,763   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Office of             296,118   ...............  ...............  ...............        -296,118   ...............  ...............
           Security..............

    Office of Security and Safety
     Performance Assurance:
        Nuclear safeguards and     ...............         176,878          233,378          196,878         +196,878          +20,000          -36,500
         security................
        Security investigations..  ...............          48,725           48,725           48,725          +48,725   ...............  ...............
        Program direction........  ...............          75,492           75,492           75,492          +75,492   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Office of      ...............         301,095          357,595          321,095         +321,095          +20,000          -36,500
           Security and Safety
           Performance...........

    Intelligence.................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
    Counterintelligence..........  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
    Independent oversight and              24,472   ...............  ...............  ...............         -24,472   ...............  ...............
     performance assurance.......
    Environment, safety and               108,352           56,483           56,483           62,483          -45,869           +6,000           +6,000
     health (Defense)............
        Program direction--EH....          20,251           20,546           20,546           20,546             +295   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Environment,          128,603           77,029           77,029           83,029          -45,574           +6,000           +6,000
           safety & health
           (Defense).............

    Worker and community           ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
     transition..................
        Program direction--WT....  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Worker and     ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
           community transition..

    Office of Legacy Management:
        Legacy management........          33,425           31,421           41,421           31,421           -2,004   ...............         -10,000
        Program direction........          13,095           13,655           13,655           13,655             +560   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Office of              46,520           45,076           55,076           45,076           -1,444   ...............         -10,000
           Legacy Management.....

    Nuclear energy:
        Infrastructure:
            Idaho facilities       ...............          17,762           17,762           17,762          +17,762   ...............  ...............
             management..........
            Idaho sitewide         ...............          75,008           75,008           75,008          +75,008   ...............  ...............
             safeguards and
             security............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal,            ...............          92,770           92,770           92,770          +92,770   ...............  ...............
               Infrastructure....

        Program direction........  ...............          31,103           31,103           31,103          +31,103   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Nuclear        ...............         123,873          123,873          123,873         +123,873   ...............  ...............
           energy................

    Defense related                        91,700           87,575           87,575           87,575           -4,125   ...............  ...............
     administrative support......
    Defense activities at INEEL..         113,456   ...............  ...............  ...............        -113,456   ...............  ...............
    Office of Hearings and                  4,283            4,353            4,353            4,353              +70   ...............  ...............
     Appeals.....................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Other Defense             705,152          639,001          705,501          665,001          -40,151          +26,000          -40,500
       Activities................
                                  ======================================================================================================================
Use of prior year balances.......         -15,000   ...............  ...............  ...............         +15,000   ...............  ...............
Less security charge for                   -3,003           -3,003           -3,003           -3,003   ...............  ...............  ...............
 reimbursable work...............
Supplemental appropriations        ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
 (Public Law 108-11).............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE                687,149          635,998          702,498          661,998          -25,151          +26,000          -40,500
       ACTIVITIES................
                                  ======================================================================================================================
  DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Defense nuclear waste disposal...         229,152          351,447          351,447          277,000          +47,848          -74,447          -74,447
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY             16,704,030       16,399,730       16,370,730       16,732,228          +28,198         +332,498         +361,498
       DEFENSE ACTIVITIES........
                                  ======================================================================================================================
 POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance:
    Purchase power and wheeling..          34,000           32,713           32,713           32,713           -1,287   ...............  ...............
    Program direction............           5,158            5,600            5,600            5,600             +442   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Operation and            39,158           38,313           38,313           38,313             -845   ...............  ...............
         maintenance.............

Offsetting collections...........         -34,000          -38,313          -32,713          -32,713           +1,287           +5,600   ...............
Offsetting collections (Public     ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
 Law 106-377)....................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, SOUTHEASTERN POWER             5,158   ...............           5,600            5,600             +442           +5,600   ...............
       ADMINISTRATION............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance:
    Operating expenses...........           4,639            7,042            7,042            7,042           +2,403   ...............  ...............
    Purchase power and wheeling..           2,900            1,235            1,235            3,000             +100           +1,765           +1,765
    Program direction............          19,169           19,958           19,958           19,958             +789   ...............  ...............
    Construction.................           5,309            3,166            3,166            3,166           -2,143   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Operation and              32,017           31,401           31,401           33,166           +1,149           +1,765           +1,765
       maintenance...............

Offsetting collections...........          -2,900          -28,235           -1,235           -3,000             -100          +25,235           -1,765
Offsetting collections (Public     ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
 Law 106-377)....................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, SOUTHWESTERN POWER            29,117            3,166           30,166           30,166           +1,049          +27,000   ...............
       ADMINISTRATION............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance:
    Construction and                       20,029           53,957           40,192           53,957          +33,928   ...............         +13,765
     rehabilitation..............
    Operation and maintenance....          39,510           47,295           47,295           47,295           +7,785   ...............  ...............
    Purchase power and wheeling..         227,600          148,500          148,500          279,000          +51,400         +130,500         +130,500
    Program direction............         115,844          143,667          143,667          143,667          +27,823   ...............  ...............
    Utah mitigation and            ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
     conservation................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Operation and             402,983          393,419          379,654          523,919         +120,936         +130,500         +144,265
       maintenance...............

Offsetting collections...........        -227,600         -335,300         -148,500         -279,000          -51,400          +56,300         -130,500
Offsetting collections (Public             -3,668           -4,162           -4,162           -4,162             -494   ...............  ...............
 Law 98-381).....................
Offsetting collections (Public     ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
 Law 106-377)....................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, WESTERN AREA POWER           171,715           53,957          226,992          240,757          +69,042         +186,800          +13,765
       ADMINISTRATION............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
 FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND
         MAINTENANCE FUND

Operation and maintenance........           2,804            2,692            2,692            2,692             -112   ...............  ...............
Offsetting collections...........  ...............          -2,692   ...............  ...............  ...............          +2,692   ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, FALCON AND AMISTAD             2,804   ...............           2,692            2,692             -112           +2,692   ...............
       O&M FUND..................
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      TOTAL, POWER MARKETING              208,794           57,123          265,450          279,215          +70,421         +222,092          +13,765
       ADMINISTRATIONS...........
                                  ======================================================================================================================
    FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY
            COMMISSION

Federal Energy Regulatory                 210,000          220,400          220,400          220,400          +10,400   ...............  ...............
 Commission......................
FERC revenues....................        -210,000         -220,400         -220,400         -220,400          -10,400   ...............  ...............

