```

[Senate Report 109-274]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                       Calendar No. 504
109th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     109-274

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

 
               ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2007

                                _______
                                

                 June 29, 2006.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                   [To accompany H.R. 5427]

    The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 0000) 
making appropriations for energy and water development for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, 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. 5427) making appropriations for energy and water 
development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and 
for other purposes, reports the same to the Senate with an 
amendment, and an amendment to the title, and recommends that 
the bill as amended do pass.

Amount in new budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2007

Total of bill as reported to the Senate................. $31,238,000,000
Amount of 2006 appropriations.........................\1\ 37,299,714,000
Amount of 2007 budget estimate..........................  29,980,227,000
Amount of House allowance...............................  30,526,000,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to--
    2006 appropriations.................................  -6,061,714,000
    2007 budget estimate................................  +1,257,773,000
    House allowance.....................................    +712,000,000

\1\ Includes Emergency Appropriations of $6,600,473,000.

                            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...............................    24
            Construction, General................................    44
            Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries.....    64
            Operation and Maintenance, General...................    67
            Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies................    89
            Regulatory Program...................................    89
            Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program......    90
            General Expenses.....................................    91
            General Provisions--Corps of Engineers--Civil........    94
Title II:
    Department of the Interior:
        Central Utah Project Completion Account..................    97
        Bureau of Reclamation:
            Water and Related Resources..........................    97
            Central Valley Project Restoration Fund..............   109
            California Bay-Delta Restoration.....................   110
            Policy and Administration............................   110
        General Provisions--Department of the Interior...........   110
Title III:
    Department of Energy:
        Energy Supply and Conservation...........................   114
            Office of Electricity Delivery Energy Reliability....   122
            Nuclear Energy Programs..............................   123
            Environment, Safety, and Health......................   128
            Fossil Energy Research and Development...............   129
            Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves...............   131
            Elk Hills School Lands Fund..........................   132
            Strategic Petroleum Reserve..........................   132
            Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve...................   132
            Energy Information Administration....................   132
        Non-defense Environmental Cleanup........................   133
        Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning 
          Fund...................................................   133
        Science..................................................   134
            High Energy Physics..................................   135
            Nuclear Physics......................................   138
            Biological and Environmental Research................   138
            Basic Energy Sciences................................   140
        Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund..............................   143
        Departmental Administration..............................   144
        Office of Inspector General..............................   145
        Atomic Energy Defense Activities:
            National Nuclear Security Administration:
                Weapons Activities...............................   145
                Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.................   157
                Naval Reactors...................................   160
                Office of the Administrator......................   161
        Environmental and Other Defense Activities:
            Defense Environmental Cleanup........................   162
            Other Defense Activities.............................   167
            Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal.......................   168
            Power Marketing Administrations:
                Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power 
                  Administration.................................   168
                Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power 
                  Administration.................................   169
                Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and 
                  Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration.   169
            Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Salaries and 
              Expenses...........................................   170
        General Provisions--Department of Energy.................   195
Title IV:
    Independent Agencies:
        Appalachian Regional Commission..........................   197
        Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board..................   198
        Delta Regional Authority.................................   198
        Denali Commission........................................   198
        Nuclear Regulatory Commission............................   198
            Office of Inspector General..........................   199
        Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.....................   200
        Tennessee Valley Authority Office of the Inspector 
          General................................................   200
Title V: General Provisions......................................   201
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of 
  the 
  Senate.........................................................   202
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules 
  of the 
  Senate.........................................................   202
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of 
  the 
  Senate.........................................................   203
Budgetary Impact Statement.......................................   212

                                PURPOSE

    The purpose of this bill is to provide appropriations for 
the fiscal year 2007 beginning October 1, 2006, and ending 
September 30, 2007, 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 2007 budget estimates for the bill total 
$31,238,000,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The 
recommendation of the Committee totals $31,238,000,000. This is 
$1,257,773,000 above the budget estimates and $6,061,714,000 
under 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 2007 
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 2007 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 29, 2006, 
recommended that the bill, as amended, be reported to the 
Senate.

                                TITLE I

                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

                              INTRODUCTION

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

                    FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET OVERVIEW

    The fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Corps of 
Engineers is composed of $4,733,000,000 in new budgetary 
authority.
    The Committee recommends a total of $5,139,430,000 for the 
Corps of Engineers, a decrease of $189,740,000 from fiscal year 
2006 enacted levels (adjusted for emergency spending of 
$6,600,473,000). The Committee recommendation is $406,430,000 
above the request. The Committee recommendation provides for a 
robust planning program as well as providing increases to the 
construction and operation and maintenance accounts. 
Unfortunately, even with this increase the Committee 
recommendation falls short of what is actually needed to 
provide efficient levels of funding for all on-going work.
    The budget request was again prepared using performance 
based budgeting. The budget for the construction account 
allocates funds based on the following seven performance-based 
guidelines, redirecting funds to high-performing projects and 
limiting new construction starts. In summary, the guidelines 
dictate that:
  --All ongoing, specifically authorized construction projects, 
        including projects funded in the Mississippi River and 
        Tributaries account, are assigned based upon their 
        primary purpose to one of the main mission areas of the 
        Corps (flood and storm damage reduction; commercial 
        navigation; aquatic ecosystem restoration [AER]) or to 
        hydropower. Projects, except AER projects, are ranked 
        by their remaining benefits divided by their remaining 
        costs [RBRC], calculated at a 7 percent discount rate. 
        AER projects will be ranked by the extent to which they 
        cost effectively contribute to the restoration of a 
        nationally or regionally significant aquatic ecosystem 
        that has become degraded as a result of a civil works 
        project, or to a restoration effort for which the Corps 
        is otherwise uniquely well-suited (e.g., because the 
        solution requires complex alterations to the hydrology 
        and hydraulics of a river system).
  --Each project with an RBRC of 3.0 or greater and each AER 
        project that cost-effectively contributes to the 
        restoration of a nationally or regionally significant 
        aquatic ecosystem that has become degraded as a result 
        of a civil works project, or to a restoration effort 
        for which the Corps is uniquely well-suited, that can 
        be completed in the budget year, received, the balance 
        of funding needed to complete construction and related 
        administrative activities.
  --The projects with the highest RBRCs or the most cost 
        effective AER projects received not less than 80 
        percent of the maximum level of funding that the Corps 
        can spend efficiently in each fiscal year.
  --All ongoing flood and storm damage reduction, commercial 
        navigation, and hydropower construction projects that 
        have RBRCs below 3.0, except those projects that are 
        funded in the budget to address significant risk to 
        human safety, and all ongoing AER projects that do not 
        cost-effectively contribute to the restoration of a 
        nationally or regionally significant aquatic ecosystem 
        that has become degraded as a result of a civil works 
        project, and do not address a problem for which the 
        Corps is otherwise uniquely well-suited, and are less 
        than 50 percent complete will be considered for 
        deferral. Where a project considered for deferral was 
        previously budgeted, the budget includes funding to 
        cover the cost of terminating or completing each 
        ongoing contract, whichever is less. Any savings from 
        project suspensions will be used to accelerate the 
        projects with the highest returns.
  --New construction projects and resumptions to ongoing 
        construction projects on which the Corps has not 
        performed any physical work under a construction 
        contract during the past 3 consecutive fiscal years, 
        must be ranked in the top 20 percent of the ongoing 
        construction projects in its mission area to be 
        considered.
  --Flood and storm damage reduction projects that are funded 
        in the budget to address significant risk to human 
        safety, which will receive at least the funding needed 
        to pay contractor earnings and related costs. All other 
        ongoing construction projects will receive not more 
        than the amount needed to meet earnings permitted under 
        ongoing multi-year contracts and related costs. Dam 
        safety assurance, seepage control, and static 
        instability correction projects received the maximum 
        level of construction funding that the Corps can spend 
        efficiently. Construction projects received the amount 
        needed to ensure that they comply with treaties and 
        with biological opinions pursuant to the Endangered 
        Species Act, and meet authorized mitigation 
        requirements.
  --10 percent of the funding available for construction may be 
        allocated to ongoing construction projects regardless 
        of the guidelines above but not to start up or resume 
        any project.
    The Budget proposes that the administration and the 
Congress apply these guidelines to the Corps construction 
account and to the construction activities in the Mississippi 
River and Tributaries account.
    The Committee has watched with interest over the last 3 
years as the Corps has moved to this ``performance based 
budget'' model. Unfortunately, the Committee does not see 
improvement in the budgeting of the Nation's Civil Works 
infrastructure program. In fact, the Committee believes quite 
the opposite is true. Rather than an integrated program, the 
budget for the Civil Works program seems to be degenerating 
toward a yearly collection of interchangeable projects 
dependent only on the budgetary whims and criteria in use in 
that particular year. The budget ignores infrastructure 
maintenance requirements that are costing this country 
business, investment, jobs, income, and tax receipts. The 
current method of performance based budgeting utilized in this 
budget preparation leads the Nation to turn away infrastructure 
investments that return two and even three times their cost.
    From the Committee's perspective, the Corps' budget seems 
to be developed exactly in the opposite manner that it should 
be. It appears that overall spending targets are set by the 
administration, their priority projects are then inserted 
within these targets and the remaining funds are available for 
the remaining needs that meet the criteria for lower priority 
projects. The problem with budgeting in this manner is evident 
in the construction account for fiscal year 2007. Ten priority 
projects consume more than 40 percent of the requested dollars 
in this account. That means that some 75 projects have to split 
the remaining construction dollars.
    In fiscal year 2005, more than 130 projects were budgeted 
by the administration for construction; this year there are 
only about 85. However, Congress funded more than 300 projects 
in fiscal year 2006 and has averaged about 315 annually since 
fiscal year 2000. Budgetary criteria established for the fiscal 
year 2007 budget required that eight projects that were 
budgeted in fiscal year 2006 could not be budgeted in fiscal 
year 2007. These projects were scheduled for termination or 
suspension. These termination/suspension projects are in 
addition to the more than 30 projects that were budgeted in 
fiscal year 2005, that were recommended for termination or 
suspension in the fiscal year 2006 budget based on that year's 
budget criteria. In other words projects aren't being completed 
by these budget proposals, they are being terminated or 
suspended. It has been up to Congress to provide funding for 
these projects.
    The logic behind this budgeting rational appears to be that 
concentrating scarce resources on finishing a few higher 
performing projects will allow the Nation to reap the benefits 
of these projects sooner. The trouble with this is that these 
are long term projects that take many years to complete. At the 
rate the budget is headed, we will only be funding these 
projects in another couple of years with little else in the 
pipeline. The Committee questions this rationale when compared 
to the value of the benefits that are deferred by suspending or 
terminating these other projects in order to concentrate 
resources on such a few projects. In some cases these deferred 
benefits may never be realized due to these terminations. Local 
sponsors who share in these projects' cost may lose their 
ability to share these costs or may lose public support for 
finishing these projects. Once these priority projects are 
completed, one has to wonder whether there will be any projects 
or sponsors interested in resuming construction in an 
infrastructure program that suspends projects based on 
changeable annual criteria.
    In the past, Corps budgets were developed from the bottom 
up, District to Division to Headquarters to ASA to OMB. 
District commanders were responsible for developing and 
managing a program within their geographic area. Division 
Commanders were responsible for integrating the District office 
programs into a single Division-wide program. The Headquarters 
office integrated the Division Programs into a single national 
program. The OASA assured that the program complied with 
administration policy and budgetary guidance and OMB developed 
the budgetary guidance and provided funding levels. Decisions 
for budgeting were made within the framework of administration 
policy by those who knew the projects and programs best, not 
Washington level bureaucrats.
    Another benefit of this type of budgeting was that it 
allowed the Corps to undertake workforce planning to distribute 
their work across the Nation. When one chooses to put 40-50 
percent of the budget in 10-12 projects, there is no way the 
workload can be balanced across the remainder of the Nation 
with what is left. Unlike other Federal agencies that have a 
salaries and expense component to their budget, the Corps does 
not, at least not at the District office level. Virtually all 
costs at District offices (rent, utilities, labor, materials, 
etc) are charged to projects and studies. When dealing with 
such large differences in workload from fiscal year to fiscal 
year it is clear that the administration gave no thought to how 
this budget would impact the Corps' organizational structure or 
ability to maintain a technically competent workforce. Congress 
has repeatedly demonstrated that it desires to keep the 
structure of the Corps of Engineers as it is currently 
configured. Yet if the budget were enacted, there would be no 
way to maintain this workforce, due to how budgetary criteria 
skewed the projects to certain areas of the country.
    Funding only the ``highest potential return'' projects to 
the detriment of many other projects that provide a future 
vision or address far-reaching problems while not yet showing 
any BCR data, is ``penny wise and pound foolish.'' These 
projects add value and importance and have a place in the 
problem solving needs of the overall Nation's water 
infrastructure. While this budget 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. 
The RBRC ratios provide a ``snapshot'' view of a project. It 
tells one nothing of the overall value of one project to 
another. Projects in rural areas with fewer beneficiaries will 
never compete effectively. Does that mean that homes, property 
and lives in these less urbanized areas are worth less? It 
would certainly appear so from the budget criteria.
    The Congress will likely consider the passage of a water 
resources development bill this year. In this bill the benefit 
to cost ratio necessary for a project to be authorized for 
construction is 1.0 to 1. The criteria mentioned above requires 
remaining benefits to remaining costs to be 3.0 to 1 for 
budgeting with very specific exceptions. This performance based 
budgeting criteria furthers the divide between what is required 
for authorization and what is required to be budgeted. These 
criteria use to be one and the same. Most of the projects in 
the water resources development bill will likely not meet this 
criteria, increasing the backlog of authorized but 
unconstructed projects. These new projects, along with the 
deferrals in the budget and the major rehabilitations needed 
for aging infrastructure, are affecting and will continue to 
affect the national economy. Existing water resources 
infrastructure is wearing out. The Nation needs to recapitalize 
if we are to remain competitive in a global marketplace.
Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Initiatives
    The administration has proposed several changes to how the 
civil works program is appropriated for fiscal year 2007. These 
include the regionalization of operations and maintenance 
funding and migrating four categories of projects from the 
Construction, General Account to the Operations and Maintenance 
Account. The Committee has rejected all of these initiatives.
    Regionalized operations and maintenance funding segregates 
funding for projects into 21 watershed regions around the 
country as opposed to displaying operations and maintenance 
costs by project as has been the tradition. As projects, not 
regions, are authorized and funded by Congress, the Committee 
must reject this proposal. Operation and Maintenance budgets 
are developed on a project by project basis. For large river 
basins such as the Ohio or the Missouri, budgeting for the 
individual projects, as authorized, involve multiple Districts 
and Divisions. As the proposals in the budget are not developed 
as a systemized budget, aggregating them in the fashion 
proposed does not lead to the ``true costs'' of operating the 
system, it just adds up the various parts. The Committee does 
not believe that this proposal advances the budgeting for 
operations and maintenance. Rather it hides the serious 
underfunding that is contained in the budget.
    The Committee believes that an integrated watershed 
approach, much like the current Mississippi River and 
Tributaries Project [MR&T] would be a better model than the 
aggregated watershed approach proposed in the budget. The MR&T 
system-wide approach was developed after the devastating 1927 
Mississippi River flood. The project not only integrates all of 
the operations and maintenance of the various completed 
components, it also integrates studies of new water resource 
problems and needs and on-going and new construction activities 
into a single project. Budgeting for the various components is 
seamlessly integrated from the six District offices and 
overseen by a single Division office. The multitude of project 
components are comprehensively planned, constructed, and 
maintained for flood damage reduction, navigation and 
environmental protection/restoration throughout the entire 
mainline Mississippi River Valley.
    The Committee is puzzled by the initiatives to move 
Endangered Species Act [ESA] compliance activities from 
Construction, General to Operations and Maintenance. The stated 
reason was budget transparency, or to more appropriately show 
the true costs of operating these projects. The Committee has 
two issues with this logic. Budget transparency fades when the 
costs are rolled into the regionalized budgets. However, even 
if they were budgeted on a project by project basis, the casual 
observer would have no notion of how much of the operational 
costs of these projects is related to ESA compliance. Second, 
these are only being considered as operational costs because 
mitigation for these projects was not undertaken when they were 
constructed as is now required by subsequent laws. Were these 
projects constructed today, formulation of the projects would 
have required avoidance and minimization measures for the 
endangered species. By retaining the ESA compliance measures as 
a separate line item in the construction category, it is much 
more transparent as to how much is being spent for these 
activities.
    The budget has proposed moving major rehabilitation for 
locks and dams from the Construction, General account to the 
Operations and Maintenance account. Corresponding to this is a 
legislative proposal to allow the proceeds from the Inland 
Waterway Trust Fund to be utilized in the Operations and 
Maintenance account. Current law only allows these funds to be 
utilized in the Construction, General account. The Congress 
moved major rehabilitation from the Construction, General 
account to the Operation and Maintenance account in fiscal year 
1985. Subsequently as the backlog increased, it was returned to 
the Construction, General account in the fiscal year 1993 
budget. The stipulations involved in moving it back to the 
Construction account included that these rehabilitations could 
involve more than a simple rehabbing of the project. 
Operational improvements were considered as a part of the 
rehab. As such, the rehab projects were considered new 
investment opportunities for the country the same as other new 
projects and had to compete as new starts in the Construction, 
General program. To help fund these rehabs, legislation allowed 
half the costs of the rehab to be borne by the Inland Waterway 
Trust Fund with the other half to come from the General 
Treasury. The Committee does not believe moving these projects 
back to the Operations and Maintenance account will solve the 
backlog of major rehabs. This only skirts the new start issue. 
As the inventory of maintenance projects ages, more rehabs will 
be required to maintain the current level of service. Only 
providing additional funding can solve that problem.
    The Committee is disappointed that the administration has 
included another ``new'' beach policy. This is only a slight 
tweak to last year's proposed policy that was rejected by the 
Congress. The Committee rejects the new policy as well. The 
Committee notes that beaches are the leading tourist 
destination in the United States. Typically beach projects are 
justified on storm damages prevented alone, and the recreation 
benefits only enhance the benefit to cost ratio. The maximum 
Federal Government contribution to Federal shore protection 
projects is 65 percent of the total project cost but the 
Government receives all the benefits in reducing Federal 
disaster assistance payments. By paying for Federal shore 
protection projects now, we can avoid many of the catastrophic 
losses and disaster assistance payments associated with 
hurricanes and coastal storms. Simply stated, the Nation can 
pay now to avoid losses or pay more later to recover from 
severe impacts. It truly makes sense to be proactive and not 
reactive in this environment.
    It is instructive to compare the Federal investment in 
beach infrastructure (beach nourishment) versus Federal tax 
revenues from tourists. The annual Federal investment in beach 
nourishment is approximately $100,000,000 a year. Travel and 
tourism in the United States produce $223,900,000,000 in tax 
revenues and growth in this sector exceeds 5 percent annually. 
About 53 percent or $119,000,000,000 of these tax revenues go 
to the Federal Government. Assuming that half of these tourists 
are beach tourists (beaches are the leading U.S. tourist 
destination by more than a 2-1 margin), beach tourists produce 
Federal taxes of about $60,000,000,000 a year. Therefore, for 
every dollar in annual Federal expenditures for beach 
nourishment, the Federal Government is receiving tax revenues 
of approximately $600 from beach tourists.
    The Committee notes the costs that have been required to 
recover from the 2005 hurricane season. Had many of these flood 
damage reduction projects been completed, damages would have 
likely been much less severe. The drain on the economy for 
rebuilding as well as the impact to our citizen's lives has 
been unprecedented in modern times. The Committee also notes 
the unscheduled outages on our Nation's inland waterway system 
due to failures of critical equipment. These failures at locks 
and dams have caused serious business disruptions, loss of 
income and loss of tax revenues. Unplanned outages are 
increasing and unit availability of hydropower plants is 
decreasing requiring replacement of this renewable power source 
with electricity from non-renewable sources. Had more funding 
been provided for maintenance of these aging facilities, most 
of these outages would have been avoided.
    The Committee has also noted the reduced service at our 
Nation's multipurpose projects, antiquated recreation 
facilities, and shuttered recreation facilities. While the 
Committee agrees that there are more pressing needs than 
recreation at Federal projects, the Federal Government did 
provide these facilities and they provide substantial positive 
regional and national economic as well as non-economic 
benefits. Upkeep of these facilities should not be ignored. 
Additional user fees--which seems to be the preferred budget 
mechanism to address this issue--will never provide sufficient 
income to rehabilitate all of these facilities.
    The Committee believes that this is no way to run a robust 
national infrastructure program. Last year the Committee 
recommended that the Corps include additional criteria into the 
project prioritization process. It commends the administration 
for having incorporated additional criteria into the fiscal 
year 2007 budget. However, the mix of projects is substantially 
unchanged. The Committee does not believe that this 
prioritization method can be salvaged into a useable system and 
believes the Corps needs to scrap its strict adherence to the 
high RBRCR ``business line'' budget model. The Committee has 
seen no evidence that it has improved the budget process.
    Rather than trying new budget models and new prioritization 
criteria, the country needs to invest more heavily in its water 
resources. Water resource projects are some of the only Federal 
expenditures that go through a rigorous benefit to cost process 
to determine benefits to the national economy. The standard of 
living that we currently enjoy is due to the excess capacity 
that was built into our water resources infrastructure by 
previous generations. By failing to make new investments and 
rehabilitating aging infrastructure, the Nation is not only 
falling behind our competition around the world, but is 
jeopardizing our future economic growth.
Budget Justifications
    The Committee is concerned about the manner that budget 
justifications were prepared for the fiscal year 2007 budget. 
In the past, the Corps provided justification sheets for each 
project and presented them in budget order by Division across 
the country. For fiscal year 2007, a single book of 
justification sheets was provided by business lines. The 
Committee finds this manner of displaying the budget virtually 
useless in being able to find meaningful information on 
individual projects and studies. While the Committee believes 
that budget justifications could be improved by providing more 
relevant budget information, particularly for operations and 
maintenance projects, the method used for display in fiscal 
year 2007 was a giant step backwards. Further, the Committee 
notes that budget justifications were not delivered to the 
Committee until nearly a month after the President's budget was 
released. This is totally unacceptable, especially in light of 
the fact that every other agency that the Committee oversees 
managed to present their budget justifications on the day that 
the President's budget was released. For fiscal year 2008, the 
Committee instructs that the budget justifications should be 
prepared in the format used for fiscal year 2004, that is, 
prior to the business line budget model. Further the Committee 
directs that budget justifications shall be delivered to the 
Committee no later than the day the President's budget is 
released.
Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force Report on Hurricane 
        Katrina
    The Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
created an Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force [IPET] 
to perform an evaluation of the New Orleans and Southeast 
Louisiana hurricane protection system during Hurricane Katrina. 
This team consists of more than 150 government, academic, and 
private sector scientists and engineers who dedicated 
themselves solely to this task for the last 8 months. The draft 
final report is posted on the worldwide web at https://
ipet.wes.army.mil. Volume VIII, Risk and Reliability is 
currently under independent technical review and should be 
posted in August 2006. The final report should be posted in 
September 2006. The American Society of Civil Engineers is 
performing an external peer review of the findings and their 
draft report will be available in July 2006. This report is not 
intended as a final expression of the findings or conclusions 
of the United States Army Corps of Engineers, nor has it been 
adopted by the Corps as such. Rather, this is a preliminary 
report summarizing data and interim results compiled to date. 
As a preliminary report, this document and the information 
contained therein are subject to revisions and changes as 
additional information is obtained.
    IPET also is conducting a risk and reliability assessment 
of the entire system to aid in understanding the levels of 
protection that will exist for the future. This methodology 
will support the Louisiana Comprehensive Protection and 
Restoration Study due for submittal to congress in December 
2007.
    There was no evidence of government or contractor 
negligence or malfeasance. The team determined that the system 
generally was built as designed, and design approaches were 
consistent with local engineering practice. However, several 
factors significantly impacted the system's performance. 
Sections of the system were built below specified design 
elevations due to errors made in the vertical datum that left 
decision makers without an accurate understanding of the level 
of protection. The original design developed through use of the 
Standard Project Hurricane in 1965 and used in the late 1980s 
was not representative of the hurricane hazard at the time of 
the design. The hurricane protection was designed and developed 
in a piecemeal fashion, resulting in inconsistent levels of 
protection.