Economic Regulation--Office of     ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
 Hearings and Appeals............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      GRAND TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF       24,419,197       24,213,307       24,317,857       25,074,256         +655,059         +860,949         +756,399
       ENERGY....................
          (Total amount               (24,263,197)     (23,920,307)     (24,281,857)     (25,038,256)       (+775,059)     (+1,117,949)       (+756,399)
           appropriated).........
          (Advance appropriations         (36,000)         (36,000)         (36,000)         (36,000)  ...............  ...............  ...............
           from previous years)..
          (Advance                        (36,000)        (257,000)  ...............  ...............        (-36,000)       (-257,000)  ...............
           appropriations, fiscal
           year 2007)............
          (Emergency                      (84,000)  ...............  ...............  ...............        (-84,000)  ...............  ...............
           appropriations).......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    The following list of general provisions are recommended by 
the Committee. The recommendation includes several provisions 
which have been included in previous Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Acts and new provisions as follows:
    Section 301. Language is included under section 301 which 
prohibits the use of funds in this Act to develop or implement 
a workforce restructuring plan or enhanced severance payments 
and other benefits for Federal employees of the Department of 
Energy under section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act of Fiscal Year 1993, Public Law 484. A similar provision 
was contained in the Energy and Water Development Act, 2004 
(Public Law 108-137).
    Section 302. Language is included under section 302 which 
prohibits the use of funds for severance payments under the 
worker and community transition program. A similar provision 
was contained in the Energy and Water Development Act, 2004.
    Section 303. Language is included under section 303 which 
prohibits the use of funds in this Act to initiate requests for 
proposals or expression of interest for new programs which have 
not yet been presented to Congress in the annual budget 
submission, and which have not yet been approved and funded by 
Congress. A similar provision was contained in the Energy and 
Water Development Act, 2004.
    Section 304. Language is included which permits the 
transfer and merger of unexpended balances of prior 
appropriations with appropriation accounts established in this 
bill. A similar provision was contained in the Energy and Water 
Development Act, 2004.
    Section 305. 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 306. This section requires the Secretary to compete 
the management and operating contracts of certain Department of 
Energy or National Nuclear Security Administration 
laboratories.
    Section 307. This section establishes certain notice and 
competition requirements for Department of Energy user 
facilities.
    Section 308. The Committee provides a provision allowing 
the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration to authorize certain nuclear weapons production 
plants, including the Nevada Test Site, to use not more than 4 
percent of available fund for research, development and 
demonstration activities. This provision has been carried in 
previous Energy and Water Development Appropriations Acts.
    Section 309. Language is included specifically authorizing 
intelligence activities pending enactment of the fiscal year 
2004 Intelligence Authorization Act (Public Law 108-381).
    Section 310. Language is included that requires that waste 
characterization at WIPP be limited to determining that the 
waste is not ignitable, corrosive, or reactive. This 
confirmation will be performed using radiography or visual 
examination of a representative subpopulation of the waste.
    Section 311. This section is included to require that all 
the national security milestones in the Advanced Simulation 
Computing program are achieved before congressionally directed 
priorities are funded.
    Section 312. Language is included under section 312 
clarifying the cost-share requirements for a hydrogen fuel 
project.
    Section 313. This provision allows the Secretary to 
authorize up to 8 percent of laboratory funds be used for 
laboratory directed research and development.
    Section 314. Language is included to ensure the funds 
provided to the Department are available for payment of 
Laboratory Directed Research and Development, Plant Directed 
Research and Development and Site Directed Research and 
Development activities.
    Section 315. Language is included to ensure the funds 
provided to the Department are available for direct and 
indirect cost of research performed on behalf of other Federal 
agencies.
    Section 316. Language is included to limit funds from being 
spent on unbudgeted NNSA complex reforms.

                     TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                    Appalachian Regional Commission

Appropriations, 2005....................................     $65,472,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................      65,472,000
House allowance.........................................      38,500,000
Committee recommendation................................      65,482,000

    The Committee recommendation for the Appalachian Regional 
Commission totals $65,482,000.
    The Appalachian Regional Commission [ARC] is a regional 
economic development agency established in 1965. It is composed 
of the Governors of the 13 Appalachian States and a Federal 
cochairman who is appointed by the President.
    Consistent with the administration's budget request, the 
Committee recommendation does not include funding for ARC 
highways. Funding for ARC development highways is provided 
through the Highway Trust Fund in fiscal years 1999 through 
2004 consistent with provision contained in the Intermodal 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (Public Law 102-240).
    The Committee recognizes the importance of trade and 
investment opportunities to the Appalachian region, and is 
encouraged by the findings of a preliminary trade report 
determining that Appalachian firms might find significant trade 
and investment opportunities, particularly in the energy, high 
technology, and transportation sectors, in the Republic of 
Turkey and the surrounding region. In this regard, the 
Committee supports the Appalachian-Turkish Trade Project 
[ATTP], a project to promote opportunities to expand trade, 
encourage business interests, stimulate foreign studies, and to 
build a lasting and mutually meaningful relationship between 
the Appalachian States and the Republic of Turkey, as well as 
the neighboring regions, such as Greece. The Committee commends 
the ARC for its leadership role in helping to implement the 
mission of the ATTP. The Committee expects the ARC to continue 
to be a prominent ATTP sponsor.

                Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2005....................................     $20,106,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................      22,032,000
House allowance.........................................      22,032,000
Committee recommendation................................      22,032,000

    An appropriation of $22,032,000, the amount of the request, 
is recommended for fiscal year 2006.
    The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board was created by 
the Fiscal Year 1989 National Defense Authorization Act (Public 
Law 100-180). The Board, composed of five members appointed by 
the President, provides advice and recommendations to the 
Secretary of Energy regarding public health and safety issues 
at the Department's defense nuclear facilities. The Board is 
also responsible for investigating any event or practice at a 
defense nuclear facility which has or may adversely affect 
public health and safety. The Board is responsible for 
reviewing and evaluating the content and implementation of the 
standards relating to the design, construction, operation, and 
decommissioning of defense nuclear facilities of the Department 
of Energy.

                        Delta Regional Authority

Appropriations, 2005....................................      $6,000,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................       6,000,000
House allowance.........................................       6,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      12,000,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,000,000 
for the Delta Regional Authority, an increase of $6,000,000 
above the request.
    The Delta Regional Authority [DRA], authorized by Public 
Law 106-554, was established to assist an eight-state, 236-
county region of demonstrated distress in obtaining 
transportation and basic public infrastructure, skills 
training, and opportunities for economic development essential 
to strong local economies.

                           Denali Commission

Appropriations, 2005....................................     $66,464,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................       2,562,000
House allowance.........................................       2,562,000
Committee recommendation................................      67,000,000

    The Committee recommendation includes $67,000,000 for the 
Denali Commission.
    The Denali Commission is a regional economic development 
agency established in 1998 for the intended purpose of 
delivering basic utilities, including affordable power, and 
other essential infrastructure to the nation's most 
geographically isolated communities. The Committee is 
encouraged by the progress of the Denali Commission in 
assisting distressed communities throughout Alaska, and urges 
continued work among local and State agencies, non-profit 
organizations and other participants in meeting the most 
pressing infrastructure needs.

                     Nuclear Regulatory Commission

                         salaries and expenses

                          gross appropriation

Appropriations, 2005....................................    $657,475,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................     693,376,000
House allowance.........................................     714,376,000
Committee recommendation................................     734,376,000

                                revenues

Appropriations, 2005....................................    $530,079,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................     559,643,000
House allowance.........................................     580,643,000
Committee recommendation................................     598,643,000

                           net appropriation

Appropriations, 2005....................................    $128,142,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................     134,564,000
House allowance.........................................     134,564,000
Committee recommendation................................     136,564,000

    Fee Recovery.--The Committee recommendation includes bill 
language providing for a 1 year extension of the authority to 
continue the fee recovery percentage used in fiscal year 2005. 
This language requires the NRC to recover 90 percent of its 
budget authority, less the appropriation derived from the 
Nuclear Waste fund and the amount necessary to implement 
Section 3116 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), by 
assessing license and annual fees.
    New Reactor Licensing.--The Committee recommends 
$20,000,000 to support the preparatory activities and pre-
application consultations for expected combined license 
applications beginning fiscal year 2008. The investment over 2 
years includes accelerating efforts update NRC's regulatory 
infrastructure, training and preparing new technical staff and 
putting into place the infrastructure for additional NRC staff. 
The Committee urges the NRC to utilize these resources in a 
manner to ensure the effective and timely consideration of new 
combined license applications. The Committee expects three to 
five applications to be submitted in the next 2 years.
    Security and Personnel.--The Committee recommends an 
additional $21,000,000 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to 
be used to conduct site-specific assessments of spent fuel 
pools at each of the nuclear reactor sites consistent with the 
recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences study. The 
Committee expects the NRC to provide written updates as to its 
findings and any changes to the current regulations as a result 
of the assessments. The Committee directs the NRC to allocate 
$4,000,000 to supporting the establishment of Department of 
Homeland Security's Domestic Nuclear Detection Office and to 
use $5,600,000 to meet the salary and benefits requirements 
consistent with the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 
(Public Law 108-447).
    The Committee recommendation for the NRC is $734,376,000. 
This amount is offset by estimated revenues of $598,643,000 
resulting in a net appropriation of $136,564,000.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                          gross appropriation

Appropriations, 2005....................................      $7,458,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................       8,316,000
House allowance.........................................       8,316,000
Committee recommendation................................       8,316,000

                                revenues

Appropriations, 2005....................................      $6,712,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................       7,485,000
House allowance.........................................       7,485,000
Committee recommendation................................       7,485,000

    This appropriation provides for the Office of Inspector 
General of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $7,485,000 for fiscal year 2006.

                  Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

Appropriations, 2005....................................      $3,152,000
Budget estimate, 2006...................................       3,608,000
House allowance.........................................       3,608,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,608,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,608,000 for 
the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. The Nuclear Waste 
Policy Amendments Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-203) directed the 
Board to evaluate the technical and scientific validity of the 
activities of the Department of Energy's nuclear waste disposal 
program. The Board must report its findings not less than two 
times a year to the Congress and the Secretary of Energy.

       Tennessee Valley Authority Office of the Inspector General

Appropriations, 2004....................................................
Budget estimate, 2005...................................      $9,000,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

    The Office of the Inspector General, for fiscal year 2006, 
proposes to appropriate funds for TVA's IG out of TVA's 
revenues beginning in 2006. The Committee has not included the 
administration's proposal to establish a congressionally-funded 
Office of the Inspector General to over the Tennessee Valley 
Authority. The Committee believes the current relationship 
between the Inspector General and the TVA Board is working well 
and sees no reason to change that relationship.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    The following list of general provisions are recommended by 
the Committee. The recommendation includes several provisions 
which have been included in previous Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Acts:
    Section 501. The provision prohibits the transfer of 
unexpended balances of appropriations to another Federal 
department, agency or instrumentality of the U.S. Government.

  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:
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Formerly Utilized Sites 
Remedial Action program; Middle Rio Grande ESA Collaborative 
Program; Bank Stabilization on Upper Yazoo Project, MS; Lower 
Mississippi River Museum Interpretative Site, MS; Missouri and 
Middle Mississippi Enhancement Project; Lake Champlain Canal 
Dispersal Barrier Study, Vermont and New York;
    Bureau of Reclamation: Water 2025, Norman, OK Feasibility 
Study; Water Desalination Act of 1996; Rio Grande Collaborative 
Water Operations Team;
    Department of Energy: Energy Conservation and Supply 
Activities: Hydrogen Technology, Solar Energy, Wind Energy, 
Hydropower, Geothermal Technology Biomass and Biorefinery R&D, 
Intergovernmental Activities, Department Energy Management 
Programs, Program Direction, Facilities and Infrastructure, 
Weatherization;
    Office of Nuclear Energy;
    Office of Fossil Energy: Fossil Energy R&D, Clean Coal, 
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Research;
    Office of Environment, Safety and Health;
    Non-Defense Environmental Management;
    Federal Lab Consortium;
    Office of Science;
    Department of Administration; Office of Inspector General; 
Office of Economic Impact and Diversity;
    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 16, 2005, 
the Committee ordered reported, en bloc, H.R. 2419, an Act 
making appropriations for energy and water development for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, with an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, and H.R. 2360, an Act making 
appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, with an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, both subject to further amendment and 
subject to the budget allocations, by a recorded vote of 28-0, 
a quorum being present. The vote was as follows:
        Yeas                          Nays
Chairman Cochran
Mr. Stevens
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. DeWine
Mr. Brownback
Mr. Allard
Mr. Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Reid
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson
Ms. Landrieu