    Much has been made by the media of the strength of 
Hurricane Katrina. The Saffer-Simpson Hurricane rating scale is 
presented below. It should be noted that more than one variable 
defines hurricane strength.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Pressure                                  Winds
              Type                     Category      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------  Storm Surge Feet
                                                           Millibars            Inches               Knots                MPH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tropical Depression.............  TD................  ..................  ..................  over 34...........  over 39...........  ..................
Tropical Storm..................  TS................  ..................  ..................  34-63.............  39-73.............  ..................
Hurricane.......................  1.................  Over 980..........  over 28.94........  64-82.............  74-95.............  4-5
Hurricane.......................  2.................  965-980...........  28.5 28.93........  83-95.............  96-110............  6-8
Hurricane.......................  3.................  945-965...........  27.91-28.49.......  96-112............  111-130...........  9-12
Hurricane.......................  4.................  920-945...........  27.17-27.90.......  113-134...........  131-155...........  13-18
Hurricane.......................  5.................  less than 920.....  less than 27.17...  over 134..........  over 155..........  over 18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hurricane Katrina was one of the strongest storms to impact 
the coast of the United States during the last 100 years. At 
landfall, sustained winds were 127 mph (a strong Category 3 
hurricane, and the minimum central pressure was the third 
lowest on record (920 mb). Only a couple of hours before 
landfall at Buras, Louisiana, a National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Buoy located about 50 miles east of the mouth of 
the Mississippi River reported wave heights of over 55 feet in 
the Gulf. At landfall, hurricane wind gusts were being 
experienced more than 125 miles from the center of the storm.
    Though wind damage was significant, the legacy of Hurricane 
Katrina will be the horrific storm surge which accompanied the 
storm, appearing to have exceeded 25 feet in some locations in 
Mississippi where it utterly obliterated entire communities. 
Even though weakening before landfall, several factors 
contributed to the extreme storm surge: (a) the massive size of 
the storm, (b) the strength of the system (Category 5) just 
prior to landfall, (c) the 920 mb central pressure at landfall, 
and (d) the shallow offshore waters. The storm generated water 
levels that for much of the system significantly exceeded the 
design criteria, particularly in the St. Bernard and 
Plaquemines Parishes.
    Of the 50 major breaches experienced by the hurricane 
protection system, all but four were due to overtopping and 
erosion. Those four breaches, all in the outfall canals and one 
in the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, and all involving I-
walls, occurred before water levels reached the top of the 
floodwalls. All were caused by foundation failures induced by 
the formation of a gap along the canal side of the floodwall. 
The combination of factors that led to this failure mode was 
not anticipated to occur at these locations by the levee and 
floodwall designers. The most serious direct impact was the 
high number of deaths. While a large number of people were able 
to evacuate, the groups least likely to be able to so on their 
own, the poor, elderly, and disabled, were hardest hit. Direct 
property losses were over $20,000,000,000; approximately 78 
percent are attributed to residential losses.
    The findings indicate projects need resilience, an ability 
to withstand forces and conditions beyond those intended or 
estimated in design without catastrophic failure. This includes 
recognizing risk always exists and flood reduction projects 
need appropriate emergency preparedness and response. The 
planning and design of flood damage reduction projects should 
be based on a system-wide performance to manage a piecemeal 
development of a project. A risk-based planning and design 
approach would provide a more viable capability to inform 
decisions on complex infrastructure where it is described in 
consistent terms to include uncertainty. Lastly, continued 
investment in effort and resources is needed to update design 
criteria and planning capabilities to keep pace with fast 
changing technology.
    The Committee recognizes that this disaster recovery is an 
unprecedented undertaking, and the Committee commends the Corps 
for the astonishing amount of progress made since the 
hurricanes struck the area. However, the Committee has noted 
that sponsors and stakeholders in southeast Louisiana are very 
concerned about the seeming lack of a cogent, comprehensive, 
consistent plan for the execution of work funded in the region 
and the lack of consistent communications and coordination with 
their elected leaders in the area. The Committee has noted the 
fact that different information comes from different places 
within the Corps, doesn't seem coordinated, and seems to change 
almost daily--providing a confusing environment for resolving 
these difficult issues. The Committee directs the Corps to 
restructure its disaster recovery missions to report to the 
Chief so that consistent information is provided to State and 
Federal agencies, the public and the Congress.
    The Committee has been briefed on the interim Louisiana 
Coastal Restoration and Protection Plan and looks forward to 
the final recommendations for the next steps in improving 
coastal storm defenses.
    Based on the briefing, the Committee emphasizes that the 
Chief has been directed to conduct an analysis and design, not 
a traditional study, developing and presenting a full range of 
protection measures exclusive of normal policy considerations. 
The Committee expects information based on the Corps' expertise 
in a timely manner and unfiltered by policy goals of the 
administration. Furthermore, the Committee emphasizes that the 
Chief may submit reports on component areas of the larger 
protection program for authorization as soon as practicable and 
urges the Chief to utilize this discretion.
Continuing Contracts and Reprogramming
    Traditionally, the Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works 
Program has been a truly integrated nationwide water 
infrastructure program. As such, flexibility was required to 
manage the program. Congress has given the Chief of Engineers 
great latitude in management of this program in order to expend 
annual appropriations as efficiently and effectively as 
possible.
    Water resources projects, because of the nature of the work 
involved, are funded on an incremental annual basis. As far 
back as 1922, Congress recognized the need for flexibility in 
management and execution and provided the Corps with 
legislation that allowed the use of continuing contracts for 
specifically authorized projects. Congress recognized that by 
providing this flexibility it was relinquishing some measure of 
control over future appropriations; however, Congress believed 
that that was an acceptable trade-off for the efficient use of 
limited funds.
    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 late 1990s, the administration proposed that all 
Corps construction projects be fully funded, rather than be 
incrementally funded as had been the norm. Congress rejected 
this proposal in section 101 of the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act of 1999, Public Law 105-245.
    Further, the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, 
Public Law 106-53 contained a provision (section 206) relating 
to continuing contracts. Among other things, this legislation 
required the Corps to award a continuing contract for virtually 
all water resources projects. This position was confirmed by 
the Corps of Engineers Chief Legal Counsel in 2005.
    An often misunderstood and closely related issue to 
continuing contracts is reprogramming of project funds. 
Reprogramming is a legitimate management technique that 
maximizes utilization of constrained resources. Reprogramming 
is generally defined as reallocation of funding from one 
program, project, or activity to another within an 
appropriation, to promote efficient, effective use of available 
funding, for optimum progress under changing conditions.
    The history of reprogramming goes back to at least the 
1950s when the Comptroller General ruled that the Department of 
the Army has almost unlimited legal authority to transfer 
appropriated funds between projects. In the ensuing 50 years 
after the Comptroller General's decision, policy concerning 
reprogramming was incrementally developed.
    The Congress allowed reprogrammings for many reasons. 
Congress has traditionally viewed water resource projects as 
investments in our national economy. As such, once a project 
was started by the Congress, the Congress intended for the 
project to be completed. Congress recognized that the Corps, 
being much closer to the actual work of project implementation, 
was better situated to determine the proper funding levels for 
projects in a given work year, and that this may involve moving 
funds around in order to maintain the most efficient use of 
funding.
    A corollary to this efficient use of funds was that the 
Corps was to ensure that funds which had been reprogrammed away 
from a project were made available when they were needed by 
that project. It was not considered appropriate to request 
donated funds as part of a budget request or as a capability 
statement as these funds had already been appropriated once. 
Movement of these funds was supposed to be transparent and 
seamless in order to execute a program as efficiently as 
possible.
    This system worked for many years. However, in the late 
1990s through the early 2000s, a combination of events occurred 
that stretched the system to its breaking point. Congress 
noticed in the mid to late 1990s that project execution by the 
Corps had slipped dramatically. It was not uncommon to see 
execution rates of 60-65 percent for construction projects 
during that period. The Appropriations Committee expressed 
concern about lagging execution to the Corps and the large 
carryover balances in the Civil Works Program. Upon hearing 
Congress' concerns about project execution, the Corps set about 
to determine how to fix this problem.
    The congressional authorizers reacting to administration 
proposals for fully funding projects enacted legislation 
modifying the Corps' traditional selective use of continuing 
contracts by ensuring that virtually all contracts had to be 
continuing contracts. In an effort to address Congress' concern 
about project execution, the Corps response was to aim for full 
execution of annual appropriations. The required use of 
continuing contracts for virtually all work made this 
significantly easier. The Corps geared up to fully execute 
their annual program and spend down their carryover balances.
    Other events were also taking place during this same period 
that did not attract the notice of the Corps or the Congress as 
much as perhaps it should have. Annual budgets were becoming 
tighter. The desire for new projects intensified due to back-
to-back Water Resources Development Acts. To accommodate these 
twin issues, savings and slippage rates for all Corps accounts 
were increased.
    Savings and slippage [S&S] is a budgetary term that 
recognizes that nothing ever goes completely as planned. As 
Corps budgets are initiated some 22 months before they are 
presented to Congress a myriad of changes occur between this 
initial budget submission and when funds are actually 
appropriated. Projects speed up and slow down for a number of 
reasons. Hazardous wastes or a cultural resources site is 
discovered in the project right-of-way; a local sponsor may not 
have his cost share in-place; additional alternatives may need 
to be examined in a study; studies or even projects are 
terminated. All of these things lead to uncertainties which 
impact Corps budgets.
    When viewed in the historical context of annual Corps 
spending rates, reasonable percentages of S&S made sense as a 
way to accommodate all projects needs, even if funding was 
insufficient, especially when combined with large carryovers of 
funds from year to year. Around 2001-2002 Corps program 
execution had substantially improved such that they were 
executing nearly 100 percent of their annual program and had 
spent down their carryover balances. However, annual budgets 
were constrained, the pressure to add projects continued and 
S&S rates continued to climb.
    The cumulative effect adding additional projects and 
raising S&S rates resulted in considerably more active projects 
than the annual appropriation could fund at optimal levels. 
This contributed to the inability to fulfill reprogramming 
commitments as the Corps spent down carryover. Around 2003, the 
effects of these events combined to force the Corps to adopt a 
``just-in-time'' reprogramming policy. The problem was funding 
had gotten so tight, the Corps began to have trouble meeting 
their reprogramming commitments. Just in time started meaning, 
hopefully, within the same year funds were needed.
    Members of Congress whose projects had donated surplus 
funding were understandably upset when these funds could not be 
returned to these projects when they were needed. This 
situation continued through 2004. In 2005, Congress recognized 
that reprogramming issues were a problem that had to be 
addressed. Two things were done in fiscal year 2005 to address 
these problems. One was to lower the S&S rates to more historic 
levels and Congress undertook a comprehensive review and 
revision on reprogramming. However, the Corps did not put any 
reins on their efforts to execute 100 percent of their annual 
program. Funding shortages continued. This resulted in the 
reforms enacted in the fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Act.
    This act significantly altered the focus and management of 
the Corps Civil Works program. Major changes to both continuing 
contract authority and reprogramming guidance were enacted. 
Virtually all reprogramming guidance up until then had been in 
the report that accompanied the bill, rather than in the bill 
text, giving the Corps flexibility when it was needed.
    Two other pieces of legislation in the act severely 
restricted the Corps' ability to award continuing contracts. 
This continuing contract legislation forces the Corps to 
construct projects within arbitrary funding limits. This 
creates inefficiencies that waste resources. Corps' contracts 
will have to be broken up into uneconomical pieces. Multiple 
contracts will be required instead of a single contrct, thus 
increasing costs. Contractors' costs will increase as multiple 
mobilizations and demobilizations occur where one may have 
sufficed in the past. This will show up in higher bids. 
Probably the most devastating impact to the Corps is that 
starting and stopping funding streams makes the Corps an 
unreliable partner. If the Corps is seen as unreliable, 
contractor costs will increase based on risk and uncertainty, 
increasing project costs. Instead of inefficiently starting and 
stopping project funding each year depending on different 
criteria, we need to go back to the traditional congressional 
philosophy of finishing what we start.
    Another major change is that the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Army was given a much greater role in daily 
execution of the program than had ever been. Execution 
decisions that were traditionally exercised by the Chief of 
Engineers in previous years now must be coordinated through 
another bureaucracy. The Chief has to seek permission to 
utilize continuing contracts or for reprogramming actions that 
require congressional notification. All of these decisions are 
filtered through OMB for ``administration policy compliance'' 
reviews. This is both time consuming and costly.
    The Committee believes changes are necessary in both the 
continuing contracts and reprogramming guidance from fiscal 
year 2006 if the Corps is going to be able to continue to 
deliver the projects and services that the country and the 
Congress expects of them. The reprogramming guidance that was 
enacted in fiscal year 2006 is much too restrictive. Under the 
current law, the Committee has had to approve reprogramming 
actions for as little as $12,000. In a $5,000,000,000 program 
this is unreasonable. Further, in order for a reprogramming to 
get to the Committee for approval, it must be approved at the 
Corps District level, Division level, Headquarters level, 
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army level and the 
Office of Management and Budget level. Further, the affected 
congressional Members of both the donating and the receiving 
project can object to the reprogramming starting the process 
anew. It is no wonder that reprogramming actions have come to a 
virtual standstill this fiscal year resulting in project 
delays, contract terminations, large carryover balances and 
general uncertainties throughout the Civil Works program.
Reprogramming
    Reprogramming of civil works project funds has a long 
history in the Corps as noted above. A unique system of 
definitions and terminology for moving project funds was 
promulgated. For years, this guidance worked well. However, in 
the last few years, these definitions and terminology have 
become problematic. The Committee recognizes that this is 
largely due to the Corps attempt to comply with congressional 
desires to expend funding, in the fiscal year appropriated, as 
efficiently and effectively as possible in an era when funding 
was constrained, but the desire to fund more projects was not.
    Reprogramming guidance was substantially altered in Public 
Law 109-103 to address the issues of definitions and 
terminology. The Committee believes this directive went too far 
and has virtually made the reprogramming of funds impossible. 
As evidence of this, the Committee notes that the 
administration has proposed funding projects in the Operations 
and Maintenance account in watershed regions as opposed to the 
traditional method of budgeting by individual projects. While 
there may be legitimate reasons for budgeting in this manner, 
the only one offered to the Committee by administration 
officials was that this method would circumvent the 
reprogramming directive currently in law. When the 
administration develops an entirely new budget strategy to 
circumvent legislative direction, the Committee believes that 
the legislative direction needs modification.
    The Committee is concerned that the issues currently 
associated with civil works reprogramming were initiated by 
prior Committee comments concerning the level of carryover in 
the budget from one year to the next. At the time that was 
noted, carryover amounts were in the range of $800,000,000 
annually. The Corps was successful in lowering that carryover 
to about $300,000,000 by fiscal year 2005. With the changes 
made in fiscal year 2006, the civil works carryover balance is 
estimated to be nearly $1,500,000,000. While the Committee 
believes that a certain level of carryover is unavoidable and 
desirable, nearly one-fifth of the annual program is not 
acceptable. Changes must be made by Congress and the Corps to 
efficiently and effectively utilize annual appropriations and 
reduce the carryover balance to more reasonable levels. With 
the exceptionally large carryover balances, the Committee has 
continued to include small percentages of savings and slippage 
on all accounts to maximize resources.
    The Committee expects the Chief of Engineers to execute the 
Civil Works program generally in accordance with congressional 
direction. This includes moving individual projects forward in 
accordance with the funds annually appropriated. However, the 
Committee realizes that many factors outside the Corps' control 
may dictate the progress of any given project or study. 
Therefore, the Committee believes that it is imperative to give 
the Chief of Engineers ample flexibility to manage the program 
and to utilize excess funds as they become available on a 
particular project in order to move the entire program forward, 
effectively advancing projects to completion and accruing the 
benefits and services for which they were authorized, as soon 
as practicable. However, the Committee notes that granting this 
flexibility also requires responsibility to insure that 
appropriated funds are available for projects for which they 
were appropriated, when needed.
    The Committee further notes that current reprogramming 
recommendations have come to be elevated to the highest levels 
of the Corps, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) 
and OMB. The Committee believes that reprogrammings are 
operational decisions which should be delegated. The Committee 
believes that the Chief should delegate recommendation of 
reprogramming decisions to as low of a level as possible in 
order to expedite reprogramming actions in order to efficiently 
and effectively utilize scarce funds. The Civil Works Program 
Integration Division's mission is to develop the Civil Works 
Budget and to support the Division and Districts, in resolution 
of project issues pending in Headquarters as well as to monitor 
and assess program execution. Further, they provide procedures 
and guidance for program and project management functions. The 
Committee believes that the chief of this office would be 
ideally suited for this delegated authority.
Reprogramming Guidance
    The Committee expects the Chief of Engineers 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 
efficiently. New legislative language is provided for 
reprogramming actions in fiscal year 2007. The Committee 
expects the Chief to maximize the use of the annual funding 
provided by the Congress. The Committee understands that this 
may create ``paybacks'' in future years and cautions that the 
reprogramming actions recommended should be necessary to 
advance projects or studies and that the funds from donating 
projects are truly surplus for the needs in the current year 
and the budget year as there will be no way to budget for 
return of these funds until the following budget year.
    The Committee is convinced that separate and unique 
reprogramming guidance is necessary for the various 
appropriations accounts of the Corps due to the very differing 
activities funded by these accounts. The Committee recognizes 
that General Investigations, Construction, General and 
Operations and Maintenance are managed very differently within 
the Corps. The General Investigations account is generally the 
poorest fiscal performing account due to the myriad of unknowns 
in the planning process. These range from forecasting local 
sponsor abilities to provide their mandatory share of funding 
in a timely manner and on schedule, to unknowns discovered 
during implementation of the planning process. The projects 
funded in the Operations and Maintenance account are generally 
the easiest to forecast as these are planned expenditures for 
typically known issues or routine services. Where this becomes 
a problem in Operations and Maintenance is when unanticipated 
and unfunded failures occur, which must be dealt with on an 
emergency basis. For these reasons the Committee has provided 
different thresholds for approval of reprogrammings.
    A reprogramming is defined as either the change in purpose, 
or the movement of funds into or out of a program, project or 
activity funded by one of the civil works appropriation 
accounts of the Army Corps of Engineers. A reprogramming action 
may not be used to initiate a program, project or activity. 
Multiple reprogrammings into or out of projects is discouraged; 
however, the Committee recognizes that there may be cases, 
particularly in the Construction, General and Operations and 
Maintenance accounts where multiple transactions may be 
appropriate. Each of these transactions shall count toward the 
reprogramming thresholds. They shall not be viewed individually 
nor should the Corps use multiple transactions from multiple 
projects in order to stay below the established threshold 
reporting requirements. The Corps shall provide a quarterly 
report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees 
reporting all reprogramming actions in the previous quarter. 
Approval of both House and Senate Appropriations Committees is 
required in advance for reprogramming actions that exceed the 
thresholds described below.
    General Investigations.--Reprogramming a cumulative total 
of 50 percent or $1,000,000, whichever is less, is permitted 
for each study, program or activity in this account. However, 
in no case should a reprogramming action under this account for 
less than $25,000 be submitted to the Committees for approval. 
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.
    Construction, General.--Reprogramming a cumulative total of 
50 percent or $3,000,000, whichever is less, is permitted for 
each study, program or activity in this account. However, in no 
case should a reprogramming action under this account for less 
than $50,000 be submitted to the Committees for approval. The 
Committee does not object to reprogramming of up to $300,000 to 
any continuing project or program that did not receive an 
appropriation in the current year.
    Operations and Maintenance.--Unlimited reprogramming 
authority is granted in order for the Corps to be able to 
respond to emergencies. The Chief of Engineers must notify the 
House and Senate Appropriations Committees of these emergency 
actions as soon thereafter as practicable. For all other 
situations, reprogramming a cumulative total of 50 percent or 
$5,000,000, whichever is less, is permitted for each study, 
program or activity in this account. However, in no case should 
a reprogramming action under this account for less than $75,000 
be submitted to the Committees for approval. The Committee does 
not object to reprogramming of up to $500,000 to any continuing 
project or program that did not receive an appropriation in the 
current year.
    Mississippi River and Tributaries.--The Corps should follow 
the same reprogramming guidelines for the General 
Investigations, Construction, General and Operation and 
Maintenance portions of the Mississippi River and Tributaries 
Account as listed above.
    Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.--The Corps 
may reprogram up to 15 percent of the base of the receiving 
project.
Construction Contracting
    The Committee believes that the Corps needs flexibility in 
the types of contracting methods used for construction of water 
resource projects. Currently, three main types of contracts are 
used. Lump sum contracts, fully funded continuing contracts and 
partially funded continuing contracts. Between August 17, 1999 
and November 15, 2006, the Corps relied almost entirely on 
partially funded continuing contracts, as required by law. 
Public Law 109-103 challenged this reliance on partially funded 
continuing contracts and changed the requirement to use 
continuing contracts and made it optional. Another provision of 
Public Law 109-103 made the use of partially funded continuing 
contracts difficult. The unfortunate result has become an 
almost total reliance on fully funded contracts. The Committee 
believes that a balance of contracting mechanisms is necessary 
in order to prosecute the Corps' work. The Committee expects 
the Corps to avail themselves of the ability to use partially 
funded continuing contracts where this is the best use of 
funding and use other contracting vehicles where appropriate.
    The Committee is aware that there are numerous other types 
of contracting mechanisms that are in use by the Federal 
Government, but may not be available to the Corps due to 
statutory limitations. The Committee directs the Chief of 
Engineers to submit a report, by September 30, 2006, to the 
Senate Appropriations Committee with his views on current 
contracting mechanisms available to him and his recommendations 
as to other contracting mechanisms that would be beneficial in 
executing the Corps' mission.
    The House Report (109-275) that accompanies Public Law 109-
103 gives the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works 
approval for use of continuing contracts. This puts the 
Assistant Secretary's office squarely in the day-to-day 
operations of the Corps. The Committee does not believe that 
this office has the staff or expertise to make these types of 
operational decisions nor does the Committee think that it is 
appropriate. District Commanders are the appropriate officials 
to determine contracting mechanisms as they are closest to the 
work being performed. Elevating these decisions to Division 
offices or higher only promotes delays and inefficiencies.
Executive Direction and Management
    The Committee continues to believe that the Chief of 
Engineers should be responsible for the overall management and 
execution of the Civil Works Program of the Corps of Engineers. 
Day to day operational management and execution of the program 
are inherent functions of his subordinates, but he is 
ultimately responsible. The Committee is encouraged that the 
Chief has managed to reassert some measure of control over the 
program. The Committee hopes that the Chief will continue along 
this path.
Five Year Comprehensive Budget Planning
    While the Committee appreciates the Corps' attempts to 
provide a meaningful 5-year budget plan, it recognizes the 
inherent difficulties between the legislative and executive 
branches in preparing a useful plan. The executive branch is 
unwilling to project a 5-year horizon for projects for which 
they do not budget leaving a sizeable percentage of the Corps 
annual appropriations with a year to year event horizon for 
planning purposes. The fact that a sizeable portion of the 
annual appropriations are dedicated to congressional priorities 
is not a new phenomenon. Many major public works projects over 
the last two centuries have been funded on an annual basis 
without a clear budget strategy. The Committee would welcome 
the ideas and the opportunity to work with the executive branch 
to determine a mutually agreeable way to develop an integrated 
5-year comprehensive budget that displays true funding needs 
for congressional as well as administration priorities. 
Anything less will only give a partial view of the investments 
needed in water resources infrastructure.
Study and Project Reviews
    The Committee notes that review times have markedly 
improved for Corps of Engineers documents at the Headquarters, 
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) and 
the Office of Management and Budget since statutory time frames 
and notifications were imposed on these reviews. This is shown 
in the table below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Project                       Date to OMB         Date review completed       Date to Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J.T. Myers/Greenup L&Ds KY, OH, IN..  23 Aug 01...............  3 May 05...............  4 Jan 06
Stillaguamish River, WA.............  18 Apr 02...............  28 Nov 05..............  16 Dec 05
Duwamish-Green Rivers, WA...........  9 May 02................  21 Nov 05..............  16 Dec 05
Napa River Salt Marsh Restoration,    17 Aug 04...............  1 Nov 05...............  16 Nov 05
 CA.