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

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

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

                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

SEC. 101. * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 103. VISITOR CENTERS.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) Lower Mississippi River Museum and Riverfront 
Interpretive Site--
            (1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish 
        and operate in accordance with this subsection an 
        interpretive facility (including a museum and 
        interpretive site) in Vicksburg, Mississippi, which 
        shall be known as the ``Lower Mississippi River Museum 
        and Riverfront Interpretive Site''.
            (2) Location of museum.--The museum shall be 
        located on [property currently held by the Resolution 
        Trust Corporation in the vicinity of the Mississippi 
        River Bridge] riverfront property in Vicksburg, 
        Mississippi. Title to the property shall be transferred 
        to the Secretary at no cost.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (7) Authorization of appropriations.--[There is]
                    (A) In general.--There is authorized to be 
                appropriated [$2,000,000 to carry out this 
                subsection, including acquiring and restoring 
                under paragraph (2) the property held by the 
                Resolution Trust Corporation and planning, 
                designing, and constructing the museum and 
                riverfront interpretive site under this 
                subsection.] $15,000,000 to plan, design, and 
                construct generally in accordance with the 
                conceptual plan to be prepared by the Corps of 
                Engineers.
                    (B) Funding.--The planning, design, and 
                construction of the Lower Mississippi River 
                Museum and Riverfront Interpretive Site shall 
                be carried out using funds appropriated as part 
                of the Mississippi River Levees feature of the 
                Mississippi River and Tributaries Project, 
                authorized by the Act of May 15, 1928 (45 Stat. 
                534, chapter 569).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

    (a) Projects With Chief's Reports.--Except as provided in 
this subsection, the following projects for water resources 
development and conservation and other purposes are authorized 
to be carried out by the Secretary substantially in accordance 
with the plans, and subject to the conditions, described in the 
respective reports designated in this subsection:
            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (31) Marmet lock, kanawha river, west virginia.--
        The project for navigation, Marmet Lock, Kanawha River, 
        West Virginia: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated 
        June 24, 1994, at a total cost of [$229,581,000] 
        $358,000,000. The costs of construction of the project 
        are to be paid \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from the 
        general fund of the Treasury and \1/2\ from amounts 
        appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 501. * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

    (a) Definitions.--In this section:

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (e) Compliance With Applicable Law.--In carrying out the 
plan and the activities described in subsections (b) and (c), 
the Secretary shall comply with any applicable Federal law, 
including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
    (f) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of 
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for any 
project undertaken under this section, a non-Federal interest 
may include a Regional or National nonprofit entity with the 
consent of the affected local government.
    (g) Cost Limitation.--Not more than $5,000,000 in Federal 
funds may be allotted under this section for a project at any 
single locality.
    [(f)] (h) Cost Sharing.--
            (1) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of 
        the cost of the project shall be 35 percent which may 
        be in cash, by the provision of lands, easements, 
        rights-of-way, relocations or disposal areas, by in-
        kind services to implement the project, or by any 
        combination of the foregoing. Land needed for a project 
        under this authority may remain in private ownership 
        subject to easements satisfactory to the Secretary 
        necessary to assure achievement of the project 
        purposes.
            (2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost 
        of any 1 activity described in subsection (b) shall not 
        exceed $5,000,000.
            (3) Operation and maintenance.--The operation and 
        maintenance of the project shall be a non-Federal 
        responsibility.
    (g) (i) 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 such authority 
shall extend until Federal fiscal year 2015.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 593. CENTRAL NEW MEXICO.

    (a) Definition of Central New Mexico.--In this section, * * 
*

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
to be appropriated to carry out this section [$25,000,000] 
$50,000,000 for the period beginning with fiscal year 2000, to 
remain available until expended.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000, PUBLIC LAW 106-541

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 201. * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 214. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS.

    (a) In General.--In fiscal years 2001 through [2005] 2006, 
the Secretary, after public notice, may accept and expend funds 
contributed by non-Federal public entities to expedite the 
evaluation of permits under the jurisdiction of the Department 
of the Army.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 501. * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 529. LAS VEGAS, NEVADA.

    (a) * * *
    (b) Participation in Project.--
            (1) In general.--The Secretary, * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is 
        authorized to be appropriated [$10,000,000] $20,000,000 
        to carry out this section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 547. BLUESTONE, WEST VIRGINIA.