Turkey Creek, KS & MO...............  28 Oct 04...............  14 Oct 05..............  12 Dec 05
Hamilton Airfield, Bel Marin, CA....  4 Feb 05................  20 Apr 05..............  3 May 05
Silver Strand, CA...................  17 Feb 05...............  22 Apr 05..............  6 May 05
Southwest Valley, NM................  18 Apr 05...............  14 Jun 05..............  1 Jul 05
Centralia, WA.......................  2 May 05................  15 Jun 05..............  1 Jul 05
Jacksonville Harbor, FL.............  26 May 05...............  22 Jul 05..............  3 Aug 05
Indian River Lagoon, FL.............  22 Jun 05...............  17 Oct 05..............  1 Feb 06
Denver Co. Reach, South Platte R, CO  5 Jul 05................  2 Sep 05...............  13 Oct 05
Louisiana Coastal Area, LA..........  1 Sep 05................  1 Nov 05...............  18 Nov 05
Dare County Beaches, NC.............  1 Nov 05................  6 Jan 06...............  27 Jan 06
Chickamauga L&D, TN.................  16 Jun 04...............  11 Jan 06..............  24 Jan 06
Miami Harbor, FL....................  23 Feb 06...............  24 Apr 06..............  5 May 06
Rilito River, Pima County, AZ.......  1 Mar 06................  1 May 06...............  16 May 06
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Project                              Date to OMB                           Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delaware Coastline, Port Mahon, DE......  7 Jun 99 & 8 Jan 02...............  Pending
Rio de Flag, AZ.........................  18 Sep 03.........................  Pending
Breckinridge, MN........................  10 Jul 04.........................  Pending
Park River at Grafton, ND...............  27 May 04.........................  Pending
Jackson Hole, Snake River, WY...........  4 Mar 02..........................  Active Review
Dallas Floodway Extension, TX...........  18 Aug 04.........................  Pending
Whitewater River Basin, CA..............  9 May 02..........................  Pending
Ohio River Restoration, OH..............  4 Mar 02..........................  Returned to ASA(CW)
Port Sutton, FL.........................  27 Sep 03.........................  Pending
Port Monmouth, NJ.......................  19 May 03.........................  Pending
Deep Creek Bridge, VA...................  27 Aug 03.........................  Active Review
Matagorda Bay Re-Route, TX..............  8 Sep 03..........................  Pending
Morganza to the Gulf, LA................  8 May 04..........................  Pending
Smith Island, MD........................  22 Oct 02.........................  Pending
Peoria Riverfront Development, IL.......  28 Feb 04.........................  Pending
Tanque Verde, AZ........................  2 Jun 04..........................  Pending
Riverside Oxbow, TX.....................  30 Jul 04 & 26 May 05.............  Pending
Corpus Christi Ship Channel, TX.........  16 Sep 04.........................  Pending
GIWW, High Island to Brazo, T...........  8 Oct 04..........................  Pending
American River Watershed, Long-Term       8 Oct 04..........................  Pending
 Study, CA.
Swope Park Industrial Area, MO..........  28 Oct 04.........................  Pending
South River, Raritan River Basin, NJ....  5 Nov 04..........................  Pending
False Pass, AK..........................  3 Dec 04..........................  Pending
Puget Sound, WA.........................  2 May 05..........................  Returned to ASA(CW) \1\
Missouri and Middle Mississippi River...  30 Aug 05.........................  Returned to ASA(CW) \1\
Upper Mississippi River Navigation Study  2 Feb 06..........................  Withdrawn \2\
Rilito River, Pima County, AZ...........  1 Mar 06..........................  Approved
East Baton Rouge, LA....................  16 Mar 06.........................  Pending
St. Clair River/Lake St. Clair, MI......  22 Mar 06.........................  Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Programmatic Document (no Chief's Report).
\2\  Chief's Rpt withdrawn pending economic revaluation.

    The Committee directs the Chief of Engineers to work with 
the ASA[CW] and OMB to develop a plan to complete these policy 
compliance reviews as expeditiously as possible and forward the 
recommendations of these reports to Congress. This plan should 
be presented to the appropriate House and Senate authorizing 
and Appropriations Committees no later than September 30, 2006. 
The Committee directs that reviews of all of these documents 
should be completed no later than December 31, 2007.

                         GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

Appropriations, 2006...................................\1\  $162,360,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................      94,000,000
House allowance.........................................     128,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     168,517,000

\1\ Excludes emergency appropriations of $40,600,000.

    This appropriation funds studies to determine the need, 
engineering feasibility, economic justification, and the 
environmental and social suitability of solutions to water and 
related land resource problems; and for preconstruction 
engineering and design work, data collection, and interagency 
coordination and research activities.
    The planning program is the entry point for Federal 
involvement in solutions to the Nation's water resource 
problems and needs. Unfortunately, the General Investigations 
[GI] account is eviscerated in the budget request. Two studies, 
Louisiana Coastal Area and the National Flood Project 
Inventory, consume 48 percent of the administration's GI 
request. This budget seems to be saying that the Nation should 
concentrate scarce resources on completing construction of 
projects underway as rapidly as possible. The Committee 
believes this argument is remarkably shortsighted. It assumes 
that the country will stop growing and that new investment 
opportunities will not be present.
    In truth, as the country grows, new investment 
opportunities will be presented and some previously authorized 
projects may no longer make sense or may be less competitive. 
The Corps should keep presenting the administration and 
Congress with new investment opportunities in order for the 
Nation to remain competitive in a global economy. The only 
conclusion one can draw from the administration's GI proposal 
is that they are determined to redirect the Corps towards 
construction, operation and maintenance by strangling their 
ability to evaluate water resource problems and needs.
    Planning is a very specialized discipline within the Corps. 
The Committee recognizes that the Corps has been hemorrhaging 
talent in this area for years and has been unable to hire 
replacements due to budget constraints. Once this planning 
capability is lost, the Corps will be unable to rebuild it 
rapidly, if ever. This will greatly impact their relevance to 
water resource development.
    The Committee notes that much of the public discourse over 
Corps of Engineers projects has revolved around the formulation 
of water resource projects. One possible reason is the loss of 
the professional talent in this specialized era. Another 
possible reason is that the the policies that the Corps uses 
for determining investment decisions were developed more than 
20 years ago. The Corps is one of the few Federal agencies that 
can project returns on investment to the national economy from 
the projects and programs that they undertake. However, the 
Committee recognizes that the world economy has changed 
dramatically in the intervening years since this guidance was 
developed.
    The administration's economic theory of estimating 
``national economic development benefits'' and not counting the 
effects of regional benefits assumes that if an investment 
decision is not made in a particular State or region, the 
industry will simply move to another, more efficient location 
and or mode of transportation, elsewhere in the United States. 
Current polices do not take into account the amount of private 
investment that follows these Federal investments. Water 
compelled rates for alternate modes of transportation are 
ignored in benefit to cost calculations.
    The current theory in the administration's policies holds 
that the country will eventually get the benefits, just 
somewhere else within the country. The preponderance of 
evidence over the last 5-7 years leads the Committee to believe 
that this economic theory has changed. When American businesses 
become inefficient now, the investment, the industry and the 
jobs move overseas--away from the United States.
    Unfortunately the opportunities for investments are being 
ignored by the administration and, to some extent, by the 
Congress. The Committee believes that water resources 
investments provide positive returns to the economy and that 
they should be given the same consideration as funding for any 
other homeland or national security investment within the 
national budget. The Committee believes that the administration 
should substantially overhaul guidance for development of water 
resources projects to maximize the investment decisions 
available to the administration to improve the Nation's 
competitiveness.
    The Committee has provided for a robust and balanced 
planning program for fiscal year 2007. The Committee has 
included a limited number of new study starts as well as 
provided completion funds for a number of studies. The 
Committee has used the traditional view within the Corps 
planning program that only considers new starts as those that 
have never received GI funds before. To provide additional 
transparency in the budget process, the Committee has 
segregated the budget into three columns in the following 
table.
    The first column represents the reconnaissance phase of the 
planning process. These cursory studies determine if there is a 
Federal interest in a water resource problem or need and if 
there is a cost sharing sponsor willing to move forward with 
the study. The next column represents the feasibility phase of 
the study. These detailed studies determine the selected 
alternative to be recommended to the Congress for construction. 
The third column represents the Preconstruction engineering and 
design phase. These detailed designs are prepared while the 
project recommended to Congress is authorized for construction.
    The Committee believes that by segregating the table in 
this manner that more attention will be focused on the various 
study phases, and a more balanced planning program will be 
developed. As the last two columns are generally cost shared, 
they demonstrate the commitment by cost sharing sponsors to be 
a part of the Federal planning process. By the same token, it 
also shows the level of commitment of the Federal Government to 
these cost sharing sponsors. The Committee directs that the 
fiscal year 2008 planning budget be presented to the Committee 
in this fashion.
    The budget request, the House allowance and the recommended 
Committee allowance are shown on the following table:

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

               ALASKA

ANCHORAGE HARBOR DEEPENING, AK......  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........
ATAKA HARBOR, AK....................  ..............  ..........  ..........         200  ..........  ..........
BARROW COASTAL STORM DAMAGE           ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         400  ..........
 DEEPENING, AK......................
DELONG MOUNTAIN HARBOR, AK..........  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         100         400
HAINES HARBOR, AK...................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         350
HOMER HARBOR MODIFICATION, AK.......  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         500  ..........
KENAI RIVER BLUFF EROSION, AK.......  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         400  ..........
KLAWOK HARBOR, AK...................  ..............  ..........  ..........          90         210  ..........
KOTZEBUE SMALL BOAT HARBOR, AK......  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         350  ..........
LITTLE DIOMEDE HARBOR, AK...........  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         600  ..........
MCGRATH, AK.........................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         200  ..........
MEKORYUK HARBOR, AK.................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         200  ..........
YAKUTAT HARBOR, AK..................           300    ..........         300  ..........         300  ..........
WHITTIER BREAKWATER, AK.............  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........

               ARIZONA

PIMA COUNTY (TRES RIOS DEL NORTE),    ..............  ..........         250  ..........  ..........  ..........
 AZ.................................
RILLITO RIVER, PIMA COUNTY, AZ......  ..............         300  ..........  ..........  ..........         300
RIO SALADO OESTE, SALT RIVER, AZ....  ..............  ..........         250  ..........         250  ..........
VA SHLY-AY AKIMEL SALT RIVER          ..............         200         200  ..........  ..........         200
 RESTORATION, AZ....................

              ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS CREEK, AR...............           200    ..........         200  ..........         200  ..........
LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESOURCE      ..............  ..........  ..........         250  ..........  ..........
 ASSESMENT, AR, IL, KY IA, MS, MO, &
 TN.................................
MAY BRANCH, FORTS SMITH, AR.........  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         250
PINE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR..............  ..............  ..........         400  ..........  ..........         200
RED RIVER NAVIGATION STUDY, SW        ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         400
 ARKANSAS, AR.......................
WHITE RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, AR   ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         200  ..........
 & MO...............................
WHITE RIVER NAVIGATION TO NEWPORT,    ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         125
 AR.................................

             CALIFORNIA

ARROYO SECO WATERSHED...............  ..............  ..........         200  ..........         400  ..........
BALLONA CREEK ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION,  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         450  ..........
 CA.................................
BIG BEAR LAKE, SANTA ANNA RIVER, CA.  ..............  ..........         850  ..........  ..........  ..........
BOLINAS LAGOON, CA..................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         597  ..........
CALIFORNIA COASTAL SEDIMENT MASTER             300    ..........         300  ..........         300  ..........
 PLAN, CA...........................
CARPINTERIA SHORELINE STUDY, CA.....  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         200  ..........
CITY OF INGLEWOOD, CA...............  ..............  ..........         175  ..........         175  ..........
CITY OF NORWALK, CA.................  ..............  ..........         200  ..........  ..........  ..........
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CA...........  ..............  ..........         550  ..........  ..........  ..........
COAST OF CA, SOUTH COAST REGION (LA   ..............  ..........         200  ..........  ..........  ..........
 COUNTY), CA........................
CORNFIELDS, CA......................  ..............  ..........         500  ..........  ..........  ..........
CORTE MADERA CREEK WATERSHED, CA....  ..............  ..........         200  ..........  ..........  ..........
COYOTE CREEK, CA....................  ..............  ..........  ..........         100  ..........  ..........
DESERT HOT SPRINGS, CA..............  ..............  ..........         600  ..........  ..........  ..........
ESTUDILLO CANAL, CA.................           600    ..........         600  ..........         600  ..........
GRAYSONS AND MURDERS CREEK, CA......  ..............  ..........         200  ..........         200  ..........
HAMILTON CITY, CA...................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         600
HUMBOLT BAY LONG TERM SHOAL MGMT, CA  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         250  ..........
IMPERIAL BEACH, SILVER STRAND         ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         167
 SHORELINE, CA......................
LAGUNA DE SANTA ROSA, CA............  ..............  ..........         200  ..........  ..........  ..........
LLAGAS CREEK, CA....................  ..............  ..........         250  ..........  ..........         250
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA..............  ..............  ..........         200  ..........         300  ..........
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA,     ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         500  ..........
 CORNFIELDS, CA.....................
LOS ANGELES RIVER RESTORATION, CA...  ..............  ..........         200  ..........  ..........  ..........
LOS ANGELES RIVER WATERCOURSE         ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         562  ..........
 IMPROVEMENT, HEADWORKS CA..........
MALIBU CREEK WATERSHED, CA..........  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         608  ..........
MATILIJA DAM, CA....................  ..............         400         500  ..........  ..........       1,000
MIDDLE CREEK, CA....................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         500
MORRO BAY ESTUARY, CA...............  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         275
NAPA RIVER, SALT MARSH RESTORATION,   ..............         300         300  ..........  ..........         300
 CA.................................
OCEAN BEACH, SAN FRANCISCO, CA......  ..............  ..........         500  ..........         300  ..........
PAJARO RIVER AT WATSONVILLE, CA.....  ..............  ..........         750  ..........  ..........         750
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAMP, CA...........  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         250  ..........
RUSSIAN RIVER RESTORATION, CA.......  ..............  ..........         200  ..........  ..........  ..........
SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN, DELTA         ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........       2,000  ..........
 ISLANDS & LEEVES, CA...............
SAN BERNARDINO LAKES AND STREAMS, CA  ..............  ..........       1,000  ..........  ..........  ..........
SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE, CA..........  ..............  ..........         300  ..........         329  ..........
SAN DIEGO SAMP, CA..................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         250  ..........
SAN FRANSIQUITO CREEK, CA...........  ..............  ..........         225  ..........         225  ..........
SAN JACINTO RIVER RESTORATION, CA...  ..............  ..........       1,000  ..........  ..........  ..........
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, WEST         ..............  ..........         200  ..........  ..........  ..........
 STANISLAUS, CA.....................
SANTA ANA RIVER & TRIBURARIES, BIG    ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         200  ..........
 BEAR LAKE, CA......................
SANTA ROSA CREEK, CA................  ..............  ..........         300  ..........         300  ..........
SEVEN OAKS & PRADO DAMS WATER CONS.,  ..............  ..........       1,500  ..........  ..........  ..........
 CA.................................
SOLANA-ENCINITAS SHORELINE, CA......  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         500
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SHORELINE, CA...  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........
SUN VALLEY WATERSHED, CA............  ..............  ..........         200  ..........         200  ..........
SUTTER COUNTY, CA...................           339    ..........         400  ..........         339  ..........
TAHOE BASIN, CA & NV................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       1,000
UPPER PENITENCIA CREEK, CA..........           319    ..........         319  ..........         319  ..........
WESTMINISTER, EAST GARDEN GROVE, CA.  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         300  ..........
WEST STANISLAUS COUNTY, ORESTIMBA     ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         400  ..........
 CREEK, CA..........................
WILSON AND OAK GLEN CREEKS, CA......  ..............  ..........         800  ..........  ..........  ..........

              COLORADO

CACHE LA POUDRE, CO.................           304    ..........  ..........  ..........         304  ..........
CHATFIELD, CHERRY CREEK & BEAR CREEK  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         400  ..........
 RESERVOIRS, CO.....................
FOUNTAIN CREEK & TRIBUTARIES, CO....  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         449  ..........
SOUTH BOULDER CREEK, CO.............  ..............  ..........  ..........         100  ..........  ..........

              DELAWARE

BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL    ..............  ..........  ..........         125  ..........  ..........
 IN THE DELAWARE ESTUARY, DE........
DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE,   ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         175  ..........
 DE, NJ, NY, PA.....................

               FLORIDA

BREVARD COUNTY, FL..................  ..............  ..........         315  ..........  ..........  ..........
EGMONT KEY, FL......................  ..............  ..........         350  ..........  ..........  ..........
FLAGLER BEACH, FL...................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         250  ..........
LAKE WORTH INLET FEASIBILITY STUDY..  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         250  ..........
MILE POINT, FL......................  ..............  ..........         200  ..........  ..........  ..........
ST JOHNS COUNTY SHORE PROTECTION, FL  ..............  ..........         200  ..........  ..........  ..........
WALTON COUNTY, FL...................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         553

               GEORGIA

AUGUSTA, GA.........................  ..............  ..........          55  ..........  ..........  ..........
LONG ISLAND, MARSH AND JOHNS CREEKS,           200    ..........  ..........  ..........         200  ..........
 GA.................................
OATES CREEK, AUGUSTA, GA............  ..............  ..........         750  ..........  ..........  ..........
SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA.......  ..............  ..........       1,750  ..........  ..........         500

                GUAM

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

               HAWAII

ALA WAI CANAL, OAHU, HI.............           300    ..........         300  ..........         300  ..........
BARBERS POINT HARBOR MODIFICATION,    ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........          39  ..........
 OAHU, HI...........................
KAHUKU, HI..........................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         203  ..........
KAHULUI WEST HARBOR EXPANSION, HI...  ..............  ..........  ..........         100  ..........  ..........
KAWAIHAE HARBOR, HI.................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         311  ..........
LAUPAHOEHOE HARBOR, HI..............  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         300
MOANALUA STREAM FLOOD DAMAGE          ..............  ..........  ..........         100  ..........  ..........
 REDUCTION, HI......................
NAWILIWILI HARBOR MODIFICATION,       ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         125  ..........
 KAUAI, HI..........................
WAIALUA-KAIAKA WATERSHED RESTORATION  ..............  ..........  ..........         200  ..........  ..........
 STUDY, HI..........................
WAILUPE STREAM, OAHU, HI............  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         350

                IDAHO

BOISE RIVER, BOISE, ID..............  ..............  ..........  ..........          44         286  ..........

              ILLINOIS

DES PLAINES RIVER (PHASE II), IL....  ..............  ..........         500  ..........       1,000  ..........
ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION, IL           400    ..........         400  ..........         750  ..........
KEITH CREEK, IL.....................  ..............  ..........         300  ..........  ..........  ..........
PEORIA RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, IL...  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         250
SOUTHEAST ILLINOIS SHORELINE, IL....  ..............  ..........         200  ..........  ..........  ..........
SOUTH FORK, SOUTH BRANCH, CHICAGO     ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         750  ..........
 RIVER, IL..........................
UPPER MISS & ILLINOIS NAV             ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........      20,000
 IMPORVEMENT, IL, IA, MN, MO, WI....
UPPER MISSISSIPPI COMP PLAN, IL, IA,  ..............  ..........         500  ..........         784  ..........
 MO, MN, WI.........................

               INDIANA

INDIANA HARBOR, IN..................           300    ..........         750  ..........         300  ..........

                IOWA

CEDAR RAPIDS, IA (CEDAR RAPIDS TIME   ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         150  ..........
 CHECK AREA)........................
CHARITON RIVER COMPREHENSIVE STUDY,   ..............  ..........  ..........         100  ..........  ..........
 IA.................................
DAVENPORT , IA......................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         173
DES MOINES & RACCOON RIVERS, IA.....  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         300

               KANSAS

BRUSH CREEK BASIN , KS & MO.........  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         150  ..........
MARION RESERVOIR WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         150  ..........
 RESTORATION, KS....................
TOPEKA, KS..........................  ..............         100         200  ..........         100  ..........
UPPER ARKANSAS RIVER, KS............  ..............  ..........  ..........         100  ..........  ..........
UPPER TURKEY CREEK, KS..............  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         225  ..........
WALNUT AND WHITEWATER RIVER                     80    ..........         200  ..........          80  ..........
 WATERSHEDS, KS.....................

              KENTUCKY

METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, SOUTHWEST,   ..............  ..........         200  ..........  ..........  ..........
 KY.................................
NORTHERN KENTUCKY, KY...............  ..............  ..........         300  ..........  ..........  ..........
WILLIAMSTOWN, KY....................  ..............  ..........         500  ..........  ..........  ..........

              LOUISIANA

AMITE RIVER & TRIBUTARIES ECOSYSTEM   ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         500  ..........
 RESTORATION, LA....................
AMITE RIVER & TRIBUTARIES, BAYOU      ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         350  ..........
 MANCHAC, LA........................
ATCHAFALAYA RIVER & BAYOUS CHENE,     ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         650  ..........
 BOEUF & BLACK, LA..................
BAYOU SORREL LOCK, LA...............  ..............       1,500       1,500  ..........  ..........       1,500
BOSSIER PARISH, LA..................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         200  ..........
CALCASIEU LOCK, LA..................  ..............  ..........         400  ..........         400  ..........
CALCASIEU RIVER BASIN, LA...........           247    ..........         500  ..........         125  ..........
CALCASIEU RIVER PASS SHIP CHANNEL     ..............  ..........         500  ..........         350  ..........
 ENLARGEMENT, LA....................
CROSS LAKE, LA......................  ..............  ..........         300  ..........         150  ..........
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYST REST,         5,000    ..........       5,000  ..........  ..........  ..........
 LA (SCIENCE & TEC..................
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM            20,000    ..........      20,000  ..........      15,000  ..........
 RESTORATION, LA....................
PORT OF IBERIA, LA..................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         500
SOUTHWEST COASTAL LOUSIANA HURRICANE  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         250  ..........
 PROTECTION, LA.....................
ST. CHARLES PARISH URBAN FLOOD        ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         200  ..........
 CONTROL, LA........................
WEST PEARL NAVIGATION, LA & MS......  ..............  ..........  ..........         100  ..........  ..........
WEST SHORE LAKE PONCHARTRAIN, LA....  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         200

                MAINE

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

              MARYLAND

ANACOSTIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, MD   ..............  ..........         400  ..........         200  ..........
 AND DC.............................
BALTIMORE METRO WTR RES--PATAPSCO &   ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         600  ..........
 BACK RIVERS, MD....................
CHES BAY SHORELINE--SEMI BUDG, MODEL  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         350  ..........
CHESAPEAKE BAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,    ..............  ..........  ..........         150  ..........  ..........
 MD.................................
CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINE, MARYLAND    ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         500  ..........
 COASTAL MANAGEMENT, MD.............
CHESAPEAKE BAY WERLANDS, MD           ..............  ..........  ..........         100         325  ..........
 (BLACKWATER REFUGE)................
EASTERN SHORE, MID CHESAPEAKE BAY     ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         300
 ISLAND, MD.........................
JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE RELLOCATION,   ..............  ..........  ..........          80         100  ..........
 MD & WV............................
MIDDLE POTOMAC RIVER GREATER SENECA/  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         300  ..........
 MUDDY BRANCH, MD...................
MIDDLE POTOMAC WATERSHED STUDY, MD..  ..............  ..........  ..........          50  ..........  ..........

            MASSACHUSETTS

BOSTON HARBOR (45-FOOT CHANNEL), MA.           300    ..........         300  ..........         300  ..........

              MICHIGAN

DETROIT RIVER GREENWAY, MI..........  ..............  ..........         250  ..........         500  ..........
DETROIT RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL           ..............  ..........  ..........          50          50  ..........
 DREDGING, MI.......................
GREAT LAKES NAV SYST STUDY, MI, IL,            300    ..........       2,034  ..........         300  ..........
 IN, MN, NY, OH, PA.................
GREAT LAKE REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS      ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         300  ..........
 (RAP) & SEDIMENT REMEDIATION, MI,
 NY, OH, PA, IN, EL, WI, & MN.......

              MINNESOTA

BLUE EARTH RIVER ECOSYSTEM            ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........          60  ..........
 RESTORATION, MN, SD, IA, ND........
MARSH LAKE DAM ECOSYSTEM              ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         125  ..........
 RESTORATION, MINNESOTA (MINNESOTA
 RIVER BASIN, MN & SD)..............