    (a) In General.--The project for flood control, Bluestone 
Lake, Ohio River basin, West Virginia, authorized by section 4 
of the Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1217), is 
modified to authorize construction of hydroelectric generating 
facilities at the project by the Tri-Cities Power Authority of 
West Virginia under the terms and conditions of the agreement 
referred to in subsection (b).
    (b) Agreement.--
            (1) Agreement terms.--The Secretary and the 
        Secretary of Energy, acting through the Southeastern 
        Power Administration, shall enter into a binding 
        agreement with the Tri-Cities Power Authority that 
        contains mutually acceptable terms and conditions and 
        under which the Tri-Cities Power Authority agrees to 
        each of the following:
                    (A) To design and construct the generating 
                facilities referred to in subsection (a) within 
                [4 years] 5 years after the date of such 
                agreement.
                    (B) To reimburse the Secretary for--
                            (i) the cost of approving such 
                        design and inspecting such 
                        construction;
                            (ii) the cost of providing any 
                        assistance authorized under subsection 
                        (c)(2); and
                            (iii) the redistributed costs 
                        associated with the original 
                        construction of the dam and dam safety 
                        [if all parties agree with the method 
                        of the development of the chargeable 
                        amounts associated with hydropower at 
                        the facility] assurance project.
                    (C) To release and indemnify the United 
                States from any claims, causes of action, or 
                liabilities that may arise from such design 
                [and construction], construction, and operation 
                and maintenance of the facilities referred to 
                in subsection (a), including any liability that 
                may arise out of the removal of the facility if 
                directed by the Secretary.
            (2) Additional terms.--The agreement shall also 
        specify each of the following:
                    (A) The procedures and requirements for 
                approval and acceptance of design, 
                construction, and operation and maintenance of 
                the facilities referred to in subsection (a).
                    (B) The rights, responsibilities, and 
                liabilities of each party to the agreement.
                    (C) The amount of the payments under 
                subsection (f) and the procedures under which 
                such payments are to be made.
            (3) Operation and ownership.--The Tri-Cities Power 
        Authority shall be the owner and operator of the 
        hydropower facilities referred to in subsection (a).
    (c) Other Requirements.--
            (1) Prohibition.--[No] Unless otherwise provided, 
        no Federal funds may be expended for the planning, 
        design, construction, and operation and maintenance of 
        the facilities referred to in subsection (a) [prior to 
        the date on which such facilities are accepted by the 
        Secretary under subsection (d)].
            (2) Reimbursement.--Notwithstanding any other 
        provision of law, if requested by the Tri-Cities Power 
        Authority, the Secretary may provide, on a reimbursable 
        basis, assistance in connection with the [design] 
        planning, design, and construction of the generating 
        facilities referred to in subsection (a).
    (d) Completion of Construction.--
            [(1) Transfer of facilities.--Notwithstanding any 
        other provision of law, upon completion of the 
        construction of the facilities referred to in 
        subsection (a) and final approval of such facilities by 
        the Secretary, the Tri-Cities Power Authority shall 
        transfer without consideration title to such facilities 
        to the United States, and the Secretary shall--
                    [(A) accept the transfer of title to such 
                facilities on behalf of the United States; and
                    [(B) operate and maintain the facilities.
            [(2) Certification.--The Secretary may accept title 
        to the facilities pursuant to paragraph (1) only after 
        certifying that the quality of the construction meets 
        all standards established for similar facilities 
        constructed by the Secretary.]
            (1) Approval.--The Secretary shall review the 
        design and construction activities for all features of 
        the hydroelectric project that pertain to and affect 
        stability of the dam and control the release of water 
        from Bluestone Dam to ensure that the quality of 
        construction of those features meets all standards 
        established for similar facilities constructed by the 
        Secretary.
            [(3)] (2) Authorized project purposes.--The 
        operation and maintenance of the facilities shall be 
        conducted in a manner that is consistent with other 
        authorized project purposes of the Bluestone Lake 
        facility[.], except that hydroelectric power is no 
        longer a project purpose of the facility so long as 
        Tri-Cities Power Authority continues to exercise its 
        responsibilities as the builder, owner, and operator of 
        the hydropower facilities at Bluestone Dam. Water flow 
        releases and flood control from the hydropower 
        facilities shall be determined and directed by the 
        Corps of Engineers.
            (3) Coordination.--Construction of the 
        hydroelectric generating facilities shall be 
        coordinated with the dam safety assurance project 
        currently in the design and construction phases.
    (e) Excess Power.--Pursuant to any agreement under 
subsection (b), the Southeastern Power Administration shall 
market the excess power produced by the facilities referred to 
in subsection (a) [in accordance with section 5 of the Rivers 
and Harbors Act of December 22, 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s; 58 Stat. 
890)].
    (f) Payments.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
the Secretary of Energy, acting through the Southeastern Power 
Administration, may pay, in accordance with the terms of the 
agreement entered into under subsection (b), out of the 
revenues from the sale of power produced by the generating 
[facility of the interconnected systems of reservoirs operated 
by the Secretary] facilities under construction under such 
agreements and marketed by the Southeastern Power 
Administration--
            (1) to the Tri-Cities Power Authority all 
        reasonable costs incurred by the Tri-Cities Power 
        Authority in the [design] planning, design and 
        construction of the facilities referred to in 
        subsection (a), including the capital investment in 
        such facilities and a reasonable rate of return on such 
        capital investment; and
            (2) to the [Secretary] Tri-Cities Power Authority, 
        in accordance with the terms of the agreement entered 
        into under subsection (b) out of the revenues from the 
        sale of power produced by the generating [facility of 
        the interconnected systems of reservoirs operated by 
        the Secretary] facilities under construction under such 
        agreements and marketed by the Southeastern Power 
        Administration, all reasonable costs incurred by the 
        [Secretary] Tri-Cities Power Authority in the operation 
        and maintenance of [facilities referred to in 
        subsection (a)] such facilities.
    (g) Authority of Secretary of Energy.--Notwithstanding any 
other provision of law, the Secretary of Energy, acting through 
the Southeastern Power Administration, is authorized--
            [(1) to construct such transmission facilities as 
        necessary to market the power produced at the 
        facilities referred to in subsection (a) with funds 
        contributed by the Tri-Cities Power Authority; and]
            (1) to arrange for the transmission of power to the 
        market or to construct such transmission facilities as 
        necessary to market the power produced at the 
        facilities referred to in subsection (a) with funds 
        contributed by the Tri-Cities Power Authority; and
            (2) to repay those funds, including interest and 
        any administrative expenses, directly from the revenues 
        from the sale of power produced by [such facilities of 
        the interconnected systems of reservoirs operated by 
        the Secretary] the generating facility and marketed by 
        the Southeastern Power Administration.
    (h) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section affects any 
requirement under Federal or State environmental law relating 
to the licensing or operation of the facilities referred to in 
subsection (a).
    (i) Tri-Cities Power Authority Defined.--In this section, 
the ``Tri-Cities Power Authority'' refers to the entity 
established by the City of Hinton, West Virginia, the City of 
White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, and the City of Philippi, 
West Virginia, pursuant to a document entitled ``Second Amended 
and Restated Intergovernmental Agreement'' approved by the 
Attorney General of West Virginia on February 14, 2002.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001, PUBLIC LAW 106-554

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                               DIVISION B

                                TITLE I

    Sec. 101. * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    Sec. 108. Environmental Infrastructure. (a) Technical, 
Planning, and Design Assistance.--Section 219(c) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835) is amended 
by adding at the end the following:
            ``(19) Marana, arizona.--Wastewater treatment and 
        distribution infrastructure, Marana, Arizona.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (d) Additional Assistance for Critical Resource Projects.--
Section 219(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
(106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335) is amended by adding at the end 
the following:
            ``(45) Washington, d.c., and maryland.--$15,000,000 
        for the project described in subsection (c)(1), 
        modified to include measures to eliminate or control 
        combined sewer overflows in the Anacostia River 
        watershed.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            ``(70) Washington, greene, westmoreland, and 
        fayette counties, pennsylvania.--$8,000,000 for water 
        and wastewater infrastructure, Washington, Greene, 
        Westmoreland, and Fayette Counties, Pennsylvania.''.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (72) Alpine, california.--$10,000,000 is authorized 
        for a water transmission main, Alpine, CA.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

       TITLE III--COLORADO UTE SETTLEMENT ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2000

SEC. 301. * * *

SEC. 303. MISCELLANEOUS.

    The Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988 
(Public Law 100-585; 102 Stat. 2973) is amended by adding at 
the end the following:

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

``SEC. 17. COLORADO UTE SETTLEMENT FUND.

    ``(a) Establishment of Fund.--There is hereby established 
within the Treasury of the United States a fund to be known as 
the `Colorado Ute Settlement Fund'.
    ``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
to be appropriated to the Colorado Ute Settlement Fund such 
funds as are necessary to complete the construction of the 
facilities described in sections 6(a)(1)(A) and 15(b) [within 7 
years of the date of enactment of this section. Such funds are 
authorized to be appropriated for each of the first 5 fiscal 
years beginning with the first full fiscal year following the 
date of enactment of this section] for each of fiscal years 
2006 through 2012.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

    Sec. 123. Gwynns Falls Watershed, Baltimore, Maryland. The 
Secretary of the Army shall implement the project for ecosystem 
restoration, Gwynns Falls, Maryland, [in accordance with the 
Baltimore Metropolitan Water Resources-Gwynns Falls Watershed 
Feasibility Report prepared by the Corps of Engineers and the 
City of Baltimore, Maryland.] in accordance with the 
``Baltimore Metropolitan Water Resources-Gwynns Falls Watershed 
Study'' report prepared by the Corps of Engineers and the City 
of Baltimore, Maryland, dated September 2002.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005, PUBLIC LAW 108-447

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

   DIVISION C--ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005

TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

             General Provisions, Department of the Interior

    Sec. 201. * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    Sec. 207. Animas-La Plata Non-Indian Sponsor Obligations. 
In accordance with the nontribal repayment obligation specified 
in Subsection 6(a)(3)(B) of the Colorado Ute Indian Rights 
Settlement Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-585), as amended by the 
Colorado Ute Settlement Act Amendments of 2000 (Public Law 106-
554), the reimbursable cost upon which the cost allocation 
shall be based shall not exceed $43,000,000, plus interest 
during construction for those parties not utilizing the up 
front payment option, of the first $500,000,000 (January 2003 
price level) of the total project costs. Consequently, the 
Secretary may forgive the obligation of the non-Indian sponsors 
relative to the $163,000,000 increase, and any effects of 
inflation thereon, in estimated total project costs that 
occurred in 2003.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR DEFENSE, THE GLOBAL WAR 
ON TERROR, AND TSUNAMI RELIEF, 2005, PUBLIC LAW 109-13

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

         TITLE VI--GENERAL PROVISIONS AND TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS

                         AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS

    Sec. 6001. * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                       DESALINATION ACT EXTENSION

    Sec. 6015. Section 8 of Public Law 104-298 (The Water 
Desalination Act of 1996) (110 Stat. 3624) as amended by 
section 210 of Public Law 108-7 (117 Stat. 146) is amended by--
            (1) in paragraph (a) by striking ``2004'' and 
        inserting in lieu thereof ``[2005]'' 2010; and
            (2) in paragraph (b) by striking ``2004'' and 
        inserting in lieu thereof ``[2005]'' 2010.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                                            BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
  PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
                                                     AMENDED
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Budget authority                 Outlays
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Committee     Amount  of     Committee     Amount  of
                                                        allocation \1\      bill     allocation \1\      bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee
 allocations to its subcommittees of amounts in the
 Budget Resolution for 2006: Subcommittee on Energy
 and Water:
    Discretionary.....................................         31,245        31,245         31,155    \1\ 31,118
Projections of outlays associated with the
 recommendation:
    2006..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............   \2\ 20,026
    2007..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............        9,167
    2008..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............        1,832
    2009..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............          106
    2010 and future years.............................  ..............  ...........  ..............           81
Financial assistance to State and local governments                NA           450             NA           186
 for  2006............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 2005 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
                                                                        YEAR 2006
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Senate Committee recommendation compared with  (+
                                                                                                                             or -)
               Item                      2005       Budget estimate  House allowance     Committee    --------------------------------------------------
                                    appropriation                                      recommendation        2005
                                                                                                        appropriation   Budget estimate  House allowance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--

      DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

    Corps of Engineers--Civil

General investigations...........         143,344           95,000          100,000          180,000          +36,656          +85,000          +80,000
    Hurricane Disasters                       400   ...............  ...............  ...............            -400   ...............  ...............
     Assistance (emergency)......
Construction.....................       1,781,720        1,637,000        1,900,000        2,086,664         +304,944         +449,664         +186,664
    Hurricane Disasters                    62,600   ...............  ...............  ...............         -62,600   ...............  ...............
     Assistance (emergency)......
Flood control, Mississippi River          321,904          270,000          290,000          433,336         +111,432         +163,336         +143,336
 and tributaries, Arkansas,
 Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana,
 Mississippi, Missouri, and
 Tennessee.......................
    Hurricane Disasters                     6,000   ...............  ...............  ...............          -6,000   ...............  ...............
     Assistance (emergency)......
Operation and maintenance........       1,943,428        1,979,000        2,000,000        2,100,000         +156,572         +121,000         +100,000
    Offsetting collection........  ...............        -181,000   ...............  ...............  ...............        +181,000   ...............
    Hurricane Disasters                   145,400   ...............  ...............  ...............        -145,400   ...............  ...............
     Assistance (emergency)......
Storm damage--(Public Law 108-             10,000   ...............  ...............  ...............         -10,000   ...............  ...............
 324--Sec. 401) (emergency)......
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Operation and           2,098,828        1,798,000        2,000,000        2,100,000           +1,172         +302,000         +100,000
       maintenance...............