ROSEAU RIVER, MN....................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         326
WILD RICE RIVER, RED RIVER OF THE              300    ..........  ..........  ..........         150  ..........
 NORTH BASIN, MN....................

              MISSOURI

JORDAN CREEK, SPRINGFIELD, MO.......  ..............  ..........         600  ..........  ..........  ..........
HIGH SCHOOL BRANCH--NEOSHO, MO......  ..............  ..........         175  ..........  ..........  ..........
KANSAS CITYS, MO & KS...............           500    ..........         750  ..........         500         250
LITTLE BLUE RIVER BASIN, JACKSON      ..............  ..........  ..........         100  ..........  ..........
 COUNTY, MO.........................
MISSOURI RIVER DEGRADATION, MILE 340  ..............  ..........  ..........         300  ..........  ..........
 TO 400, MO & KS....................
MISSOURI LEVEE SYSTEM, UNITS L455 &   ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........          27         350
 R460-471, MO & KS..................
SPRINGFIELD, MO.....................           250    ..........         250  ..........         310  ..........
ST LOUIS FLOOD PROTECTION, MO.......  ..............         243         350  ..........  ..........         519
ST LOUIS MISSISSIPPI RIVERFRONT, MO   ..............  ..........         200  ..........  ..........  ..........
 & IL...............................
SWOPE PARK INDUSTRIAL AREA, KANSAS    ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         158
 CITY, MO...........................
WEARS CREEK, JEFFERSON CITY, MO.....           150    ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........

               MONTANA

YELLOWSTONE RIVER CORRIDOR, MT......           200    ..........         250  ..........       1,000  ..........

              NEBRASKA

LOWER PLATTE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES,            130    ..........         175  ..........         175  ..........
 NE.................................

               NEVADA

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING, NV & CA....  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         725  ..........
TRUCKEE MEADOWS, NV.................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       1,500

            NEW HAMPSHIRE

CONNECTICUT RIVER WATERSHED STUDY,    ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         200  ..........
 NH, CT, MA & VT....................
MERRIMACK RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, NH            200    ..........  ..........  ..........         250  ..........
 & MA...............................
PORTSMOUTH HARBOR & PISCATAQUA        ..............  ..........         200  ..........  ..........  ..........
 RIVER, NH..........................

             NEW JERSEY

HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS, HUDSON-                200    ..........         500  ..........  ..........  ..........
 RATITAN, NJ........................
HIGHLANDS, RARITAN BAY & SANDY HOOK   ..............  ..........         200  ..........  ..........  ..........
 BAY, NJ............................
HUDSON RARITAN ESTUARY, HACKENSACK    ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         500  ..........
 MEADOWS, NJ........................
HUDSON RARITAN ESTUARY, LOWER         ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........
 PASSAIC RIVER, NJ..................
LOWER PASSAIC RIVER, HUDSON-RARITAN   ..............  ..........       1,000  ..........  ..........  ..........
 EST., NJ...........................
LOWER SADDLE RIVER, BERGEN COUNTY,    ..............  ..........         250  ..........  ..........         100
 NJ.................................
NEW JERSEY, INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY     ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........          67  ..........
 ENV. RESTORATION, NJ...............
NEW JERSEY SHORE PROTECTION,                   200    ..........         200  ..........         304  ..........
 HEREFORD TO CAPE MAY INLE..........
NEW JERSEY SHORELINE ALT              ..............  ..........         400  ..........         200  ..........
 NOURISHMENT, NJ....................
PASSAIC RIVER, HARRISON, NJ.........  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         250
PECKMAN RIVER BASIN, NJ.............  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         325  ..........
RAHWAY RIVER BASIN, NJ..............  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         125  ..........
RARITAN BAY & SAND HOOK BAY, UNION    ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         125
 BEACH, NJ..........................
RARITAN BAY & SANDY HOOK BAY,         ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         100  ..........
 HIGHLANDS, NJ......................
RARITAN BAY & SANDY HOOK BAY,         ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         100  ..........
 KEYPORT, NJ........................
RARITAN BAY & SANDY HOOK BAY,         ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         125
 LEONARDO, NJ.......................
SHREWSBURY RIVER & TRIBUTARIES, NJ..  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         100  ..........
STONY BROOK, MILLSTONE RIVER BASIN,   ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         150  ..........
 NJ.................................

             NEW MEXICO

EAST MESA, LAS CRUCES, NM...........  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         413  ..........
ESPANOLA VALLEY, RIO GRANDE &         ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         500  ..........
 TRIBUTARIES, NM....................
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE BOSQUE, NM........           200    ..........         300  ..........         300  ..........
NAVAJO NATION, FLOOD PLAIN            ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         500  ..........
 DELINEATION, NM, AZ & UT...........
RIO GRANDE BASIN, NM, CO & TX.......  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         250  ..........
SANTA FE, NM........................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         250  ..........
SOUTHWEST VALLEY, ALBUQUERQUE, NM...  ..............  ..........         225  ..........  ..........         180

              NEW YORK

BRONX RIVER BASIN...................  ..............  ..........         400  ..........  ..........  ..........
CRESCENT BEACH, SOUTH SIDE OF STATEN  ..............  ..........         200  ..........  ..........  ..........
 ISLAND, NY.........................
BUFFALO RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL                    100    ..........         200  ..........         250  ..........
 DREDGING, NY.......................
FLUSHING BAY & CREEK, NY............  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         125
HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, GOWANUS      ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         250  ..........
 CANAL, NY..........................
HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, NY & NJ....           400    ..........         600  ..........         400  ..........
JAMAICA BAY, MARINE PARK & PLUM       ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         250  ..........
 BEACH, NY..........................
LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR, NY.............  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         175  ..........
MONTAUK POINT, NY...................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         250
ONONDAGA LAKE, NY...................  ..............  ..........         750  ..........  ..........  ..........
OSWEGO RIVER BASIN, NY..............  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         100  ..........
SAW MILL RIVER BASIN, WESTCHESTER     ..............  ..........         200  ..........  ..........         200
 COUNTY, NY.........................

           NORTH CAROLINA

BOUGE BANKS, NC.....................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........          48  ..........
CURRITUCK SOUND, NC.................           150    ..........  ..........  ..........         150  ..........
NEUSE RIVER BASIN, NC...............           150    ..........         150  ..........         150  ..........
SURF CITY & NORTH TOPSAIL, NC.......  ..............  ..........         100  ..........         200  ..........

                OHIO

CUYAHOGA RIVER BULKHEAD STUDY, OH...  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         421  ..........
MAHONING RIVER, OH, ENVIRONMENTAL     ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         500
 DREDGING PROJECT...................
OHIO RIVERFRONT, CINCINNATI, OH.....  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       1,000
WESTERN LAKE ERIE, OH...............  ..............  ..........         300  ..........  ..........  ..........
WHEELING CREEK, OH WATERSHED          ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         400  ..........
 ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION..............
WOLF CREEK WATERSHED, OH............  ..............  ..........  ..........         200  ..........  ..........

              OKALHOMA

GRAND (NEOSHO) RIVER BASIN, OK, KS,   ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         100  ..........
 MO & AR............................
GRAND LAKE COMPREHENSIVE STUDY, OK..  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         250  ..........
OOLOGAH LAKE WATERSHED, OK & KS.....  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         250  ..........
SE OKLAHOMA STUDY, OK...............  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         150  ..........
SPAVINAW CREEK WATERSHED, OK & AR...  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         100  ..........
WASHITA RIVER BASIN, OK.............  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........          50  ..........
WISTER LAKE WATERSHED, OK...........  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         119  ..........

               OREGON

AMAZON CREEK, OR....................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         250  ..........
LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM                 100    ..........         200  ..........         100  ..........
 RESTORATION, OR & WA...............
WALLA WALLA RIVER WATERSHED, OR & WA  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         650  ..........
WILLAMETTE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL        ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         250  ..........
 DREDGING, OR.......................
WILLAMETTE RIVER FLOODPLAIN           ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         436  ..........
 RESTORATION, OR....................

            PENNSYLVANIA

CHRISTINA RIVER WATERSHED, PA, DE, &  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         250  ..........
 MD.................................
DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE,   ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         175  ..........
 PA.................................
DELAWARE RIVER DEEPENING DREDGED      ..............  ..........  ..........         250  ..........  ..........
 MATERIAL UTILIZATION, PA, DE, NJ...
SCHUYLKILL RIVER BASIN, WISSAHICKON   ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         100  ..........
 CREEK BASIN, PA....................
UPPER OHIO NAVIGATION STUDY, PA.....  ..............  ..........       1,300  ..........       2,500  ..........

            RHODE ISLAND

RHODE ISLAND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION    ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         250  ..........
 STUDY, RI..........................

           SOUTH CAROLINA

EDISTO ISLAND, SC...................           100    ..........         200  ..........         100  ..........
PAWLEYS ISLAND, SC..................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         109

            SOUTH DAKOTA

WATERTOWN & VICINITY, SD............  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         450
CANYON LAKE DAM, RAPID CITY, SD.....  ..............  ..........  ..........         100  ..........  ..........
JAMES RIVER, SD.....................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         602  ..........

              TENNESSEE

MILL CREEK WATERSHED, DAVIDSON                 150    ..........         150  ..........         150  ..........
 COUNTY, TN.........................
NASHVILLE RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT,     ..............  ..........  ..........         600  ..........  ..........
 DAVISON COUNTY, TN.................
TENNESSEE-CUMBERLAND RIVERS SYSTEM    ..............  ..........  ..........         200  ..........  ..........
 STUDY, TN..........................

                TEXAS

BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, BROWNSVILLE              500    ..........         500  ..........         500  ..........
 CHANNEL, TX........................
BUFFALO BAYOU, TX...................  ..............  ..........         200  ..........  ..........  ..........
BUFFALO BAYOU & TRIBS, WHITE OAK      ..............  ..........         200  ..........  ..........  ..........
 BAYOU, TX..........................
CEDAR BAYOU, TX.....................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         647
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX.....  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         114
FREEPORT HARBOR, TX.................           500    ..........         500  ..........         500  ..........
GIWW, VICINITY OF PORT ISABEL, TX...  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         500  ..........
GREENS BAYOU, TX....................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         200
GUADALUPE AND SAN ANTONIO RIVER                300    ..........         650  ..........  ..........  ..........
 BASINS, TX.........................
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN, TX......           300    ..........         400  ..........         500  ..........
LOWER COLORADO RIVER, WHARTON &       ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       1,000
 ONION CREEKS, TX...................
LOWER SAN ANTONIO RIVER BASIC (TRI-   ..............  ..........         300  ..........  ..........  ..........
 COUNTY), TX........................
MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX..........  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         400  ..........
MIDDLE BRAZOS RIVER, TX.............  ..............  ..........         325  ..........  ..........  ..........
NORTHWEST EL PASO, TX...............  ..............  ..........         200  ..........  ..........  ..........
NUECES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, TX....           250    ..........         250  ..........         400  ..........
RAYMONDVILLE DRAIN, TX..............  ..............  ..........         300  ..........  ..........         300
RESACAS AT BROWNSVILLE, TX..........  ..............  ..........         250  ..........  ..........  ..........
RIO GRANDE BASIN, TX................            50    ..........          50  ..........          50  ..........
SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX..........           400    ..........         400  ..........         400  ..........
SABINE PASS TO GALVESTON BAY, TX....           270    ..........         300  ..........         600  ..........
SPARKS ARROYO COLONIA, EL PASO        ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         125  ..........
 COUNTY, TX.........................
TEXAS CITY CHANNEL (50-FOOT           ..............         900  ..........  ..........  ..........         900
 PROJECT), TX.......................
UPPER TRINITY RIVER, TX.............  ..............  ..........       1,600  ..........  ..........  ..........

                UTAH

PARK CITY WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
 PROJECT SUMMIT COUNTY, UTAH........
                                      ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         500  ..........

              VIRGINIA

AIWW BRIDGES AT DEEP CREEK, VA......  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         289
CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINE EROSION,               39    ..........          39  ..........          39  ..........
 MATHEWS COUNTY, VA.................
CLINCH RIVER WATERSHED, WISE, LEE,    ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         275  ..........
 SCOTT, DICKENSON...................
DISMAL SWAMP AND DISMAL SWAMP CANAL,            62    ..........          62  ..........         152  ..........
 VA.................................
ELIZABETH RIVER BASIN, ENV            ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         175  ..........
 RESTORATION, VA (PHASE II).........
ELIZABETH RIVER, HAMPTON ROADS, VA..  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         193
FOUR MILE RUN, VA...................  ..............  ..........         800  ..........  ..........  ..........
JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA &            300    ..........         300  ..........  ..........  ..........
 NC (SEC 216).......................
LYNNHAVEN RIVER BASIN, VA...........           349    ..........         349  ..........         403  ..........
MIDDLE POTOMAC, CAMERON/HOLMES RUN,   ..............  ..........         400  ..........  ..........  ..........
 VA.................................
NORFOLK HARBOR & CHANNELS, CRANEY     ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         175       2,000
 ISLAND, VA.........................
PHILPOT LAKE, VA....................  ..............  ..........         225  ..........  ..........  ..........
POWELL RIVER WATHERSHED, VA.........  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         300  ..........
VICINITY OF WILLOUGHBY SPIT, VA.....  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         403

             WASHINGTON

CENTRALIA, WA.......................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         150
ELLIOT BAY SEAWALL, WA..............  ..............  ..........         225  ..........         500  ..........
GRAYS HARBOR AT CHEHALIS RIVER, WA..  ..............  ..........         325  ..........  ..........  ..........
LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA......  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........         400  ..........
PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE MARINE HABITAT           400    ..........         500  ..........       1,500  ..........
 RESTORATION, WA....................
SKAGIT RIVER, WA....................  ..............  ..........         200  ..........         300  ..........
SKOKOMISH RIVER, WA.................  ..............  ..........         325  ..........  ..........  ..........

            WEST VIRGINIA

CHERRY RIVER BASIN, WV..............  ..............  ..........  ..........         150  ..........  ..........
LITTLE KANAWHA RIVER, WV............  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........          88         300
PARKERSBURG/VIENNA RIVERFRONT PARK,   ..............  ..........         325  ..........  ..........  ..........
 WV.................................
UPPER GUYANDOTTE RIVER BASIN, WV....  ..............  ..........  ..........         150  ..........  ..........

              WISCONSIN

ST CROIX RIVER RELOCATION OF          ..............  ..........         325  ..........         325  ..........
 ENDANGERED MUSSELS, WI.............
ST CROIX RIVER, WI & MN.............  ..............  ..........         250  ..........  ..........  ..........

               WYOMING

BEAR RIVER FEASIBILITY STUDY, WY....  ..............  ..........  ..........         100  ..........  ..........

            MISCELLANEOUS

COASTAL FIELD DATA COLLECTION.......         1,400    ..........       1,400  ..........       4,900  ..........
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STUDIES..........            50    ..........          50  ..........          50  ..........
FLOOD DAMAGE DATA...................           220    ..........         220  ..........         220  ..........
FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES.....         5,625    ..........       6,200  ..........      11,741  ..........
HYDROLOGIC STUDIES..................           250    ..........         250  ..........         250  ..........
INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES.........           200    ..........         200  ..........         200  ..........
NATIONAL INVENTORY OF FLOOD/STORM           20,000    ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
 DAMAGE REDUCTION PRO...............
NATIONAL SHORELINE STUDY............           375    ..........         375  ..........         375  ..........
OTHER COORDINATION PROGRAMS.........         3,673    ..........       3,673  ..........       4,273  ..........
PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES.......         4,550    ..........       4,550  ..........       6,300  ..........
PRECIPITATION STUDIES (NATIONAL                225    ..........         225  ..........         225  ..........
 WEATHER SERVICE)...................
REMOTE SENSING/GEOGRAPHIC                      150    ..........         150  ..........         150  ..........
 INFORMATION SYSTEM SUPPORT.........
REPROGRAMMING INVESTMENT FUND.......  ..............  ..........      15,000  ..........  ..........  ..........
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT............        15,200    ..........      17,734  ..........      35,000  ..........
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION            50    ..........          50  ..........          50  ..........
 CENTERS............................
STREAM GAGING (U.S. GEOLOGICAL                 600    ..........         600  ..........         600  ..........
 SURVEY)............................
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS..............           350    ..........         350  ..........         350  ..........
TRI-SERVICE CADD/GIS TECHNOLOGY                350    ..........         350  ..........         350  ..........
 CENTER.............................
USE OF PRIOR YEAR BALANCES..........  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........        -961  ..........
SAVINGS & SLIPPAGE..................  ..............  ..........  ..........  ..........     -20,210  ..........
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................        90,057         3,943     128,000       4,289     118,732      45,506
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      GRAND TOTAL...................        94,000    ..........     128,000     168,517  ..........  ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Atka Harbor, Alaska.--The Committee recommended $200,000 to 
initiate this reconnaissance study.
    DeLong Mountain Harbor, Alaska.--The Committee provided 
$100,000 to complete feasibility studies and $400,000 to 
initiate preconstruction engineering and design.
    Kenai River Bluff Erosion, Alaska.--The Committee 
recommended $400,000 to continue technical studies of the 
erosion problems.
    Lower Mississippi River Resource Assessment, Arkansas, 
Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and 
Tennessee.--The Committee recommends $250,000 to initiate an 
expanded reconnaissance study. The study will include three 
assessments: (1) a list which identifies data gaps in 
information needed for river-related management; (2) an 
assessment of natural resource habitat needs; and (3) a needs 
assessment for river-related recreation access.
    May Branch, Fort Smith, Arkansas.--$250,000 is provided to 
execute a design agreement and initiate preconstruction 
engineering and design.
    Red River Navigation, Southwest Arkansas, Arkansas and 
Louisiana.--The Committee recommends $400,000 to initiate 
preconstruction engineering and design.
    Coyote Creek Watershed, California.--The Committee included 
$100,000 to initiate reconnaissance studies.
    Los Angeles River Watercourse Improvement, Headworks, 
California.--$562,000 is provided to complete the feasibility 
studies.
    Malibu Creek Watershed, California.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $608,000 to complete the feasibility 
study.
    Morro Bay Estuary, California.--$275,000 is provided to 
complete the feasibility study.
    San Clemente Shoreline, California.--The Committee included 
$329,000 to complete the feasibility study.
    Fountain Creek and Tributaries, Colorado.--The Committee 
provided $449,000 to complete the feasibility study.
    Boulder Creek, Greeley, Colorado.--The Committee included 
$100,000 to initiate this reconnaissance study. The Committee 
notes that studies were initiated under the Continuing 
Authorities Program, but that the scope of the study was 
considered to large for the program.
    Beneficial Use of Dredged Material in Delaware Estuary, 
Delaware.--$125,000 is provided to initiate the reconnaissance 
study. The study will be coordinated closely with ongoing 
efforts that are being undertaken by the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania in using dredged material to alleviate acid mine 
drainage concerns.
    Flagler County, Florida.--$250,000 is provided to continue 
feasibility studies for shore damage reduction. The Committee 
notes that recent storms have begun to threaten the county's 
major evacuation route to State Road A1A.
    Walton County, Florida.--$553,000 is provided to complete 
the preconstruction, engineering and design phase. This study 
is a test bed for the Institute of Water Resources Hurricane 
and Storm Damage Reduction model.
    Waialua-Kaiaka Watershed Restoration Study, Oahu, Hawaii.--
The Committee provided $200,000 to initiate the reconnaissance 
study to investigate the comprehensive scope and extensive 
water resource problems in the watershed.
    Boise River, Idaho.--The Committee provided a total of 
$330,000 for study efforts on this project. $44,000 is to 
complete the reconnaissance phase with the remainder to be used 
to initiate a cost shared feasibility study.
    Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway Navigation 
System, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin.--
The Committee recommendation includes $20,000,000 for 
continuation of preconstruction engineering and design studies. 
The Committee recognizes the need to modernize this more than 
60-year-old navigation system and has provided continued 
funding for both structural design and environmental 
restoration work.
    Cedar Rapids, Iowa.--The Committee provided $150,000 to 
initiate a cost-shared feasibility study. Reconnaissance level 
studies were completed under the Continuing Authorities 
Program, however, the scope of the proposed project exceeds the 
limits of the Continuing Authorities Program.
    Marion Reservoir Watershed Ecosystem Restoration, Kansas.--
This feasibility study is an interim under the Grand (Neosho) 
River Basin. The Committee provided $150,000 for this study.
    Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration, Louisiana.--
The Committee provides $15,000,000 for these important studies. 
The Committee has elected not to fund a separate Science and 
Technology line item under this study and directs the Corps not 
to include this line item in the fiscal year 2008 budget. This 
line item appears to be an attempt to fund other Federal 
agencies to undertake science activities that are not being 
funded within those agencies. If the administration believes 
this is worthwhile science, then they should budget for this 
work under the appropriate agency. The Committee recommendation 
is $10,000,000 less than the request as it is the Committee's 
understanding that approximately that amount will be carried 
over into fiscal year 2007 due to delays in the study. Any 
funds from the fiscal year 2006 appropriation that remain 
unexpended in the Science and Technology line should be 
utilized on advancing the study not science activities.
    West Pearl Navigation, Louisiana and Mississippi.--$100,000 
is provided to initiate reconnaissance studies to deauthorize 
this antiquated navigation project. The project has been in 
caretaker status for more than 10 years.
    Eastern Shore-Chesapeake Bay Marshlands, Maryland 
(Blackwater Wildlife Refuge).--The Committee recommendation 
includes $425,000 for this study that was initiated under the 
Continuing Authorities Program in fiscal year 2006. $100,000 is 
to complete the reconnaissance phase with the remainder to 
initiate the feasibility phase.
    Ecorse Creek, Michigan.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $300,000 for the preconstruction engineering and 
design phase to initiate the general reevaluation report.
    Great Lakes Navigational System, Michigan, Illinois, 
Indiana, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and 
Wisconsin.--The funds provided are to be used to complete the 
supplement to the reconnaissance report of Great Lakes St. 
Lawrence Seaway Navigation Study, which, based on previous 
agreement between the secretary, the ministry of transportation 
Canada, and the Secretary of the U.S. Department of 
Transportation, is to be limited in scope to evaluating the 
economic, engineering and environmental impacts of maintaining 
the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway at current size draft and 
length of locks. The secretary is directed to complete the 
supplemental report by September 2007, 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.
    Roseau, Minnesota.--$326,000 is included to complete 
preconstruction engineering and design.
    Kansas Citys, Missouri and Kansas.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $750,000 for this effort. $250,000 is 
included for completion of the feasibility phase and $500,000 
is for initiation of preconstruction engineering and design.
    Missouri River Degradation, Mile 340 to 400, Missouri and 
Kansas.--The Committee included $300,000 to initiate an 
expanded Reconnaissance Study. The Missouri River in this reach 
has experienced significant degradation or downcutting of the 
river bed. There is a strong indication that this degradation 
could impact navigation, flood control and other infrastructure 
in the area.
    Yellowstone River Corridor, Montana.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $1,000,000 to complete topographic 
mapping for the study.
    New Jersey Shore Protection, Hereford Inlet to Cape May 
Inlet, New Jersey.--The Committee included $104,000 over the 
budget request to complete the preconstruction engineering and 
design phase of this study.
    Mahoning River, Ohio.--$500,000 is included to complete the 
preconstruction engineering and design phase.
    Walla Walla River Basin, Oregon and Washington.--$650,000 
is provided to prepare and release the draft feasibility 
report/environmental impact statement for public review.
    Cedar Bayou, Texas.--$647,000 are provided to complete 
preconstruction engineering and design.
    Matagorda Ship Channel, Texas.--$400,000 is provided to 
continue the major rehabilitation study of the safety and 
reliability of the jettied entrance to the channel.
    Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Bridge Replacement at Deep 
Creek, Chesapeake, Virginia.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $289,000 to complete the preconstruction engineering 
and design phase.
    Dismal Swamp and Dismal Swamp Canal, Chesapeake, 
Virginia.--$152,000 is provided to complete the final 
feasibility study for Phase I and to develop the draft 
feasibility study for Phase II.
    Vicinity of Willoughby Spit, Norfolk, Virginia.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $403,000 to complete the 
preconstruction engineering and design phase.
    Bear River, Wyoming.--$100,000 is provided for 
reconnaissance studies for flood control and environmental 
restoration in the Bear River Basin above Bear Lake.
    National Inventory of Flood/Storm Damage Reduction 
Projects.--No funds have been provided for this effort as 
$30,000,000 was provided via supplemental appropriations to 
initiate this effort in December 2005. The Committee is 
supportive of this effort; however, the Committee believes that 
the scope of this study effort is poorly defined. The Committee 
notes that this study effort consumes a large portion of the 
General Investigations budget over the next 5 years, yet it is 
unclear what the outputs of the study will be. The Committee 
recommends that the administration better define the scope of 
the study and the intended outputs before additional funds are 
provided. The Committee believes that providing additional 
resources to Flood Plain Management Services and Planning 
Assistance to States might achieve the same goals at a lower 
cost.
    Other Coordination Programs.--Within the funds provided, 
$600,000 is provided for Lake Tahoe coordination activities.
    Planning Assistance to States.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $6,300,000 for this nationwide program. 
Within the funds provided, $500,000 is for Kansas River Basin 
Watershed and Streamways, Kansas; $110,000 is for Ground Water 
Study, Greene County, Missouri; $150,000 is for Repaupo 
Watershed Flooding, New Jersey; $200,000 is for the Delaware 
Estuary Salinity Modeling Study, New Jersey and Delaware; 
$59,000 to complete the Mangum Lake, Oklahoma, Phase V; 
$253,000 to complete the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan, 
Oklahoma; $75,000 to complete the Bartlesville Water Supply 
Study, Oklahoma; $23,000 to complete the Port of Siuslaw, 
Oregon-Dredged Material Placement Study; $200,000 is for the 
Memphis Riverfront Development, Tennessee, N Phase 3; and 
$60,000 is for the Flood Control and Storm Water Management, 
Chesapeake, Virginia.
    Coastal Field Data Collection.--The Committee has provided 
$4,900,000 for this nationwide program. Within the funds 
provided $1,000,000 for the Coastal Data Information Program; 
$1,000,000 for the Southern California Beach Processes Study; 
$750,000 is for the Surge and Wave Island Modeling Studies, 
Hawaii; and $750,000 is for the Pacific Island Land Ocean 
Typhoon Experiment Program.
    Flood Plain Management Services Program.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $11,741,000. Within the funds provided 
$200,000 for White Clay Creek, Delaware; $500,000 is for 
Albany, Georgia; $1,000,000 is for Hurricane Evacuation 
Studies, Hawaii; $205,000 is for Kaaawa, Hawaii; $50,000 is for 
Waikapu, Hawaii; $50,000 is for Wailuku, Hawaii; $300,000 is 
for Will County, Illinois; $161,000 is for East Baton Rouge 
Parish, Louisiana; $1,000,000 is for Livingston Parish, 
Louisiana; and $1,900,000 is for Papillion Creek Watershed, 
Nebraska.
    Research and Development.--The Committee has included 
$35,000,000 for the Corps nationwide research and development 
programs. The Committee believes that this is an important area 
of the Corps' program that should be supported and has provided 
$19,800,000 above the budget request. Within the funds provided 
$1,000,000 is provided for submerged aquatic vegetation 
research in the Chesapeake Bay; $1,500,000 is provided for the 
Center for Computer Assisted Dispute Resolution [CADRE] within 
the Institute for Water Resources to undertake research, 
development, training and application activities consistent 
with the mission stated by the Office of Science and Technology 
Policy, Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality for 
collaborative tools and processes for U.S. water solutions in 
partnership with the Bureau of Reclamation, the Environmental 
Protection Agency, the Department of Energy and its research 
laboratories, and other Federal and non-Federal parties to 
develop solutions to water availability and quality problems 
through public participation and collaboration processes, 
decision-support computer technologies, and techniques for 
integrating these within various water contexts using tools 
that include portable, physical and social simulation modules, 
software to link existing water management software, as well as 
interfaces for both collaborative model development and 
displaying modeling results and tradeoffs; $1,000,000 is 
provided for the Southwest Flood Damage Development and 
Demonstration program to be conducted in close coordination and 
cooperation with the New Mexico District Office, the University 
of New Mexico and Sandia National Laboratories; $2,000,000 is 
provided for innovative technology demonstrations for urban 
flooding and channel restoration in 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; and 
$1,500,000 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.

                         CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL

Appropriations, 2006..................................\1\ $2,348,280,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................   1,555,000,000
House allowance.........................................   1,947,171,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,042,429,000

\1\ Excludes emergency appropriations of $650,817,000

    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 Committee has previously stated its rejection of the 
administration's proposal to move projects from this account to 
the Operations and Maintenance account. Due to constrained 
funding, the Committee reduced the requested amounts for some 
administration projects. This should not be perceived as a lack 
of support for any of these projects, rather it is an attempt 
by the Committee to balance out the program across the Nation 
and fund most of the more than 500 projects or studies that 
were funded by Congress in the fiscal year 2006 Energy and 
Water Appropriations Act but were not addressed by the 
administration proposal.
    Even with a more than $400,000,000 increase to the Corps' 
accounts, the Committee is unable to address all of the needs. 
By the Committee's estimate, only about 55-60 percent of the 
needed funding is available for this account. Construction 
schedules will slip due to this constrained funding. This will 
result in deferred benefits to the national economy. The 
Committee does not believe that we can prioritize our way out 
of this problem. Adequate resources have been denied for too 
long. Only providing adequate resources for these national 
investments will resolve this situation.
    The Committee has included a limited number of new 
construction starts as well as provided completion funding for 
a number of projects. As in the General Investigations account, 
the Committee has embraced the traditional view of new starts. 
New starts are generally defined as those projects that have 
not received Construction, General funding in the past. The 
Committee has included all of the administration's proposed new 
construction starts, including the major rehabilitation 
projects that were proposed for funding in the Operations and 
Maintenance account.
    The appropriation provides funds for the Continuing 
Authorities Program (projects which do not require specific 
authorizing legislation), which includes projects for flood 
control (section 205), emergency streambank and shoreline 
protection (section 14), beach erosion control (section 103), 
mitigation of shore damages (section 111), navigation projects 
(section 107), snagging and clearing (section 208), aquatic 
ecosystem restoration (section 206), beneficial uses of dredged 
material (section 204), and project modifications for 
improvement of the environment (section 1135).
    The budget request, the House allowance 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...............................................           2,069           2,600           2,069
TUSCALOOSA, AL..................................................  ..............  ..............           5,000
WALTER F GEORGE POWERPLANT, AL & GA (REPLACEMENT)...............           5,000           5,000           5,000

                             ALASKA

AKUTAN HARBOR, AK...............................................  ..............  ..............           9,000
ALASKA COASTAL EROSION, AK......................................  ..............  ..............           5,000
CHIGNIK HARBOR, AK..............................................           5,000  ..............           5,000
FALSE PASS HARBOR. AK...........................................  ..............  ..............             500
HAINES HARBOR, AK...............................................  ..............  ..............           1,000
NOME HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS, AK....................................  ..............  ..............           3,000
SAND POINT HARBOR, AK...........................................           3,500           3,500           5,500
SITKA BREAKWATER, AK............................................  ..............  ..............           6,300
ST. PAUL HARBOR, AK.............................................  ..............  ..............           3,000
UNALASKA HARBOR, AK.............................................  ..............  ..............          10,000

                             ARIZONA

NOGALES, AZ.....................................................  ..............           1,000           3,000
RIO DEL FLAG, FLAGSTAFF, AZ.....................................  ..............           1,500           3,000
RIO SALADA, PHOENIX AND TEMPE REACHES, AZ.......................  ..............           8,400  ..............
TRES RIOS, AZ...................................................  ..............           2,000  ..............
TUCSON DRAINAGE AREA, PIMA COUNTY, AZ...........................  ..............           2,000           4,000

                            ARKANSAS

MONTGOMERY POINT LOCK AND DAM, AR...............................          14,000          14,000          13,000
MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR & OK........  ..............             300  ..............
RED RIVER BELOW DENISON DAM, LA, AR, OK, & TN...................  ..............  ..............           2,500
RED RIVER EMERGENCY BANK PROTECTION, AR & LA....................  ..............  ..............           4,000

                           CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (COMMON FEATURES), CA..................  ..............  ..............          17,400
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM MINI RAISE), CA............  ..............  ..............          23,400
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM MODIFICATION), CA..........  ..............  ..............           6,000
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CA....................................          46,800          49,800  ..............
CALFED LEVEE STABILITY PROGRAM, CA..............................  ..............  ..............           6,000
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CA.......................................  ..............           1,000  ..............
CITY OF CORONADO TRANSBAY PROJECT, CA...........................  ..............  ..............             500
CORTE MADERA CREEK, CA..........................................  ..............             200             200
FARMINGTON GROUNDWATER, CA......................................  ..............             300  ..............
GUADALUPE RIVER, CA.............................................           5,000           6,700           3,000
HAMILTON AIRFIELD WETLANDS RESTORATION, CA......................          11,700          11,700          10,000
HARBOR/SOUTH BAY WATER RECYCLING PROJECT, CA....................  ..............             800           4,000
HEACOCK & CACTUS CHANNELS.......................................  ..............             900  ..............
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA............................           5,564           5,564           5,564
LOS ANGELES HARBOR DEEPENING, CA................................  ..............           2,000           1,000
MID-VALLEY AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA........................  ..............  ..............             475
MURRIETA CREEK, CA..............................................  ..............           2,000           2,000
NAPA RIVER, CA..................................................           9,000          11,000          11,000
OAKLAND HARBOR (50 FOOT PROJECT), CA............................          43,500          43,500          36,000
PETALUMA RIVER, CA..............................................  ..............           3,200  ..............
PLACER COUNTY SUB-REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT, CA.............  ..............           2,000  ..............
PORT OF LONG BEACH (DEEPENING), CA..............................           5,700  ..............           5,000
SACRAMENTO AREA, CA.............................................  ..............           7,000  ..............
SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION PROJECT, CA....................          10,960          15,000          10,960
SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL........................  ..............  ..............             500
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TO STOCKTON, CA...............................  ..............  ..............             700
SAN LORENZO RIVER, CA...........................................  ..............             500  ..............
SAN LUIS REY, CA................................................  ..............  ..............           1,000
SAN RAMON VALLEY RECYCLED WATER, CA.............................  ..............  ..............           3,000
SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA....................................          54,080          56,080          46,000
SANTA MARIA RIVER LEVEE, CA.....................................  ..............  ..............             300
SOUTH PERRIS PROJECT, CA........................................  ..............           2,000  ..............
SOUTH SACRAMENTO COUNTY STREAMS, CA.............................           7,313           9,700           7,313
STOCKTON METRO FLOOD CONTROL REIMBURSE, CA......................  ..............           1,500  ..............
SUCCESS DAM, TULE RIVER, CA (DAM SAFETY)........................          25,000          25,000          25,000
SURFSIDE-SUNSET-NEWPORT BEACH, CA \1\...........................  ..............           1,200           1,200
UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER, CA.......................................  ..............  ..............           1,000
UPPER NEWPORT, CA...............................................  ..............           5,000           5,000
YUBA BASIN, CA..................................................  ..............           1,500           1,500

                            DELAWARE

DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, ROOSEVELT INLET TO LEWES \1\............  ..............              60              60
DELAWARE COAST, BETHANY BEACH TO SOUTH BETHATNY BEACH...........  ..............  ..............           3,000
DELAWARE COAST, CAPE HENLOPEN TO FENWICK ISLAND, DE.............  ..............  ..............             120
DELAWARE COAST, CAPE HENLOPEN TO FENWICK ISLAND, REHOBETH BEACH/  ..............  ..............             100
 DEWEY BEACH, DE................................................
DELAWARE COAST PROTECTION, DE...................................  ..............  ..............             360

                      DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WASHINGTON, DC & VICINITY.......................................             320  ..............             320

                             FLORIDA

BREVARD COUNTY SHORE PROTECTION PROJECT, FL (GRR)...............  ..............  ..............             315
BREVARD COUNTY, FL (CANAVERAL HARBOR) \1\.......................  ..............          10,000           8,000
BROWARD COUNTY, FL..............................................  ..............             750             750
CEDAR HAMMOCK, WARES CREEK, FL..................................           6,000           6,000           6,000
CENTRAL & SOUTH FLORIDA.........................................  ..............  ..............          55,000
DADE COUNDY, FL.................................................  ..............  ..............           1,500
EVERGLADES & SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION................  ..............  ..............           8,289
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY, FL..................................  ..............           1,300           3,000
FORT PIERCE BEACH, FL...........................................  ..............  ..............           1,500
HERBERT HOOVER DIKE, FL (SEEPAGE CONTROL).......................          39,884          39,884          39,884
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL.........................................  ..............             200             500
KISSIMMEE RIVER, FL.............................................  ..............  ..............          40,000
LAKE WORTH SAND TRANSFER PLANT, FL \1\..........................  ..............           2,000           2,000
LEE COUNTY, FL..........................................  ..............  ..............           1,500
MIAMI HARBOR, FL................................................  ..............  ..............             500
NASSAU COUNTY, FL...............................................  ..............           6,500           6,000
PINELLAS COUNTY, FL \1\.........................................  ..............           1,000  ..............
PONCE DE LEON INLET, FL.........................................  ..............  ..............           1,000
PORT EVERGLADES, FL.............................................  ..............             250             250
SOUTH FLORIDA EVERGLADES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL..............         164,000         164,000  ..............
ST JOHNS COUNTY, FL \1\.........................................  ..............             200             200
ST LUCIE INLET, FL..............................................  ..............           1,000           1,000
TAMPA HARBOR, BIG BEND, FL......................................           8,500           8,500           7,500
TAMPA HARBOR, SUTTON CHANNEL, FL................................  ..............  ..............           1,000

                             GEORGIA

ATLANTA, GA (EI)................................................  ..............  ..............           1,000
BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA............................................  ..............          19,700          15,000
OATES CREEK, AUGUSTA, GA (DEF CORR).............................  ..............             750             750
RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA & SC.........................           4,600  ..............           4,600
TYBEE ISLAND, GA................................................  ..............           2,000           2,000

                             HAWAII

HAWAII WATER MANAGEMENT, HI.....................................  ..............  ..............           1,500
IAO STREAM FLOOD CONTROL, MAUI, HI (DEF CORR)...................  ..............  ..............             300
KIKIAOLA SMALL BOAT HARBOR, KAUAI, HI...........................  ..............  ..............          14,500

                              IDAHO

RURAL IDAHO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE........................  ..............           3,000           4,800

                            ILLINOIS

CHAIN OF ROCKS CANAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL (DEF CORR)..........           6,800           6,800           6,800
CHICAGO SHORELINE, IL...........................................          10,000          10,000          10,000
COOK COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE........................  ..............             750  ..............
DES PLAINES RIVER, IL...........................................           6,000           7,000           6,000
EAST ST LOUIS, IL...............................................           2,960  ..............           2,960
LOCK NO 27, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL (REHAB) \1\...................  ..............           3,400           2,500
LOCK & DAM 24, IL & MO (REHAB) \1\..............................  ..............           3,900           3,000
MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS, IL..............................          45,000          45,000          36,000
NUTWOOD DRAINAGE & LEVEE DISTRICT, IL...........................  ..............  ..............             300
OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL & KY......................         110,000         110,000          90,000
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION, IL, IA, MN, MO &...........          26,800          20,000          16,000
WOOD RIVER DRAINAGE & LEVEE DISTRICT, IL........................  ..............             250  ..............

                             INDIANA

CADY MARSH DITCH, LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, IN......................  ..............           4,000  ..............
CALUMET REGION ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE.....................  ..............           3,500  ..............
INDIANA HARBOR (CONFINED DISPOSAL FACILITY), IN.................  ..............  ..............          15,000
INDIANA SHORELINE, IN...........................................  ..............           1,000  ..............
INDIANAPOLIS, WHITE RIVER (NORTH), IN...........................           2,787  ..............           2,787
INDIANAPOLIS ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE.......................  ..............             500  ..............
JOHN T MEYERS LOCK & DAM, IN & KY...............................  ..............           2,000  ..............
LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, IN........................................          14,000          15,500          12,000
MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN (SEEPAGE CONTROL).........................           6,000           6,000           6,000

                              IOWA

DES MOINES RECREATIONAL RIVER & GREENBELT, IA...................  ..............           6,000           3,000
LOCK & DAM 11, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IA (REHAB) \1\................  ..............          20,300          18,320
LOCK & DAM 19, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IA (REHAB) \1\................  ..............           5,444           5,444
MISSOURI R FISH & WILDLIFE MITIGATION IA, KS, MO, MT, NE, ND, SD  ..............  ..............          54,000
MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, IA, NE, KS & MO....................           2,500  ..............           2,500
PERRY CREEK, IA.................................................           1,500           1,500           1,500

                             KANSAS

TURKEY CREEK BASIN, KS & MO.....................................           4,000           4,000           5,000
TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS (DAM SAFETY)..............................          38,000          38,000          38,000

                            KENTUCKY

GREENUP LOCKS & DAM, OHIO RIVER, KY & OH........................  ..............             200  ..............
KENTUCKY LOCK & DAM, KY.........................................  ..............          10,000          20,000
MARKLAND LOCKS & DAM, KY & IN (REHAB) \1\.......................  ..............           8,000           6,000
MCALPINE LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, KY & IN.....................          70,000          70,000          57,000
METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, BEARGRASS CREEK, KY....................             600             600             600
METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, POND CREEK, KY.........................           3,948           3,948           3,948
ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY (DAM SAFETY ASSURANCE).....................           1,991           1,991           1,991
SOUTHERN & EASTERN KENTUCKY, KY.................................  ..............           1,000  ..............
WOLF CREEK, KY (SEEPAGE CONTROL)................................          31,000          31,000          31,000

                            LOUISIANA

ASCENSION PARISH, LA (EI).......................................  ..............  ..............             375
COMITE RIVER, LA................................................  ..............          15,000           8,000
EAST BATON ROUGE, LA (FC).......................................  ..............           5,000           1,000
EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LA (EI)................................  ..............  ..............             750
IBERIA PARISH, LA (EI)..........................................  ..............  ..............             375
INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL LOCK, LA..........................  ..............          18,000          18,000
J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA.................................           1,500           2,000          15,000
LIVINGSTON PARISH, LA (EI)......................................  ..............  ..............             500
OUACHITA RIVER LEVEES, LA.......................................  ..............  ..............           1,960

                            MARYLAND

ANACOSTIA RIVER & TRIBURARIES, MD & DC..........................  ..............  ..............             308
ASSATEAGUE, MD \1\..............................................  ..............           2,000           2,000
ATLANTIC COAST OF MARYLAND, MD..................................  ..............  ..............             200
CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD & VA.........................  ..............           2,000           2,000
BALTIMORE METRO-GWYNNS FALLS, MD................................  ..............  ..............           1,500
CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM, MD, VA & PA...............  ..............  ..............           1,000
CUMBERLAND, MD..................................................  ..............  ..............             500
LOWER POTOMAC ESTUARY, ST. MARY'S COUNTY, MD....................  ..............  ..............             300
POPLAR ISLAND, MD...............................................  ..............  ..............          13,100

                          MASSACHUSETTS

MUDDY RIVER, BOSTON & BROOKLINE, MA.............................  ..............           1,000           1,000

                            MICHIGAN

GENESSEE COUNTY, MI.............................................  ..............             500             500
GEORGE W. KUHN DRAIN RETENTION FACILITY, MI.....................  ..............  ..............             300
GREAT LAKE FISHERY & ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION......................  ..............  ..............             500
NEGAUNEE, MI....................................................  ..............  ..............             375
SAULT STE. MARIE, MI............................................  ..............           2,200           1,500

                            MINNESOTA

BRECKENRIDGE, MN................................................  ..............           3,000           1,500
MILLE LACS, MN..................................................  ..............           3,000  ..............
NORTHEAST, MN...................................................  ..............           1,000  ..............

                           MISSISSIPPI

DESOTO COUNTY, MS...............................................  ..............           2,000           7,000
JACKSON COUNTY WATER SUPPLY PROJECTS, MS........................  ..............  ..............           5,500
MISSISSIPPI, MS (EI)............................................  ..............  ..............          25,000

                            MISSOURI

BLUE RIVER BASIN, KANSAS CITY, MO...............................           2,000           2,000           2,000
BLUE RIVER CHANNEL, KANSAS CITY, MO.............................           9,750           9,750           9,000
BOIS BRULE, MO..................................................  ..............           1,060           1,560
CAPE GIRARDEAU, MO..............................................  ..............           3,200  ..............
CHESTERFIELD, MO................................................  ..............             150           1,400
CLEARWATER LAKE, MO (SEEPAGE CONTROL)...........................          28,000          28,000          25,000
MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS (REG WORKS), MO..........           7,560           8,560           7,560
MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVER ENHANCEMENT, MO...........  ..............  ..............           1,000
MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, IA, NE, KS & MO (L-142)............  ..............  ..............             100
STE. GENEVIEVE, MO..............................................  ..............  ..............             375

                             MONTANA

FT. PECK DAM & LAKE, MT.........................................  ..............  ..............             800
RURAL MONTANA, MT (EI)..........................................  ..............  ..............           4,200

                            NEBRASKA

ANTELOPE CREEK, LINCOLN, NE.....................................           7,500           7,500           7,500
SAND CREEK WATERSHED, NE........................................  ..............  ..............           1,000
WESTERN SARPY & CLEAR CREEK, NE.................................  ..............  ..............           1,000

                             NEVADA

RURAL NEVADA, NV................................................  ..............             400          25,000
TAHOE BASIN RESTORATION, NV & CA (EI)...........................  ..............  ..............           3,500
TROPICANA AND FLAMINGO WASHES, NV...............................          12,400          12,400          22,000

                           NEW JERSEY

BARNEGAT INLET TO LITTLE EGG HARBOR, NJ.........................           2,500           6,000           2,500
CAPE MAY INLET TO LOWER TOWNSHIP, NJ \1\........................  ..............             360             360
DELAWARE RIVER MAIN HCANNEL, NJ, PA, & DE.......................  ..............  ..............           2,500
GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET & PECK BEACH, NJ.........................  ..............  ..............           2,000
HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS, NJ..............  ..............  ..............             615
JOSEPH G. MINISH PASSAIC RIVER WATERFRONT PARK, NJ..............  ..............  ..............           2,500
LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAY POINT, NJ \1\..................  ..............             130             130
MANASQUAN INLET TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ...........................  ..............             100  ..............
MOLLY ANN'S BROOK AT HALEDON, PROSPECT PARK AND PATERS..........             600             600             600
PASSAIC RIVER PRESERVATION OF NATURAL STORAGE, NJ...............  ..............           4,000           1,800
RAMAPO & MAHAWAH RIVERS, NEW JERSEY & SUFFERN, NY...............  ..............  ..............             500
RAMAPO RIVER AT OAKLAND, NJ.....................................  ..............             455             445
RARITAN BAY & SANDY HOOK BAY, NJ................................  ..............  ..............             250
RARITAN BAY & SANDY HOOK BAY, NJ (PORT MONMOUTH)................  ..............  ..............           1,000
RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREENBROOK, NJ.............................  ..............           5,000           5,000
SANDY HOOK TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ................................  ..............  ..............           3,000
TOWNSENDS INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET, NJ...........................           5,816           5,816           5,000

                           NEW MEXICO

ACEQUIAS IRRIGATION SYSTEM, NM..................................           2,400           2,400           2,400
ALAMOGORDO, NM..................................................           4,200           4,200           4,200
CENTRAL NEW MEXICO, NM (EI).....................................  ..............  ..............           5,000
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE FLOOD PROTECTION, BERNALILLO TO BELEN.........  ..............  ..............             500
NEW MEXICO, NM (EI).............................................  ..............  ..............           5,000
RIO GRANDE FLOODWAY, SAN ACACIA TO BOSQUE DEL APACHE,...........             600             600             800
SW VALLEY, ALBUQUERQUE, NM......................................  ..............  ..............             100

                            NEW YORK

ATLANTIC COAST OF NYC, ROCKAWAY INLET TO NORTON POINT,..........           2,400           2,400           2,400
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY \1\........................  ..............           5,000           5,000
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, NY..........................           2,500           2,500           2,500
JONES INLET TO EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY..........................  ..............             500  ..............