Regulatory program...............         143,840          160,000          160,000          150,000           +6,160          -10,000          -10,000
FUSRAP...........................         163,680          140,000          140,000          140,000          -23,680   ...............  ...............
Flood control and coastal          ...............          70,000   ...............          43,000          +43,000          -27,000          +43,000
 emergencies.....................
    Hurricane Disasters                   148,000   ...............  ...............  ...............        -148,000   ...............  ...............
     Assistance (emergency)......
General expenses.................         165,664          162,000          152,021          165,000             -664           +3,000          +12,979
Office of Assistant Secretary of            3,968   ...............           4,000   ...............          -3,968   ...............          -4,000
 the Army (Civil Works)..........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, title I, Department        5,039,948        4,332,000        4,746,021        5,298,000         +258,052         +966,000         +551,979
       of Defense--Civil.........
                                  ======================================================================================================================
   TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE
             INTERIOR

 Central Utah Project Completion
             Account

Central Utah project construction          30,560           31,668           31,668           31,668           +1,108   ...............  ...............
Fish, wildlife, and recreation             15,345              946              946              946          -14,399   ...............  ...............
 mitigation and conservation.....
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................          45,905           32,614           32,614           32,614          -13,291   ...............  ...............
Program oversight and                       1,720            1,736            1,736            1,736              +16   ...............  ...............
 administration..................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Central Utah project          47,625           34,350           34,350           34,350          -13,275   ...............  ...............
       completion account........

      Bureau of Reclamation

Water and related resources......         852,605          801,569          832,000          899,569          +46,964          +98,000          +67,569
    Offsetting collection........  ...............         -30,000   ...............  ...............  ...............         +30,000   ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, water and related         852,605          771,569          832,000          899,569          +46,964         +128,000          +67,569
       resources.................

Central Valley project                     54,628           52,219           52,219           52,219           -2,409   ...............  ...............
 restoration fund................
California Bay-Delta restoration.  ...............          35,000           35,000           37,000          +37,000           +2,000           +2,000
Policy and administration........          57,688           57,917           57,917           57,917             +229   ...............  ...............
Drought conditions Nevada (Public           5,000   ...............  ...............  ...............          -5,000   ...............  ...............
 Law 108-324) (emergency)........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Bureau of                    969,921          916,705          977,136        1,046,705          +76,784         +130,000          +69,569
       Reclamation...............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      Total, title II, Department       1,017,546          951,055        1,011,486        1,081,055          +63,509         +130,000          +69,569
       of the Interior...........
                                  ======================================================================================================================
 TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Energy supply and conservation...       1,806,936        1,749,446        1,763,888        1,945,330         +138,394         +195,884         +181,442

Clean coal technology:
    Deferral of unobligated              -257,000          257,000          257,000          257,000         +514,000   ...............  ...............
     balances, fiscal year 2005..
    Deferral of unobligated        ...............  ...............        -257,000         -257,000         -257,000         -257,000   ...............
     balances, fiscal year 2007..
    Rescission...................  ...............        -257,000   ...............  ...............  ...............        +257,000   ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Clean coal                  -257,000   ...............  ...............  ...............        +257,000   ...............  ...............
       technology................

Fossil Energy Research and                571,854          491,456          502,467          641,646          +69,792         +150,190         +139,179
 Development.....................
    Advance appropriations,        ...............         257,000   ...............  ...............  ...............        -257,000   ...............
     fiscal year 2007............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Fossil Energy                571,854          748,456          502,467          641,646          +69,792         -106,810         +139,179
       Research and Development..

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale              17,750           18,500           18,500           21,500           +3,750           +3,000           +3,000
 Reserves........................

Elk Hills school lands fund......          72,000           84,000           84,000           84,000          +12,000   ...............  ...............
Strategic petroleum reserve......         169,710          166,000          166,000          166,000           -3,710   ...............  ...............
Northeast home heating oil                  4,930   ...............  ...............  ...............          -4,930   ...............  ...............
 reserve.........................
Energy Information Administration          83,819           85,926           86,426           85,926           +2,107   ...............            -500
Non-defense site environmental            439,601          349,934          319,934          353,219          -86,382           +3,285          +33,285
 clean up........................
Uranium enrichment                        495,015          591,498          591,498          561,498          +66,483          -30,000          -30,000
 decontamination and
 decommissioning fund............
Science..........................       3,599,871        3,462,718        3,666,055        3,702,718         +102,847         +240,000          +36,663
Nuclear Waste Disposal...........         343,232          300,000          310,000          300,000          -43,232   ...............         -10,000

Departmental administration......         238,503          279,976          252,909          280,976          +42,473           +1,000          +28,067
    Miscellaneous revenues.......        -121,024         -123,000         -123,000         -123,000           -1,976   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Net appropriation..........         117,479          156,976          129,909          157,976          +40,497           +1,000          +28,067

Office of the Inspector General..          41,176           43,000           43,000           43,000           +1,824   ...............  ...............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
 Atomic Energy Defense Activities

National Nuclear Security
 Administration:
    Weapons activities...........       6,331,590        6,630,133        6,181,121        6,554,024         +222,434          -76,109         +372,903
        Transfer from Department         (300,000)  ...............  ...............  ...............       (-300,000)  ...............  ...............
         of Defense approps......
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Weapons               (6,631,590)      (6,630,133)      (6,181,121)      (6,554,024)        (-77,566)        (-76,109)       (+372,903)
           activities (program
           level)................

    Defense nuclear                     1,409,033        1,637,239        1,500,959        1,729,066         +320,033          +91,827         +228,107
     nonproliferation............
        Emergency appropriations           84,000   ...............  ...............  ...............         -84,000   ...............  ...............
         (H.R. 1268).............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Defense             1,493,033        1,637,239        1,500,959        1,729,066         +236,033          +91,827         +228,107
           nuclear
           nonproliferation......

    Naval reactors...............         801,437          786,000          799,500          799,500           -1,937          +13,500   ...............
    Office of the Administrator..         353,350          343,869          366,869          343,869           -9,481   ...............         -23,000
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, National Nuclear        8,979,410        9,397,241        8,848,449        9,426,459         +447,049          +29,218         +578,010
       Security Administration...

Defense site environmental              6,808,319        6,015,044        6,468,336        6,366,771         -441,548         +351,727         -101,565
 cleanup.........................
Other defense activities.........         687,149          635,998          702,498          665,001          -22,148          +29,003          -37,497
Defense nuclear waste disposal...         229,152          351,447          351,447          277,000          +47,848          -74,447          -74,447
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Atomic Energy             16,704,030       16,399,730       16,370,730       16,735,231          +31,201         +335,501         +364,501
       Defense Activities........
                                  ======================================================================================================================
 Power Marketing Administrations

Operation and maintenance,                  5,158           38,313           38,313           38,313          +33,155   ...............  ...............
 Southeastern Power
 Administration..................
    Offsetting collection........  ...............         -38,313          -32,713          -32,713          -32,713           +5,600   ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, O&M, Southeastern           5,158   ...............           5,600            5,600             +442           +5,600   ...............
       Power Administration......

Operation and maintenance,                 29,117           31,401           31,401           33,166           +4,049           +1,765           +1,765
 Southwestern Power
 Administration..................
    Offsetting collection........  ...............         -28,235           -1,235           -3,000           -3,000          +25,235           -1,765
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, O&M, Southwestern          29,117            3,166           30,166           30,166           +1,049          +27,000   ...............
       Power Administration......

Construction, rehabilitation,             171,715          393,419          379,654          523,919         +352,204         +130,500         +144,265
 operation and maintenance,
 Western Area Power
 Administration..................
    Offsetting collection........  ...............        -335,300         -148,500         -279,000         -279,000          +56,300         -130,500
    Offsetting collection (Public  ...............          -4,162           -4,162           -4,162           -4,162   ...............  ...............
     Law 98-381).................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, O&M, Western Area         171,715           53,957          226,992          240,757          +69,042         +186,800          +13,765
       Power Administration......

Falcon and Amistad operating and            2,804            2,692            2,692            2,692             -112   ...............  ...............
 maintenance fund................
    Offsetting collection........  ...............          -2,692   ...............  ...............  ...............          +2,692   ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Falcon and                  2,804   ...............           2,692            2,692             -112           +2,692   ...............
       Amistad O&M fund..........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Power Marketing              208,794           57,123          265,450          279,215          +70,421         +222,092          +13,765
       Administrations...........
                                  ======================================================================================================================
    Federal Energy Regulatory
            Commission

Salaries and expenses............         210,000          220,400          220,400          220,400          +10,400   ...............  ...............
Revenues applied.................        -210,000         -220,400         -220,400         -220,400          -10,400   ...............  ...............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      Total, title III,                24,419,197       24,213,307       24,317,857       25,077,259         +658,062         +863,952         +759,402
       Department of Energy......
          Appropriations.........     (24,263,197)     (23,920,307)     (24,281,857)     (25,041,259)       (+778,062)     (+1,120,952)       (+759,402)
          Advance appropriations          (36,000)         (36,000)         (36,000)         (36,000)  ...............  ...............  ...............
           from previous years...
          Advance appropriations,         (36,000)        (257,000)  ...............  ...............        (-36,000)       (-257,000)  ...............
           fiscal year 2007......
          Emergency                       (84,000)  ...............  ...............  ...............        (-84,000)  ...............  ...............
           appropriations........
                                  ======================================================================================================================
  TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Appalachian Regional Commission..          65,472           65,472           38,500           65,482              +10              +10          +26,982
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety          20,106           22,032           22,032           22,032           +1,926   ...............  ...............
 Board...........................
Delta Regional Authority.........           6,000            6,000            6,000           12,000           +6,000           +6,000           +6,000
Denali Commission................          66,464            2,562            2,562           67,000             +536          +64,438          +64,438

Nuclear Regulatory Commission:...
    Salaries and expenses........         657,475          693,376          714,376          734,376          +76,901          +41,000          +20,000
    Revenues.....................        -530,079         -559,643         -580,643         -598,643          -68,564          -39,000          -18,000
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................         127,396          133,733          133,733          135,733           +8,337           +2,000           +2,000

    Office of Inspector General..           7,458            8,316            8,316            8,316             +858   ...............  ...............
    Revenues.....................          -6,712           -7,485           -7,485           -7,485             -773   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................             746              831              831              831              +85   ...............  ...............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      Total, Nuclear Regulatory           128,142          134,564          134,564          136,564           +8,422           +2,000           +2,000
       Commission................

Nuclear Waste Technical Review              3,152            3,608            3,608            3,608             +456   ...............  ...............
 Board...........................
Tennessee Valley Authority:        ...............           9,000   ...............  ...............  ...............          -9,000   ...............
 Office of Inspector General.....
    Offset.......................  ...............          -9,000   ...............  ...............  ...............          +9,000   ...............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      Total, title IV,                    289,336          234,238          207,266          306,686          +17,350          +72,448          +99,420
       Independent agencies......
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      Grand total................      30,766,027       29,730,600       30,282,630       31,763,000         +996,973       +2,032,400       +1,480,370
          Appropriations.........     (30,489,627)     (29,437,600)     (30,246,630)     (31,727,000)     (+1,237,373)     (+2,289,400)     (+1,480,370)
          Emergency                      (461,400)  ...............  ...............  ...............       (-461,400)  ...............  ...............
           appropriations........
          Advance appropriations          (36,000)         (36,000)         (36,000)         (36,000)  ...............  ...............  ...............
           from previous years...
          Advance appropriations,         (36,000)        (257,000)  ...............  ...............        (-36,000)       (-257,000)  ...............
           fiscal years 2006 and
           2007..................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


```