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY & NJ.........................          90,000          90,000          70,000
NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED, NY.....................................  ..............  ..............             750
ONONDAGA LAKE, NY...............................................  ..............           2,000             500
ORCHARD BEACH, BRONX, NY........................................  ..............             250  ..............

                         NORTH CAROLINA

BRUNSWICK COUNTY BEACHES, NC....................................  ..............  ..............             600
CAROLINA BEACH & KURE BEACH, NC.................................  ..............  ..............           1,000
DARE COUNTY BEACHES, NC.........................................  ..............  ..............           2,000
WEST ONSLOW BEACH & RIVER INLET, NC.............................  ..............  ..............             600
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC...........................................  ..............  ..............          10,000
WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NC..........................................  ..............  ..............             300

                          NORTH DAKOTA

BUFORD-TRENTON IRRIGATION DISTRICT LAND AQUISITION, ND..........  ..............  ..............           1,893
DEVILS LAKE WATER SUPPLY........................................  ..............  ..............           4,972
GRAND FORKS, ND--EAST GRAND FORKS, MN...........................          12,018          12,018          12,018
MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION......................................  ..............  ..............             300
SHEYENNE RIVER, ND..............................................           1,740  ..............           1,740

                              OHIO

HOLES CREEK, WEST CARROLLTON, OH................................  ..............  ..............           1,355
LOWER GIRARD DAM, OH............................................  ..............             785  ..............
METROPOLITAN REGION OF CINCINNATI, DUCK CREEK, OH...............           5,650           5,650           5,650
MILL CREEK, OH..................................................             800             800             800
OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE...............................  ..............          18,300  ..............

                            OKLAHOMA

CANTON LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY)....................................           6,000           6,000           6,000

                             OREGON

COLUMBIA RIVER CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS, OR & WA....................          15,000          15,000          15,000
COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY FISHING ACCESS SITES, OR & WA.............           6,300           6,300           6,300
ELK CREEK LAKE, OR..............................................           1,440           1,440           1,440
LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR & WA.............           2,200           2,200           2,000
WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE CONTROL, OR........................  ..............  ..............           2,470

                          PENNSYLVANIA

EMSWORTH L&D, OHIO RIVER, PA (STATIC INSTABILITY CORRE..........          17,000          17,000          15,000
JOHNSTOWN, PA...................................................  ..............             800  ..............
LOCKS AND DAMS 2, 3 AND 4, MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA................          62,772          62,772          51,000
NORTHEAST PENNSYLVANIA, PA......................................  ..............           2,000  ..............
PRESQUE ISLE, PA................................................  ..............             200             620
SAW MILL RUN, PITTSBURGH, PA....................................           2,300  ..............           2,300
SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA, PA..................................  ..............           9,000  ..............
SOUTHEAST PENNSYLVANIA INFRASTRUCTURE, PA.......................  ..............           1,190  ..............
THREE RIVERS WET WEATHER DEMO PROGRAM, PA.......................  ..............  ..............           1,000
WYOMING VALLEY, PA (LEVEE RAISING)..............................           5,600           5,600           5,600

                           PUERTO RICO

ARECIBO RIVER, PR...............................................           8,900           8,900           7,500
PORTUGUES & BUCANA RIVERS, PR...................................  ..............  ..............           5,000
RIO PUERTO NUEVO, PR............................................          25,000          25,000          18,000

                          RHODE ISLAND

FOX POINT HURRICANE BARRIER, RI.................................  ..............  ..............           1,055

                         SOUTH CAROLINA

FOLLY BEACH, SC \1\.............................................  ..............              25              80
LAKES MARION AND MOULTRIE, SC...................................  ..............           7,000  ..............

                          SOUTH DAKOTA

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

                            TENNESSEE

CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TN............................................          27,000          27,000          27,000

                              TEXAS

BRAYS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX........................................          20,000          23,000          17,000
CENTRAL CITY, FORT WORTH, UPPER TRINITY RIVER, TX...............  ..............           6,000             500
CLEAR CREEK, TX.................................................  ..............  ..............           1,000
DALLAS FLOODWAY, TX.............................................  ..............           5,000          13,000
HOUSTON-GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS, TX.......................          43,076          43,076          37,000
JOHNSON CREEK, UPPER TRINITY BASIN, ARLINGTON, TX...............             500             500             500
NORTH PADRE ISLAND, TX..........................................  ..............             500  ..............
RED RIVER BASIN CHLORIDE CONTROL, OK, TX, AR & LA...............  ..............  ..............           1,500
SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL, TX.........................................  ..............           2,350          10,000
SIMS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX.........................................          22,400          22,400          17,850
TEXAS CITY CHANNEL, TX..........................................  ..............  ..............           2,500

                              UTAH

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

                             VERMONT

BURLINGTON HARBOR, VT...........................................  ..............  ..............             500
LAKE CHAMPLAIN WATERSHED, VT....................................  ..............  ..............           3,000
VERMONT DAMS REMEDIATION, VT....................................  ..............  ..............             200

                            VIRGINIA

JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA.........................................  ..............  ..............             425
JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA & NC (REPLACEMENT)............          11,000          11,000          10,000
LAKE MERRIWEATHER, GOSHEN DAM & SPILLWAY, VA....................  ..............  ..............           1,000
LYNCHBURG (CSO), VA.............................................  ..............  ..............             400
NORFOLK HARBOR, VA..............................................  ..............           3,400           1,700
RICHMOND COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW, VA............................  ..............  ..............             400
ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, HEADWATERS AREA, VA..................           8,300           8,300           8,300
SANDBRIDGE, VA..................................................  ..............  ..............           2,000
VIRGINIA BEACH HURRICANE PROTECTION, VA.........................  ..............          11,700           6,000

                           WASHINGTON

CHIEF JOSEPH DAM GAS ABATEMENT, VA..............................  ..............  ..............           8,000
COLUMBIA RIVER FISHING MITIGATION, WA, OR & ID..................  ..............  ..............          83,000
DUWAMISH & GREEN RIVER BASIN, WA................................  ..............  ..............           2,000
HOWARD HANSON DAM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, VA.....................  ..............  ..............          16,658
LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH & WILDLIFE COMPENSATION, WA, OR..........             850             850             850
MT. ST. HELENS, WA..............................................  ..............             500             500
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA (DAM SAFETY)...............................           5,470           5,470           5,470
PUGET SOUND ADJACENT WATER, WA..................................  ..............             500           1,500
SHOALWATER BAY, WA..............................................  ..............  ..............           1,500

                          WEST VIRGINIA

BLUESTONE LAKE, WV (DAM SAFETY).................................          15,200          15,200          15,200
GREENBRIER RIVER BASIN, WV......................................  ..............  ..............           2,500
ISLAND CREEK AT LOGAN, WV.......................................  ..............  ..............             150
LEVISA & TUG FORKS, UPPER CUMBERLAND RIVER, WV, VA, KY..........  ..............          20,000          12,800
LOWER MUD RIVER, WV.............................................  ..............  ..............             750
MARMET LOCK, KANAWHA RIVER, WV..................................          50,800          50,800          50,800
ROBERT C BYRD LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, WV & OH................           1,800           1,800           1,800
SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA, WV......................................  ..............           1,000  ..............
WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD CONTROL, WV & PA...........  ..............             750  ..............
WINFIELD LOCKS AND DAM, KANAWHA RIVER, WV.......................           4,300           4,300           4,300

                            WISCONSIN

NORTHERN WISCONSIN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSISTANCE, WI.................  ..............           8,000  ..............
ST. CROIX FALLS ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, WI................  ..............             500  ..............

                          MISCELLANEOUS

ABANDONED MINE RESTORATION......................................  ..............  ..............             746
AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (SECTION 206).....................          15,100          25,000          25,000
AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROGRAM...................................           3,000           4,000           5,000
BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL--SEC 204/207/933 \1\........  ..............           5,000           4,250
DAM SAFETY AND SEEPAGE/STABILITY CORRECTION PROGRAM.............          11,000          11,000          11,000
DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITY PROGRAM......................  ..............  ..............          18,250
EMERGENCY STREAMBANK AND SHORELINE PROTECTION (SECTION..........           1,330          15,000          12,000
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION..........................................          21,000          21,000          21,000
ESTUARY RESTORATION PROGRAM (PUBLIC LAW 106-457)................           5,000  ..............           5,000
FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 205)............................          16,075          29,933          45,000
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--BOARD EXPENSE.....................              40              40              40
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--CORPS EXPENSE.....................             170             170             170
NAVIGATION MITIGATION PROJECTS (SEC. 111) \1\...................  ..............           2,500           1,250
NAVIGATION PROJECTS (SECTION 107)...............................             845           8,000           8,000
PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONME..........          15,000          25,000          25,000
REPROGRAMMING INVESTMENT FUND...................................  ..............          40,000  ..............
SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT AND DEMO PROGRAM..........  ..............  ..............           5,000
SHORE PROTECTION PROJECTS (SECTION 103).........................             550           2,000           5,000
SNAGGING AND CLEARING PROJECTS (SEC 208)........................  ..............             500             500
SUSPENSION FUND.................................................          41,372  ..............  ..............
TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM......................................  ..............  ..............           1,000
USE OF PRIOR YEAR BALANCES......................................  ..............  ..............          -6,472
REDUCTION FIR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS & SLIPPAGE....................  ..............  ..............         -81,468
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, Construction.......................................       1,555,000       1,947,171       2,042,429
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Project contained in O&M budget request.

    Tuscaloosa, Alabama.--The Committee recommends $5,000,000 
for the relocation project at Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
    Akutan Harbor, Alaska.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $5,000,000 to initiate construction of this project.
    Alaska Coastal Erosion, Alaska.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $5,000,000 for Alaska Coastal Erosion. 
The following communities are eligible recipients of these 
funds: Kivalina, Newtok, Shishmaref, Koyukuk, Point Hope, and 
Unalakleet. Section 117 of Public Law 108-447 will apply to 
this project.
    Unalaska, Alaska.--The Committee provides $10,000,000 to 
initiate construction.
    Tucson Drainage Area, Arizona.--The Committee provides 
$4,000,000 for construction of this project.
    Red River Below Denison Dam, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma 
and Texas.--The Committee provides $2,500,000 to continue levee 
rehabilitation work in Arkansas and Louisiana.
    Red River Emergency Bank Protection, Arkansas and 
Louisiana.--The Committee provides $4,000,000 for bank 
stabilization along the Red River below Index, Arkansas.
    American River Watershed, California.--The Committee has 
chosen not to combine the various, separately authorized, 
components of the project into a single line item as was 
proposed in the budget. The Committee believes that it is 
prudent to maintain visibility of the various project elements 
in the budget process.
    American River Watershed (Folsom Dam Miniraise), 
California.--The Committee provides $23,400,000. Within the 
funds provided, $15,000,000 is for construction of the bridge.
    CALFED Levee Stability Program, California.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $6,000,000 to initiate this program. 
Within the funds provided, the Committee has provided $500,000 
for the Corps to coordinate and complete within 6 months a 
review of Delta levees emergency preparedness and response 
planning with appropriate Federal and State agencies. The 
review will address preparation and response to protect (1) 
life and property within the Delta and (2) statewide interests 
reliant on water and other resources of the Delta, including 
measures to prevent salt water contamination of fresh water 
supplies consistent with the Delta Levee Stability Program High 
Priority, Priority Group A projects.
    Mid Valley Area Levee Reconstruction, California.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $475,000 for a limited 
reevaluation report as well as other necessary studies in 
advance of reconstruction.
    Oakland Harbor, California.--The Committee recommends 
$36,000,000 to continue construction of this project. The 
reduction made to this project should not be viewed as any 
diminution of support for this project, rather an attempt to 
balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide program among the 
various missions of the Corps.
    Santa Ana River, California.--The Committee provides 
$46,000,000 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.
    Upper Guadalupe River, California.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $5,000,000 to continue construction of 
this project.
    Delaware Bay Coastline, Bethany Beach to South Bethany 
Beach, Delaware.--$3,000,000 is provided for construction of 
this shore protection project.
    Delaware Coast, Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island, 
Delaware.--The Committee has included $1,700,000 to continue 
construction of this project.
    Washington, DC and Vicinity, District of Columbia.--The 
Committee provides $320,000 to initiate construction as 
proposed in the budget request.
    Brevard County Shore Protection Project, Florida.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $315,000 for continuation of 
the General Reevaluation Report.
    Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration, 
Florida.--The Committee has chosen not to combine the various, 
separately authorized components of the project into a single 
line item as was proposed in the budget. The Committee believes 
that it is prudent to maintain visibility of the various 
project elements in the budget process. The reduction made to 
the various component projects under this heading should not be 
viewed as any diminution of support for this project, rather an 
attempt to balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide 
program among the various missions of the Corps.
    The Committee has chosen not to fund the $35,000,000 
request for the Modified Waters Delivery Plan as proposed in 
the budget. The Committee does not believe that it is 
appropriate for the Corps to fund this work. 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 has included legislative 
language that limits the Corps of Engineers share of this 
project to the amount previously appropriated.
    The Committee directs the administration to include the 
Modified Waters Delivery Plan funding in the Interior budget in 
future budget submissions.
    Central and South Florida, Florida.--Within the funds 
provided, the Corps shall continue work on the Upper St. Johns 
River project.
    Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements, Florida.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 for continued 
implementation of this project. The Committee urges the 
administration to budget for this project due to the 
interrelationship of this work to the Everglades Restoration 
project, Biscayne Bay and southern Florida's nearshore waters.
    Jacksonville Harbor, Florida.--The Committee has provided 
$500,000 to continue work on the General Reevaluation Report.
    Tampa Harbor, Florida.--$7,500,000 is provided for the Big 
Bend Channel and $1,000,000 is for the Sutton Channel.
    Atlanta, Georgia.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$1,000,000 to continue this project.
    Brunswick Harbor, Georgia.--The Committee includes 
$15,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
    Oates Creek, Richmond County, Georgia.--The Committee 
includes $750,000 to continue construction of this project.
    Tybee Island, Georgia.--The Committee recommendation 
provides $2,000,000 for the next scheduled renourishment.
    Rural Idaho Environmental Infrastructure, Idaho.--The 
Committee provides $4,800,000 for this project. Within the 
funds provided the Corps should give consideration to projects 
at Emmett, Burley, Deary, Rupert, Donnelly, Eastern Idaho 
Regional Water Authority, and Smelterville. Other communities 
that meet the program criteria should be considered as funding 
allows.
    Des Plaines River, Illinois.--The Committee includes 
$6,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
    McCook and Thornton Reservoirs, Illinois.--The Committee 
includes $36,000,000 for continued construction of this 
project. The reduction made to this project should not be 
viewed as any diminution of support for this project, rather an 
attempt to balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide 
program among the various missions of the Corps.
    Olmsted Locks and Dam, Ohio River, Illinois and Kentucky.--
The Committee provides $90,000,000 to continue construction of 
this project. The reduction made to this project should not be 
viewed as any diminution of support for this project, rather an 
attempt to balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide 
program among the various missions of the Corps. None of the 
funds provided for the Olmsted Locks and Dam Project are to be 
used to reimburse the Claims and Judgment Fund.
    Indiana Harbor (Confined Disposal Facility), Indiana.--The 
Committee has retained funding for this project in the 
Construction, General account rather than moving it to the 
Operations and Maintenance account as proposed in the budget.
    Missouri Fish and Wildlife Recovery, Iowa, Kansas, 
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota.--
The Committee provides $54,000,000 for this project. 
Legislative language is included in the bill that accompanies 
this report to make modifications to the Intake Dam in order to 
provide additional habitat for the pallid sturgeon.
    Turkey Creek, Kansas and Missouri.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $5,000,000 to continue construction of 
this project.
    Kentucky Lock and Dam, Tennessee River, Kentucky.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $20,000,000 to continue 
construction of this project.
    McAlpine Locks and Dam, Ohio River, Kentucky and Indiana.--
The Committee has provided $57,000,000 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, Louisiana.--The Committee has 
included $18,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
    J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Louisiana.--The Committee has 
provided $15,000,000 for navigation channel refinement 
features, land purchases and development for mitigation of 
project impacts, and construction of project recreation and 
appurtenant features.
    Ouachita River Levees, Louisiana.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $1,960,000 to complete the project.
    Chesapeake Bay Environmental Program, Maryland, 
Pennsylvania and Virginia.--The Committee has included 
$1,000,000 for continuation of this project. Within the funds 
provided, $118,000 is included to continue the environmental 
studies concerning non-native oysters.
    Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery, Maryland and Virginia.--The 
Committee includes $2,000,000 to continue construction of this 
project.
    Fort Peck Dam and Lake, Montana.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $800,000 for continuation of Fort Peck 
cabin sales.
    Rural Montana, Montana.--The Committee provides $4,200,000 
for this project. Within the funds provided the Corps should 
give consideration to the following projects: Crow Tribe Water 
and Wastewater System, Cabinet Heights Wastewater Collection 
Systems, Helena-Missouri River Water Treatment Plant, Ranch 
Water District, Bigfork, Froid Water System Improvement, Town 
of Medicine Lake, County Water District of Billings Heights, 
Power Water System improvements, Seely Lake Sewer, Greater 
Woods Bay Wastewater System. Other communities that meet the 
program criteria should be considered as funding allows.
    Sand Creek, Nebraska.--The Committee includes $1,000,000 to 
continue construction of this project.
    Rural Nevada, Nevada.--The Committee recommendation 
provides $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, Truckee Meadows Water 
Authority, McGill-Ruth Consolidated Sewer and Water District, 
Carlin, Moapa, Eldorado Valley, Ely and Carson City. Other 
communities that meet the program criteria should be considered 
as funding allows.
    Tropicana and Flamingo Washes, Nevada.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $22,000,000 to continue construction of 
this flood control project. Within the funds provided 
$9,600,000 is provided for work performed in accordance with 
section 211 of Public Law 104-303.
    Ramapo River at Oakland, New Jersey.--$445,000 is included 
for this project.
    Raritan River Basin, Green Brook Sub-basin, New Jersey.--
The Committee includes $5,000,000 to continue construction of 
this project.
    Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey.--The Committee 
provides $3,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
    Acequias Irrigation System, New Mexico.--The Committee 
provides $2,400,000 to continue restoration of these historic 
irrigation distribution systems.
    Central New Mexico, New Mexico.--The Committee includes 
$5,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
    New Mexico [EI], New Mexico.--The Committee includes 
$5,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
    Buford Trenton Irrigation District, North Dakota.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $1,893,000 to complete 
construction of this project.
    Locks and Dams 2, 3, and 4, Monongahela River, 
Pennsylvania.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$51,000,000 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, Pennsylvania.--The Committee provides 
$620,000 to continue this project.
    Big Sioux River, South Dakota.--The Committee includes 
$2,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
    Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux, South 
Dakota.--The Committee notes that title IV of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1999, Public Law 106-53 as 
amended, authorizes funding to pay administrative expenses, 
implementation of terrestrial wildlife plans, activities 
associated with land transferred or to be transferred, and 
annual expenses for operating recreational areas. The Committee 
includes $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, Tennessee.--The Committee provides 
$27,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
    Central City, Fort Worth, Upper Trinity River Basin, 
Texas.--The Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for the 
Central City, Fort Worth, Texas, project. Within the funds 
provided, the conferees direct the Corps of Engineers to 
investigate the technical merits of combining the project with 
the project for environmental restoration, Riverside Oxbow, 
Fort Worth, Texas, described in the Report of the Chief of 
Engineers dated May 29, 2003. In conducting this investigation, 
the Corps of Engineers shall not conduct a feasibility level 
review, but shall investigate the technical advantages, 
environmental acceptability, the opportunities to achieve 
synergy between the two projects and the views of the local 
interests related to combining the projects. The Chief of 
Engineers shall furnish a report containing his findings on 
this matter within 90 days of enactment of this act. While 
conducting this review, the Committee expects the Corps of 
Engineers to continue to pursue design and construction 
activities on the authorized Central City project in an 
expeditious manner, maintaining all established project 
schedules.
    Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas.--The 
Committee provides $37,000,000 for continued construction of 
this project.
    Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas.--The Committee Expects the 
Report of the Chief of Engineers for the Sabine-Neches 
Waterway, Texas project for navigation and other allied 
purposes to be expedited and completed by December 2006.
    Red River Basin Chloride Control, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas 
and Louisiana.--The Committee includes $1,500,000 to continue 
construction.
    Rural, Utah. Utah.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$10,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
    Burlington Harbor, Vermont.--The Committee includes 
$500,000 to initiate removal of oil bollards in the harbor.
    Columbia River Fish Recovery, Washington, Oregon, and 
Idaho.--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 in 
the budget.
    Mud Mountain, Washington.--Within the funds provided, the 
Corps is directed to use up to $1,070,000 to complete final 
design activities associated with the fish passage facilities.
    Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Cumberland 
River, West Virginia, Kentucky and Virginia.--The Committee 
provides $12,800,000 for the continuation of the project. 
Within the funds provided, the Committee recommendation 
includes $5,300,000 for the Buchanan County, Dickenson County, 
and Grundy, Virginia elements. Further, the recommendation 
includes $7,500,000 for Kermit, Lower Mingo County, McDowell 
County, Upper Mingo and Wayne County, West Virginia.
    Aquatic Plant Control Program.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $5,000,000 for this program. Within the 
funds provided, the Committee has provided $600,000 for a cost-
shared program for Lake Gaston, North Carolina and $400,000 for 
a cost-shared program for Lake Champlain, Vermont.
    Dredged Material Disposal Facilities Program.--The 
Committee has retained this program in the Construction, 
General account rather than the Operations and Maintenance 
account as proposed by the budget. $250,000 is provided above 
the budget request for the Wilmington Harbor, Delaware, Dredged 
Material Management Plan.
    Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $5,000,000 for the program. Within the 
funds provided, $3,000,000 is for Morehead City Harbor, North 
Carolina.
    Shore Line Erosion Control Development and Demonstration 
Program.--The Committee provides $5,000,000 for this program. 
Within the funds provided, $3,000,000 is for the Miami Beach 
Alternative Sand Test Beach and Breakwater Project in Florida 
and $2,000,000 is for the Sacred Falls Demonstration project in 
Hawaii.
    Tribal Partnership Program.--The Committee includes 
$350,000 for Nevada for cultural resource restoration on 
historic Washoe lands; $350,000 for New Mexico to further the 
tribal assistance efforts by the Corps in New Mexico and 
$300,000 for work with the Shoshone Bannick Tribes of Fort 
Hall, Idaho.
    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

    As was discussed in the fiscal year 2006 Senate Report, 
when Congress authorized the initial Continuing Authorities in 
the 1940s and 1950s, they were envisioned to provide a small 
pool of money available to the Corps of Engineers to solve very 
small localized problems without being encumbered by the longer 
study and project authorization process. As more programs were 
added to the Continuing Authorities Program [CAP] they became 
increasingly popular with congressional Members and the public. 
More and more congressionally directed projects began to appear 
in the annual appropriations bills. At first these 
congressionally directed projects were added to the base 
program. As more and more of these congressionally directed 
projects came into the program it became difficult for these 
congressionally directed projects to be added to the base, and 
as such, the base program began to shrink. Congressionally 
directed projects now dominate all sections of the CAP Program. 
Congressionally directed projects have proliferated to such an 
extent that several of the sections are over-subscribed.
    The Committee tried to address the oversubscribed nature of 
some of the CAP sections by instituting a moratorium on new 
cost sharing agreements in fiscal year 2006. Unfortunately, 
this moratorium did not have the desired effect and the 
Committee cannot recommend continuing it for fiscal year 2007. 
The Committee now believes that this was a heavy-handed 
approach to solving a problem that needed a more flexible 
solution.
    Prioritization of these projects by the Corps is still 
essential. 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 Agreements. The next priority 
should be for projects with executed design agreements. Third 
priority would be for those with executed feasibility 
agreements. The fourth priority would be for those projects 
progressing from design to construction. The fifth priority 
would be for projects moving from feasibility to design and the 
last priority should be new starts. Priority should be given to 
those projects that have demonstrated capability to move 
forward. This would include having non-Federal financing in 
place and ready to be utilized. The Committee has provided 
limited new starts in each of the sections.
    After fiscal year 2007, the Committee will no longer 
provide any congressional earmarks for the section 14, 
Emergency Bank Stabilization authority. By definition these are 
projects that are estimated to fail within 9-12 months. As an 
``emergency situation'' the Chief of Engineers should have the 
responsibility for determining how these funds are expended in 
the most efficient and effective manner. Budget justifications 
for this section should display the anticipated projects and 
associated costs to be undertaken in the budget year as well as 
the anticipated resources necessary to address emergencies that 
arise in the budget year.
    For fiscal year 2007, the Committee will not provide dollar 
amounts for the projects that are named in the report. The 
Committee directs that the Chief should have 100 percent 
reprogramming flexibility within the various sections of the 
CAP program in order to address the backlog. This reprogramming 
guidance has been addressed in section 101 of the bill 
accompanying this report. The Chief should provide a quarterly 
report to the Committee displaying by CAP section the project 
status and the allocations received by the projects/studies in 
the previous quarter.
    The Committee is concerned that if the Corps adhered 
strictly to the priorities above, that all funding would be 
exhausted for construction. Therefore, in order to provide a 
mix of studies, design and construction within each CAP section 
the Committee directs that funding be generally divided in the 
following manner for each of the CAP sections. These 
percentages should be considered upper limits in each section, 
not absolutes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Percent
              CAP Section                  Available      Available for
                                            Funding        Construction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 103...........................       $5,000,000               75
Section 107...........................        8,000,000               75
Section 1135..........................       25,000,000               70
Section 14............................       12,000,000               80
Sections 204, 207, 933................        4,250,000               75
Section 205...........................       45,000,000               65
Section 206...........................       25,000,000               70
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even though the Committee is providing a listing of 
projects that are of interest, the Corps should develop the 
program based on all of the projects in each section whether 
named or not. Priorities should be based on the factors 
outlined above and should not consider prior year earmarks or a 
listing in this report. The Committee understands that funding 
in some sections may be insufficient to fund all current 
obligations as well as the new projects added by the Committee. 
The Corps is directed not to initiate any new continuing 
authorities projects. Only projects that have been named in 
prior appropriation bills or received prior year funds or are 
listed in this bill should be considered for funding.
    A listing of CAP projects follows:

Section 14, Emergency Bank Stabilization

    Kwethluk, Alaska
    27th St. Bridge, Colorado
    Powers Boulevard, Colorado
    Coal Creek, Monroe County, Iowa
    Iowa River, Sac and Fox Tribe, Iowa
    Ouachita River, City of Monroe, Louisiana
    Tucker Road, East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana
    Quoddy Narrows, South Lubec Road, Lubec, Maine
    Patuxent River, Patuxent Beach Road, Maryland
    Tallahatchie River, Site 3, Tallahatchie County, 
Mississippi
    Partridge Brook, Westmoreland, New Hampshire
    Elizabeth River, Valleyview Road, Hillside, New Jersey
    Mt. Pleasant Ave., Malapardis Brook, Township of Hanover, 
New Jersey
    South Branch Rahway River, Woodbridge, New Jersey
    Fort Abercrombie, North Dakota
    Tuscarawas County Road 1, Ohio
    St. Johns Landfill, Oregon
    City of Sunbury, Pennsylvania--Sunbury Riverfront Project
    New Castle, Pennsylvania (Neshannock Creek)
    Patrick Street to Magic Island, Charleston, West Virginia
    Kenosha Harbor Retaining Wall, Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Kinnickinnic River Storm Sewer, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

Section 103 Shoreline Protection

    Unalakleet, Alaska
    Bay Farm Island Dike, California
    Goleta Beach, California
    Conquest Preserve, Maryland
    Franklin Point Park, Maryland
    Mayo Beach Park, Maryland
    Pleasure Island, Baltimore County, Maryland
    Philadelphia Shipyard Sea Wall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Section 107 Small Navigation Projects

    Kahoolawe Small Boat Harbor, Hawaii
    North Kohala Navigation Improvements, Hawaii
    Port Fourchon Extension, Louisiana
    Bass Harbor, Tremont, Maine
    Bucks Harbor Navigation Improvement, Machiasport, Maine
    Corea Harbor Navigation Improvement, Gouldsboro, Maine
    Nanticoke Harbor Jetty/Nanticoke, Maryland
    Woods Hole Great Harbor, Falmouth, Massachusetts
    Northwestern Michigan College, Traverse City, Michigan
    Coos Bay Turning Basin, Oregon
    Charlestown Breachway and Ninigret Pond, Rhode Island
    Northwest Tennessee Regional Harbor, Tennessee
    Tangier Island Jetty, Accomack County, Virginia

Section 111 Mitigation of Shore Damages Attributable to Navigation 
        Projects

    Saco River and Camp Ellis Beach, Saco, Maine
    Mobile Pass, Alabama

Section 204, 207, 933 Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material

    Blackhawk Bottoms, Pool 19, Burlington, Iowa
    Atchafalaya River, Shell Island Pass, Louisiana
    Calcasieu River Mile 5 to 14, Cameron Parish, Louisiana
    Maumee Bay Habitat Restoration, Ohio
    Restoration of the Cat Islands Chain, Green Bay, Wisconsin
    Morehead City Harbor, North Carolina

Section 205 Small Flood Control Projects

    Fort Yukon, Alaska
    Skagway, Alaska
    Cosgrove Creek, California
    Heacock and Cactus Channels, California
    New Hogan Reservoir Re-operation, California
    Oak Creek, Florence, Colorado
    Ben Hill County, Georgia
    Kuliouou Stream, Hawaii
    Palai Stream, Hawaii
    Waiahole-Waikane Valley, Hawaii
    Waiakea Stream, Hawaii
    Wailele Stream, Hawaii
    White River, Anderson, Indiana
    Denison, Iowa
    Indian and Dry Run Creeks, Cedar Rapids, Iowa
    Mad Creek, Muscatine, Iowa
    Red Oak Creek, Iowa
    Winnebago River, Mason City, Iowa
    Crown Point (Jean Lafitte), Jefferson Parish, Louisiana
    Fisher School Basin, Jean Lafitte, Jefferson Parish, 
Louisiana
    Goose Bayou Basin, Jean Lafitte, Louisiana
    Lockport to Larose, Louisiana
    Pailet Basin, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana
    Rosethorn Basin (Jean Lafitte), Louisiana
    Snagging and Clearing, Bayou Sere, Louisiana
    Town of Carenco, Lafayette Parish, Louisiana
    Elkton, Cecil County, Maryland
    North River, Peabody, Massachusetts
    Montevideo, Minnesota
    McKinney Bayou, Tunica County, Mississippi
    Blacksnake Creek, St. Joseph, Missouri
    Charleston, Missouri
    Little River Diversion, Dutchtown, Missouri
    Livingston, Montana
    Platte River, Fremont, Nebraska
    Platte River, Schuyler, Nebraska
    Hatch, New Mexico
    Battle Mountain, Nevada
    Mill Brook, Highland Park, New Jersey
    Poplar Brook, Monmouth County, New Jersey
    Upper Passaic River and Tributaries, Long Hill Township, 
New Jersey
    Gila River, Grant, Hidalgo County, New Mexico
    Fargo-Ridgewood Addition, North Dakota
    Lower Lycoming Creek, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania
    Montoursville Borough, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania
    Chattanooga Creek Watershed Study, Tennessee
    First Creek, Knoxville, Tennessee
    Sandy Creek, Tennessee
    West Virginia Statewide Flood Warning System
    Williamstown, West Virginia
    Root River, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration

    Eklutna, Alaska
    Northway, Alaska
    Brownsville Branch, Arkansas
    Upper York Creek Dam Removal and Restoration, California
    Arkansas River Fisheries Habitat Restoration, Colorado
    North Fork Gunnison River Ecosystem Restoration, Colorado
    Tamarisk Eradication, Colorado
    Mill River, Stamford, Connecticut
    Rose Bay, Florida
    Chattahoochee Fall Line Ecosystem Restoration Program, 
Georgia
    Mokuhinia/Mokuula Ecsystem Restoration, Hawaii
    Indian Creek, Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, Caldwell, 
Idaho
    Paradise Creek Ecosystem Restoration, Idaho
    Emiquon Preserve, Fulton County, Illinois
    Squaw Creek Aquatic Restoration, Lake County, Illinois
    Duck Creek, Davenport, Iowa
    Iowa River, Clear Creek, Iowa City, Iowa
    Storm Lake, Iowa
    Ventura Marsh at Clear Lake, Iowa
    Whitebreast Creek, Iowa
    City of Mandeville, Ecosystem Restoration, Louisiana
    False River Ecosystem Restoration, Louisiana
    University Lakes, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
    Anacostia River and Tribs, Maryland and the District of 
Columbia, Northwest Branch
    Deep Run/Tiber Hudson, Maryland
    Paint Branch Fish Passage, Maryland
    Parsons Creek, Dorchester County, Maryland
    St. Martin's River, Worcester County, Maryland
    Milford Pond Restoration, Milford, Massachusetts
    Marion Mill Pond, Marion, Michigan
    Missouri Stream Restoration Pilot Project, Missouri
    Carson River, Nevada
    Grovers Mill Pond, New Jersey
    Blue Hole Lake, Santa Rosa, New Mexico
    Bottomless Lakes State Park, Roswell, New Mexico
    Janes-Wallace Memorial Dam, Santa Rosa, New Mexico
    Lower Hempstead Harbor, Village of Sea Cliff, Town of North 
Hempstead, Nassau County, New York
    Manhasset Bay, New York
    Soundview Park, New York
    Fall Run, Wheeling Creek, Belmont, Ohio
    Mineral Bayou Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, Durant, 
Oklahoma
    Arrowhead Creek, Oregon
    Camp Creek, Oregon
    City of York-Codorus Creek, Pennsylvania
    Nanticoke Creek Ecosystem Restoration Project, Pennsylvania
    North Park Lake Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Project, 
Pennsylvania
    Sheraden Park and Chartiers Creek, Pennsylvania
    Brush Neck Cove, Warwick, Rhode Island
    Narrow River, Narragansett, Rhode Island
    Ninigret and Cross Mills Ponds, Charlestown, Rhode Island
    Ten Mile River, East Providence, Rhode Island
    Winnapaug Pond, Westerly, Rhode Island
    Jonesborough Watershed, Tennessee
    Upper Jordan River Ecosystem Restoration, Utah
    West Branch of the Little River, Stowe, Lamoille County, 
Vermont
    Carpenter Creek, Washington
    Squak Valley Park Restoration Project, Washington
    Menomonee River Watershed, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
    Tichigan Lake, Waterford, Wisconsin

Section 208 Clearing and Snagging

    Upper Bayou Boeuf, Snagging and Clearing, Louisiana
    Great Piece Meadows and Pompton River Clearing and 
Snagging, Passaic, Essex and Morris Counties, New Jersey

Section 1135

    Ditch 28, Arkansas
    Millwood Lake, Grassey Lake, Arkansas
    Tujunga Wash, California
    Delaware Bay, Delaware and New Jersey Oyster Restoration
    Delaware City, Delaware
    Kaunakakai Stream Environmental Restoration, Hawaii
    Kawainui Marsh, Hawaii
    Rathbun Lake Habitat Restoration, Iowa
    Rathbun Lake Shoreline Restoration, Iowa
    Bayou Desiard, Monroe, Louisiana
    Bayou Macon, E&W Carroll and Franklin Parishes
    Frazier/Whitehorse Oxbow Lake Weir, Louisiana
    Lake St. Joseph, Tensas Parish, Louisiana
    Hart-Miller Island, Maryland
    Broad Meadows Marsh, Quincy, Massachusetts
    Blue Valley Wetlands, Jackson County, Missouri
    Duck Creek, Stoddard County, Missouri
    James River, Needmore Branch, Hidden Valley, Greene County, 
Missouri
    Lower Truckee River, McCarron Ranch, Nevada
    Lincoln Park West, Jersey City, New Jersey
    Rahway River Environmental Restoration, Union County, New 
Jersey
    Ecosystem Revitalization at Route 66, New Mexico
    Las Cruces Dam--Environmental Restoration, Dona Ana County, 
New Mexico
    Riparian Wetland Restoration, Pueblo of Santa Ana 
Reservation, New Mexico
    Socorro County Bosque Restoration, New Mexico
    Erie County, Smokes Creek, New York
    Gerritsen Creek, New York
    Spring Creek, New York
    Whitney Point Lake, Broome County, New York
    Fairmount Dam Fishladder, Pennsylvania
    Boyd's Marsh (Town Pond), Portsmouth, Rhode Island
    Lake Champlain Canal Barrier, Vermont
    Lake Champlain Sea Lamprey Barriers, Vermont
    Village of Oyster, Northampton County, Virginia
    Union Slough, Washington
    Wells Lock and Dam, West Virginia
    Lake Poygan, Wisconsin
    The Committee has included a rescission of $56,046,000 in 
unobligated funds from the Construction account of the fiscal 
year 2006 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act 
(Public Law 109-103).

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

Appropriations, 2006....................................\1\ $396,000,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................     278,000,000
House allowance.........................................     290,607,000
Committee recommendation................................     450,530,000

\1\ Excludes emergency appropriation of $153,750,000.

    This appropriation funds planning, construction, and 
operation and maintenance activities associated with water 
resource projects located in the lower Mississippi River Valley 
from Cape Girardeau, Missouri to the Gulf of Mexico. The 
Committee wishes to reiterate that MR&T project is a good model 
for the Corps to examine for moving towards a watershed 
approach.
    The budget request, the House allowance, 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         INVESTIGATIONS

ALEXANDRIA TO THE GULF, LA......................................             200             200             200
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM LAND STUDY, LA................             100             100             100
DONALDSONVILLE TO THE GULF, LA..................................  ..............  ..............             500
SPRING BAYOU, LA................................................  ..............  ..............             500
BAYOU METO, AR..................................................  ..............           1,550           1,550
SOUTHEAST ARKANSAS, AR..........................................  ..............  ..............             500
COLDWATER RIVER BELOW ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS........................             300             300             495
QUIVER RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, MS................................  ..............  ..............             100
COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA..............................             400             400             400
MEMPHIS METRO AREA, STORM WATER MGMT STUDY, TN & MS.............  ..............  ..............             152
MILLINGTON & VICINITY, TN.......................................  ..............              27  ..............
MORGANZA TO THE GULF............................................  ..............           2,800           4,000

                          CONSTRUCTION

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN................          43,092          43,092          47,000
GRAND PRAIRIE, AR...............................................  ..............  ..............          14,000
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN...........          40,756          43,756          69,000
ST. FRANCIS BASIN, AR & MO......................................  ..............           4,230           6,000
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA..........................           4,840           4,840           4,840
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA...........................................          27,600          27,600          27,600
MISSISSIPPI & LOUSIANA ESTUARINE AREAS, MS & LA.................  ..............  ..............             500
MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA....................................           3,212           3,212           3,212
ST JOHNS BAYOU AND NEW MADRID FLOODWAY, MO......................           2,500           4,000          10,000
SUSPENSION FUND.................................................           8,000  ..............  ..............
NONCONNAH CREEK, TN & MS........................................  ..............  ..............             500
WEST TENNESSEE TRIBUTARIES, TN..................................  ..............  ..............             500
WOLF RIVER, MEMPHIS, TN.........................................  ..............             500           1,500
YAZOO BACKWATER, LESS ROCKY BAYOU, MS...........................  ..............  ..............             700
YAZOO BASIN, BACKWATER PUMPING PLANT, MS........................  ..............  ..............          15,000
YAZOO BASIN, BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS............................  ..............  ..............           7,250
YAZOO BASIN, DELTA HEADWATERS, MS...............................  ..............           5,000          25,000
YAZOO BASIN, MAINSTEM, MS.......................................  ..............  ..............              25
YAZOO BASIN, REFORMULATION UNIT, MS.............................  ..............  ..............           3,200
YAZOO BASIN, UPPER YAZOO PROJECTS, MS...........................  ..............  ..............          22,500

                    OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

REGION 8 LOWER MISSISSIPPI......................................         145,616         147,616  ..............
CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN................  ..............  ..............          60,280
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR..............................  ..............  ..............             400
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR...............................  ..............  ..............             273
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, AR............................  ..............  ..............             560
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, AR............................  ..............  ..............             310
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN...........  ..............  ..............           8,400
ST FRANCIS BASIN, AR & MO.......................................  ..............  ..............           9,000
TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS, AR & LA..................  ..............  ..............           2,600
WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR.......................................  ..............  ..............           1,200
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL...............................  ..............  ..............             165
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY...............................  ..............  ..............              84
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA..........................  ..............  ..............           3,059
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA...........................................  ..............  ..............          18,655
BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA.............................  ..............  ..............             715
BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA..............................  ..............  ..............              56
BONNET CARRE, LA................................................  ..............  ..............           4,596
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA...............................  ..............  ..............             588
LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, LA..........................  ..............  ..............              66
MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA....................................  ..............  ..............             241
OLD RIVER, LA...................................................  ..............  ..............          11,110
TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA...........................  ..............  ..............           4,000
GREENVILLE HARBOUR, MS..........................................  ..............  ..............             437
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS...............................  ..............  ..............             475
YAZOO BASIN, ARKABULTA LAKE, MS.................................  ..............  ..............           9,251
YAZOO BASIN, BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS............................  ..............  ..............           2,209
YAZOO BASIN, ENID LAKE, MS......................................  ..............  ..............          12,532
YAZOO BASIN, GREENWOOD, MS......................................  ..............  ..............           1,020
YAZOO BASIN, GRENADA LAKE, MS...................................  ..............  ..............          10,949
YAZOO BASIN, MAIN STEM, MS......................................  ..............  ..............           1,929
YAZOO BASIN, SARDIS LAKE, MS....................................  ..............  ..............          12,425
YAZOO BASIN, TRIBUTARIES, MS....................................  ..............  ..............             830
YAZOO BASIN, WILL M WHITTINGTON AUX CHAN, MS....................  ..............  ..............             430
YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS...........................  ..............  ..............             734
YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO CITY, MS.....................................  ..............  ..............             770
VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS............................................  ..............  ..............             387
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO...............................  ..............  ..............             195
WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO.............................................  ..............  ..............           4,768
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN...............................  ..............  ..............              70
MEMPHIS HARBOUR, MICKELLAR LAKE, TN.............................  ..............  ..............           1,013
WOLF RIVER HARBOUR, TN..........................................  ..............  ..............             540
MAPPING.........................................................           1,384           1,384           1,384
SAVINGS & SLIPPAGE..............................................  ..............  ..............          -5,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      TOTAL.....................................................         278,000         290,607         450,530
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee believes that it is essential to provide 
adequate resources and funding to the Mississippi River and 
Tributaries program in order to protect the large investment in 
flood control facilities. Although much progress has been made, 
considerable work remains to be done for the protection and 
economic development of the rich natural resources in the 
Valley. The Committee expects the additional funds to be used 
to advance ongoing studies, initiate new studies, and advance 
important construction and maintenance work.

General Investigations

    Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System Land Study, Louisiana.--
The Committee has provided $100,000 to initiate this study as 
recommended in the budget request.
    Morganza to the Gulf, Louisiana.--The Committee has 
provided $4,000,000 to continue Preconstruction Engineering and 
Design for this study.
    Quiver River, Mississippi.--The Committee has provided 
$100,000 to initiate this study.
    Memphis Metro, Storm Water Management Study, Tennessee and 
Mississippi.--The Committee has provided $152,000 to initiate 
this study.

Construction

    Grand Prairie, Arkansas.--The Committee has provided 
$14,000,000 for continued construction of the project.
    Mississippi River Levees, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, 
Louisisna, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee.--The Committee 
has provided $69,000,000 to continue construction of this 
project. Utilizing continuing contracts, where appropriate, 
additional funds are provided for construction on St. John's-
New Madrid Levee Closure/Box Culvert, Missouri; complete Willow 
Point-Youngs Point, Louisiana Items 445-R and 450-R; land 
acquisition New Madrid Levee/Box Culvert; construction on 
Carrollton M-104-10L; Lower Venice, 2nd Lift; Tallulah-Magna 
Vista Item 474-L; Council Bend Relief Wells; Reid-Bedford-King 
Items 424-R and 428-R; Cairo Grade Raise; West Memphis Relief 
Wells; Vidalia-Morville Item 361-R; Gammon Relief Wells; 
continue miscellaneous relocations and construction of the 
LMRMRIS.
    Yazoo Basin, Backwater Pumping Plant, Mississippi.--The 
Committee has provided $15,000,000 to fully fund pump and motor 
contracts and initiate purchase of conservation easements.
    Yazoo Basin, Delta Headwaters Project, Mississippi.--The 
Committee has provided $25,000,000 to continue construction of 
this project.
    Yazoo Basin, Upper Yazoo Project, Mississippi.--The 
Committee has provided $22,500,000 to complete channel Item 6A; 
fully fund channel Item 6B; relocate utility lines; continue 
design of channel Item 7; initiate one bridge relocation; 
purchase project and mitigation lands; and reforestation.

Maintenance

    Mississippi River Levees, Arkasnas, Illinois, Kentucky, 
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee.--The Committee 
has provided an additional $2,000,000 to resurface levees; 
deliver levee gravel to the Laconia Circle Special Levee 
District and Laconia District of Desha County.
    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, 2006..................................\1\ $1,969,110,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................   2,258,000,000
House allowance.........................................   2,195,471,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,030,000,000

\1\ Excludes emergency appropriation of $330,717,000.

    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.
    The Committee is very concerned with the downward trend in 
the Operation and Maintenance budget. The fiscal year 2007 
budget proposal appears to show a significant increase in 
funding, but this is due to the migration of projects from the 
Construction, General account to the Operations and Maintenance 
account. When these items are removed from the O&M account, the 
total remaining is a decrease from the fiscal year 2006 enacted 
amount. This is the wrong trend for O&M.
    Maintenance of our aging water infrastructure inventory 
gets more expensive every year, however, it is consistently 
underfunded. If this trend continues, the Corps will not be 
able to maintain expected levels of service at all of its 
projects. The regionalization of the O&M budget this year 
effectively disguises the underfunding of O&M projects. The 
Committee has maintained its tradition of supporting what the 
budget request terms as ``low use harbors and waterways''. The 
Committee recognizes the importance of these facilities and 
will continue to provide funding for them.
    The Port of Lavaca-Point Comfort, Texas is an illustrative 
example of what concerns the Committee about this budget 
proposal. O&M funding has been insufficient to complete the 
study to repair the channel and jetty. A catastrophic jetty 
failure is a distinct possibility.
    Further, O&M funding has been insufficient for maintaining 
the channel at the authorized depth, nor has Federal 
maintenance of the turning basin been undertaken as authorized. 
GI funding has been insufficient to fund a deepening study. In 
desperation the port has indicated that they will likely 
finance the deepening study as well as the channel deepening 
and seek Federal reimbursement.
    The port supports 5,300 direct jobs, 4,590 induced jobs and 
6,690 indirect jobs. It provides $273,000,000 in direct wages 
and salaries, $1,000,000,000 of direct, induced and indirect 
income. It pays $99,000,000 State and local taxes and 
$178,000,000 Federal taxes.
    The port commissioned a study that shows that failure to 
maintain the 39 foot channel costs $9,000,000/year. Equally 
importantly, the business managers at the port industries tell 
the port and the Corps that their companies are moving 
investments overseas because their Texas plants are failing to 
compete on the margin with their companies' rival plants 
overseas. The Port is unable to attract new investment, in 
part, because the investors consider channel availability, at 
authorized depth, to be a primary issue.
    The Alcoa Aluminum plant is at the port. They turn bauxite 
into aluminum ingots. Two years ago, when the channel was 18 to 
24 inches above the authorized depth, they told the Corps that 
it was costing them $150,000/inch to light load each ship or 
about $7,000,000 per shipload. The aluminum ingots they produce 
go primarily to car body plants in Waco, Texas and Detroit, 
Michigan.
    The plant managers and others from the Texas Alcoa 
operation met with the Corps earlier this year and their plant 
manager told Corps officials that Alcoa has nine plants around 
the world and that this was the only plant remaining in the 
United States. The U.S. plant is their least cost effective and 
transportation of raw materials is part of the reason. They 
usually keep about a 20-30 day supply of bauxite on hand at any 
one time.
    The plant manager is concerned that if they have to shut 
down due to jetty failure, for example, they will not be 
allowed to restart the plant. It takes about 40 days to 
completely recover/restart from a shut down. The manager is 
very concerned that the operation would move to one of their 
more cost effective overseas plants.
    There are hundreds of similar problems around the country. 
The Committee believes that maintenance of our aging 
infrastructure is imperative if the Nation is to remain 
competitive in the global marketplace. Even with the increase 
in funding provided by the Committee, O&M funding is barely 
keeping up with inflation.

                       CORPS HOPPER DREDGE FLEET

    During fiscal year 2002, the Committee requested the 
General Accounting Office [GAO] to review the benefits and 
effects of current and proposed restrictions on the Corps' 
hopper dredge fleet. The Committee faces significant future 
investments in the Corps hopper dredge fleet, as it is rapidly 
aging. The Committee believes that the investment decisions 
must take into consideration the subsequent use of the fleet. 
The final GAO report, released March 2003, reviewed the impacts 
of operational changes to the fleet since fiscal year 1993. 
GAO's findings made it clear to the Committee that additional 
costs have been imposed upon the Corps with the decreased use 
of the fleet, but that the benefits have not been realized. 
Additionally, the GAO found that the Corps' contracting process 
for hopper dredges was not effective. Most importantly, the GAO 
reported that the Corps of Engineers did not have even a 
limited system to evaluate the costs and benefits of the 
varying operational levels of its hopper dredge fleet, nor did 
it have a means to make maintenance and repair decisions of the 
fleet taking operational use into consideration. The Committee 
remains concerned that since 2000, the Corps has provided a 
report to Congress which has been found to have no analytical 
basis, thus calling into question the ready reserve policy. 
Therefore, the Committee has provided legislative language 
which changes the current dredge policy.
    The Committee is concerned that lead and asbestos abatement 
measures have been deferred aboard the McFarland due to 
guidance in prior Energy and Water Appropriation Acts and 
uncertainties about its future based on the Corps' report 
recommending its retirement. The Committee is understandably 
skeptical of the findings of this report, particularly in light 
of the GAO study mentioned above. As the McFarland is likely to 
be in continued use for the foreseeable future, the Committee 
believes that addressing these health and safety concerns are 
critical and have provided legislative direction that the 
Revolving Fund be utilized to expeditiously fund lead and 
asbestos abatment.

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

                           ALABAMA

ALABAMA--COOSA COMPREHENSIVE WATER STUDY, AL.................  ...............  ...............              180
ALABAMA--COOSA RIVER, AL.....................................  ...............  ...............            1,860
BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL.......................  ...............  ...............           21,093
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL...............................  ...............  ...............            5,510
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AL............................  ...............  ...............               55
MILLERS FERRY LOCK AND DAM, WILLIAM..........................  ...............  ...............            5,781
MOBILE HARBOR, AL............................................  ...............  ...............           19,600
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AL................................  ...............  ...............              100
ROBERT F HENRY LOCK AND DAM, AL..............................  ...............  ...............            6,122
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AL..........................  ...............  ...............               94
TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY WILDLIFE MITIGATION, AL.........  ...............  ...............            2,000
TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL & MS........................  ...............  ...............           28,500
WALTER F GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL & GA........................  ...............  ...............            7,791

                            ALASKA

ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK.........................................  ...............  ...............           15,300
CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK........................................  ...............  ...............            1,875
CORDOVA HARBOR, AK...........................................  ...............  ...............              500
DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK........................................  ...............  ...............              781
HOMER HARBOR, AK.............................................  ...............  ...............              303
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK............................  ...............  ...............               47
KETCHIKAN HARBOR, BAR POINT, AK..............................  ...............  ...............              625
NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK.........................................  ...............  ...............              251
NOME HARBOR, AK..............................................  ...............  ...............            3,613
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK................................  ...............  ...............              474

                           ARIZONA

ALAMO LAKE, AZ...............................................  ...............  ...............            1,600
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ............................  ...............  ...............               92
PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ.........................................  ...............  ...............            1,211
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AZ..........................  ...............  ...............               37
WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ........................................  ...............  ...............              214

                           ARKANSAS

BEAVER LAKE, AR..............................................  ...............  ...............            5,385
BLAKELY MT DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR............................  ...............  ...............            8,442
BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR.......................................  ...............  ...............            1,412
BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR.........................................  ...............  ...............            6,292
DARDANELLE LOCK AND DAM, AR..................................  ...............  ...............            6,576
DEGRAY LAKE, AR..............................................  ...............  ...............            8,819
DEQUEEN LAKE, AR.............................................  ...............  ...............            1,222
DIERKS LAKE, AR..............................................  ...............  ...............            1,194
GILLHAM LAKE, AR.............................................  ...............  ...............            1,127
GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR........................................  ...............  ...............            5,952
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR...........................  ...............  ...............              430
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR............................  ...............  ...............              216
MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR..........  ...............  ...............           35,849
MILLWOOD LAKE, AR............................................  ...............  ...............            3,419
NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR................................  ...............  ...............            4,538
NIMROD LAKE, AR..............................................  ...............  ...............            1,796
NORFORK LAKE, AR.............................................  ...............  ...............            4,539
OSCEOLA HARBOR, AR...........................................  ...............  ...............              590
OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR & LA...........................  ...............  ...............           11,910
OZARK-JETA TAYLOR LOCK AND DAM, AR...........................  ...............  ...............            4,468
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AR................................  ...............  ...............                2
WHITE RIVER, AR..............................................  ...............  ...............            1,000
YELLOW BEND PORT, AR.........................................  ...............  ...............              176

                          CALIFORNIA

BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA.........................................  ...............  ...............            2,156
BUCHANAN DAM, HV EASTMAN LAKE, CA............................  ...............  ...............            2,287
CHANNEL ISLANDS HARBOR, CA...................................  ...............  ...............            5,086
COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, CA........................  ...............  ...............            3,314
CRESENT CITY HARBOR, CA......................................  ...............  ...............              500
DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND CHANNEL, CA................  ...............  ...............            5,895
FARMINGTON DAM, CA...........................................  ...............  ...............              350
HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA.................................  ...............  ...............            2,427
HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA..................................  ...............  ...............            4,916
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA............................  ...............  ...............            1,534
ISABELLA LAKE, CA............................................  ...............  ...............            4,050
JACK D. MALTESTER CHANNEL, CA (SAN LEANDRO)..................  ...............  ...............              500
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA.........................  ...............  ...............            4,071
LOS ANGELES-LONG BEACH HARBOR, CA............................  ...............  ...............            4,000
LOWER PETALUMA RIVER, CA.....................................  ...............  ...............              500
MARINA DEL REY, CA...........................................  ...............  ...............            1,460
MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA....................................  ...............  ...............              331
MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA.........................................  ...............  ...............              204
MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA.........................................  ...............  ...............            1,300
NAPA RIVER, CA...............................................  ...............  ...............            1,000
NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA...........................................  ...............  ...............            2,226
NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL, CA.....................  ...............  ...............            1,843
OAKLAND HARBOR, CA...........................................  ...............  ...............            8,543
OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA.........................................  ...............  ...............              700
PILLAR POINT HARBOR, CA......................................  ...............  ...............            1,000
PINE FLAT LAKE, CA...........................................  ...............  ...............            3,760
PINOLE SHOAL MANAGEMENT STUDY, CA............................  ...............  ...............              500
PORT HUENEME, CA.............................................  ...............  ...............              500
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA................................  ...............  ...............            2,069
REDWOOD CITY HARBOR, CA......................................  ...............  ...............            1,000
RICHMOND HARBOR, CA..........................................  ...............  ...............            7,377
SACRAMENTO RIVER (30 FOOT PROJECT), CA.......................  ...............  ...............            3,124
SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (DEBRIS CONTROL), CA........  ...............  ...............            1,418
SACRAMENTO RIVER SHALLOW DRAFT CHANNEL, CA...................  ...............  ...............               93
SAN FRANCISCO BAY, DELTA MODEL STRUCTURE, CA.................  ...............  ...............            1,124
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY, CA (DRIFT REMOVAL).............  ...............  ...............            2,000
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA.....................................  ...............  ...............            2,447
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, CA........................................  ...............  ...............            3,070
SAN PABLO BAY AND MARE ISLAND STRAIT, CA.....................  ...............  ...............            2,498
SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA....................................  ...............  ...............            3,526
SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA.....................................  ...............  ...............            1,200
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CA..........................  ...............  ...............            1,593
SUCCESS LAKE, CA.............................................  ...............  ...............            2,308
SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA.......................................  ...............  ...............            2,833
TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA................................  ...............  ...............            2,349
VENTURA HARBOR, CA...........................................  ...............  ...............            2,700
YUBA RIVER, CA...............................................  ...............  ...............               83

                           COLORADO

BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO..........................................  ...............  ...............              339
CHATFIELD LAKE, CO...........................................  ...............  ...............            1,764
CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO........................................  ...............  ...............            2,653
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO............................  ...............  ...............              112
JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO....................................  ...............  ...............            2,206
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CO..........................  ...............  ...............              627
TRINIDAD LAKE, CO............................................  ...............  ...............            1,456

         COMMONWEATLTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLAND

ROTA HARBOR, CNMI............................................  ...............  ...............            1,105

                         CONNECTICUT

BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT..........................................  ...............  ...............              469
BRIDGEPORT HARBOR, CT........................................  ...............  ...............              250
COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT.....................................  ...............  ...............              612
HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT.......................................  ...............  ...............              359
HOP BROOK LAKE, CT...........................................  ...............  ...............            1,502
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CT............................  ...............  ...............               64
LONG ISLAND SOUND, CT & NY...................................  ...............  ...............            1,742
MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT....................................  ...............  ...............              807
NORTH COVE HARBOR, CT........................................  ...............  ...............            2,000
NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT....................................  ...............  ...............              414
NORWALK FEDERAL NAVIGATION PROJECT, CT.......................  ...............  ...............            3,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CT................................  ...............  ...............            1,000
STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT...............................  ...............  ...............              450
THOMASTON DAM, CT............................................  ...............  ...............              705
WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT.......................................  ...............  ...............              646

                           DELAWARE

HARBOR OF REFUGE BREAKWATER, SUSSEX COUNTY, DE...............  ...............  ...............              600
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE R TO CHESAPEAKE BAY, D.......  ...............  ...............           12,008
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, REHOBETH BAY TO DELAWARE BAY, D.......  ...............  ...............               30
MISPILLION RIVER, DE.........................................  ...............  ...............               30
MURDERKILL RIVER, DE.........................................  ...............  ...............               30
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DE................................  ...............  ...............               83
WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE........................................  ...............  ...............            3,900

                     DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DC............................  ...............  ...............               19
POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVERS, DC (DRIFT REMOVAL).............  ...............  ...............              857
POTOMAC RIVER BELOW WASHINGTON, DC...........................  ...............  ...............              100
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DC................................  ...............  ...............               25
WASHINGTON HARBOR, DC........................................  ...............  ...............               20

                           FLORIDA

AIWW, NORFOLK, VA TO ST. JOHNS RIVER, FL, GA, SC, NC.........  ...............  ...............            2,100
CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL.........................................  ...............  ...............            4,600
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL.............................  ...............  ...............           14,241
FERNANDINA HARBOR, FL........................................  ...............  ...............            1,600
FORT MYERS BEACH, FL.........................................  ...............  ...............              150
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL............................  ...............  ...............              300
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, CALOOSAHATCHEE TO ANCLOTE, FL.........  ...............  ...............            1,500
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI, FL.............  ...............  ...............            4,000
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL......................................  ...............  ...............            4,700
JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE SEMINOLE, FL, AL & GA........  ...............  ...............            7,896
MIAMI RIVER, FL..............................................  ...............  ...............            7,000
OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL......................................  ...............  ...............            2,014
PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL........................................  ...............  ...............            2,400
PENSACOLA HARBOR, FL.........................................  ...............  ...............              815
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL................................  ...............  ...............            1,025
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL................................  ...............  ...............            3,325
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, FL..........................  ...............  ...............               30
TAMPA HARBOR, FL.............................................  ...............  ...............            4,150

                           GEORGIA

ALLATOONA LAKE, GA...........................................  ...............  ...............            6,818
APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT RIVERS, GA, AL &.......  ...............  ...............            1,455
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GA...........................  ...............  ...............              254
BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA.........................................  ...............  ...............            2,451
BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GA........................  ...............  ...............            7,473
CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA.....................................  ...............  ...............            6,958
HARTWELL LAKE, GA & SC.......................................  ...............  ...............           11,190
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA............................  ...............  ...............               53
J STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA & SC...............................  ...............  ...............           10,720
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, GA................................  ...............  ...............               15
RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA & SC......................  ...............  ...............            7,163
SAVANNAH HARBOR, ADVANCED MAINTENANCE WIDENER, GA............  ...............  ...............              500
SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA..........................................  ...............  ...............           11,322
SAVANNAH RIVER BELOW AUGUSTA, GA.............................  ...............  ...............              124
WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA & AL.............................  ...............  ...............            9,642

                            HAWAII

BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI.....................................  ...............  ...............              245
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI............................  ...............  ...............              205
POHIKI BAY, HAWAII, HI.......................................  ...............  ...............              220
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI................................  ...............  ...............              440

                            IDAHO

ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID.........................................  ...............  ...............            1,653
DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID...............................  ...............  ...............            3,069
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID............................  ...............  ...............               80
LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID..........................................  ...............  ...............            1,822
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ID..........................  ...............  ...............              443

                           ILLINOIS

CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL & IN............................  ...............  ...............            4,219
CARLYLE LAKE, IL.............................................  ...............  ...............            4,564
CHICAGO HARBOR, IL...........................................  ...............  ...............            1,904
CHICAGO RIVER, IL............................................  ...............  ...............              398
FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL....................................  ...............  ...............              263
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVR PORTION), IL & IN.....................  ...............  ...............           27,453
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVS PORTION), IL & IN.....................  ...............  ...............            1,893
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL............................  ...............  ...............              718
KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL...............................  ...............  ...............            1,819
LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL..................................  ...............  ...............              607
LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL.........................................  ...............  ...............            5,291
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVR PORTION).......  ...............  ...............           40,790
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVS PORTION).......  ...............  ...............           22,501
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL................................  ...............  ...............               50
REND LAKE, IL................................................  ...............  ...............            4,787
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IL.................  ...............  ...............              120
WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL..........................................  ...............  ...............              704

                           INDIANA

BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN..........................................  ...............  ...............              694
BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN....................................  ...............  ...............              883
CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN.........................................  ...............  ...............              741
CECIL M HARDEN LAKE, IN......................................  ...............  ...............              920
INDIANA HARBOR, IN...........................................  ...............  ...............              545
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN............................  ...............  ...............              272
J EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN......................................  ...............  ...............            1,432
MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN........................................  ...............  ...............              868
MONROE LAKE, IN..............................................  ...............  ...............              801
PATOKA LAKE, IN..............................................  ...............  ...............              814
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN................................  ...............  ...............               89
SALAMONIE LAKE, IN...........................................  ...............  ...............            1,179
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IN.................  ...............  ...............              113

                             IOWA

CORALVILLE LAKE, IA..........................................  ...............  ...............            3,304
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA............................  ...............  ...............              205
MISSOURI RIVER--KENSLERS BEND, NE TO SIOUX CITY, IA..........  ...............  ...............              152
MISSOURI RIVER--RULO TO MOUTH, IA, NE, KS & MO...............  ...............  ...............            5,580
MISSOURI RIVER--SIOUX CITY TO RULO, IA & NE..................  ...............  ...............            1,860
RATHBUN LAKE, IA.............................................  ...............  ...............            2,204
RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA...........................  ...............  ...............            3,902
SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA.........................................  ...............  ...............            4,473

                            KANSAS

CLINTON LAKE, KS.............................................  ...............  ...............            1,917
COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS.......................................  ...............  ...............            1,164
EL DORADO LAKE, KS...........................................  ...............  ...............              585
ELK CITY LAKE, KS............................................  ...............  ...............              688
FALL RIVER LAKE, KS..........................................  ...............  ...............            1,128
HILLSDALE LAKE, KS...........................................  ...............  ...............              749
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KS............................  ...............  ...............              123
JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS...........................  ...............  ...............            1,256
KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS...........................................  ...............  ...............            1,484
MARION LAKE, KS..............................................  ...............  ...............            1,322
MELVERN LAKE, KS.............................................  ...............  ...............            2,155
MILFORD LAKE, KS.............................................  ...............  ...............            2,166
PEARSON-SKUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS............................  ...............  ...............            1,118
PERRY LAKE, KS...............................................  ...............  ...............            2,160
POMONA LAKE, KS..............................................  ...............  ...............            1,905
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, KS..........................  ...............  ...............               64
TORONTO LAKE, KS.............................................  ...............  ...............              535
TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS........................................  ...............  ...............            2,052
WILSON LAKE, KS..............................................  ...............  ...............            1,512

                           KENTUCKY

BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY & TN........................  ...............  ...............            7,790
BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY........................................  ...............  ...............            1,842
BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY.........................................  ...............  ...............            1,352
BUCKHORN LAKE, KY............................................  ...............  ...............            1,288
CARR CREEK LAKE, KY..........................................  ...............  ...............            1,607
CAVE RUN LAKE, KY............................................  ...............  ...............              883
DEWEY LAKE, KY...............................................  ...............  ...............            1,224
ELVIS STAHR (HICKMAN) HARBOR, KY.............................  ...............  ...............               12
FISHTRAP LAKE, KY............................................  ...............  ...............            1,580
GRAYSON LAKE, KY.............................................  ...............  ...............            1,122
GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY..................................  ...............  ...............            2,028
GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY.........................................  ...............  ...............            1,651
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY............................  ...............  ...............              191
KENTUCKY RIVER, KY...........................................  ...............  ...............                4
LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY........................................  ...............  ...............            1,659
MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY........................................  ...............  ...............              699
MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KY.......................  ...............  ...............               62
NOLIN LAKE, KY...............................................  ...............  ...............            1,886
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, IN & OH...................  ...............  ...............           39,243
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, IL, IN & OH................  ...............  ...............            4,040
PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY.........................................  ...............  ...............              828
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, KY................................  ...............  ...............                2
ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY.........................................  ...............  ...............            2,479
TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY........................................  ...............  ...............            1,002
WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY..........................  ...............  ...............            7,008
YATESVILLE LAKE, KY..........................................  ...............  ...............              823

                          LOUISIANA

ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF AND BLACK, L.......  ...............  ...............           16,000
BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA...................................  ...............  ...............            1,104
BAYOU LACOMBE................................................  ...............  ...............              900
BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP WATERWAY, LA..............  ...............  ...............            1,697
BAYOU PIERRE, LA.............................................  ...............  ...............               32
BAYOU SEGNETTE, LA...........................................  ...............  ...............            1,750
BAYOU TECHE, LA..............................................  ...............  ...............              110
CADDO LAKE, LA...............................................  ...............  ...............              190
CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA.................................  ...............  ...............           16,000
FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA.........................................  ...............  ...............            1,505
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA...............................  ...............  ...............           19,443
HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA...................................  ...............  ...............            1,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA............................  ...............  ...............              869
J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA..............................  ...............  ...............           13,000
LAKE PROVIDENCE HARBOR, LA...................................  ...............  ...............              491
MADISON PARISH PORT, LA......................................  ...............  ...............               86
MERMENTAU RIVER, LA..........................................  ...............  ...............            2,150
MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT VENICE, LA......................  ...............  ...............            2,000
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE GULF OF MEXICO.........  ...............  ...............           54,074
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, LA................................  ...............  ...............               60
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA................................  ...............  ...............            2,000
TANGIPAHOA RIVER, LA.........................................  ...............  ...............              650
TCHEFUNCTE RIVER & BOUGE FALIA, LA...........................  ...............  ...............              450
WALLACE LAKE, LA.............................................  ...............  ...............              200
WATERWAY FROM EMPIRE TO THE GULF, LA.........................  ...............  ...............              500

                            MAINE

BUCKS HARBOR, MACHIASPORT, ME................................  ...............  ...............              330
DISPOSAL AREA MONITORING, ME.................................  ...............  ...............            1,100
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ME............................  ...............  ...............               11
NARRAGAUGAS RIVER, MILBRIDGE, ME.............................  ...............  ...............              700
PORTLAND HARBOR, ME..........................................  ...............  ...............              135
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME................................  ...............  ...............              866
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ME.................  ...............  ...............               17

                           MARYLAND

BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 FOOT), MD..................  ...............  ...............           15,482
BALTIMORE HARBOR, MD (DRIFT REMOVAL).........................  ...............  ...............              330
CHESTER RIVER, MD............................................  ...............  ...............              110
CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV..............................  ...............  ...............              500
GOOSE CREEK, MD..............................................  ...............  ...............               80
HERRING BAY & ROCKHOLD CREEK, MD.............................  ...............  ...............              550
HONGA RIVER & TAR BAY, MD....................................  ...............  ...............              110
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD............................  ...............  ...............               32
JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD & WV..............................  ...............  ...............            1,992
OCEAN CITY HARBOR AND INLET AND SINEPUXENT BAY, MD...........  ...............  ...............              100
PARISH CREEK, MD.............................................  ...............  ...............               60
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD................................  ...............  ...............              467
RHODES POINT TO TYLERTON, MD.................................  ...............  ...............              110
ROCKALL HARBOR, MD...........................................  ...............  ...............              600
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MD..........................  ...............  ...............              100
TWITCH COVE AND BIG THOROFARE RIVER, MD......................  ...............  ...............              110
WICOMICO RIVER, MD...........................................  ...............  ...............              800

                        MASSACHUSETTS

BARRE FALLS DAM, MA..........................................  ...............  ...............              641
BIRCH HILL DAM, MA...........................................  ...............  ...............              740
BOSTON HARBOR, MA............................................  ...............  ...............            7,000
BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA.........................................  ...............  ...............              580
CAPE COD CANAL, MA...........................................  ...............  ...............            8,348
CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY STORAGE AREA, MA................  ...............  ...............              314
CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA........................................  ...............  ...............              260
EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA......................................  ...............  ...............              452
HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA.......................................  ...............  ...............              571
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA............................  ...............  ...............              114
KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA..........................................  ...............  ...............              606
LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA.........................................  ...............  ...............              568
NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET HURRICANE BARRIER.........  ...............  ...............              299
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA................................  ...............  ...............            1,100
SALEM HARBOR, MA.............................................  ...............  ...............            2,856
TULLY LAKE, MA...............................................  ...............  ...............              720
WEST HILL DAM, MA............................................  ...............  ...............              729
WESTVILLE LAKE, MA...........................................  ...............  ...............              578
WEYMOUTH-FORE RIVER, MA......................................  ...............  ...............            1,728

                           MICHIGAN

ALPENA HARBOR, MI............................................  ...............  ...............              429
ARCADIA HARBOR, MI...........................................  ...............  ...............               80
CEDAR RIVER HARBOR, MI.......................................  ...............  ...............              300
CHANNELS IN LAKE ST CLAIR, MI................................  ...............  ...............               87
CHARLEVOIX HARBOR, MI........................................  ...............  ...............              137
CLINTON RIVER, MI............................................  ...............  ...............              660
DETROIT RIVER, MI............................................  ...............  ...............            5,331
GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI.......................................  ...............  ...............              455
GRAND MARAIS HARBOR, MI......................................  ...............  ...............            1,500
GRAYS REEF PASSAGE, MI.......................................  ...............  ...............              112
HOLLAND HARBOR, MI...........................................  ...............  ...............              549
INLAND ROUTE, MI.............................................  ...............  ...............              950
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI............................  ...............  ...............              144
LELAND HARBOR, MI............................................  ...............  ...............              110
LITTLE LAKE HARBOR, MI.......................................  ...............  ...............              186
LUDINGTON HARBOR, MI.........................................  ...............  ...............              177
MANISTEE HARBOR, MI..........................................  ...............  ...............               47
MUSKEGON HARBOR, MI..........................................  ...............  ...............              214
NEW BUFFALO HARBOR, MI.......................................  ...............  ...............               78
ONTONAGON HARBOR, MI.........................................  ...............  ...............              551
PENTWATER, MI................................................  ...............  ...............               84
PETOSKEY HARBOR, MI..........................................  ...............  ...............            1,000
PORTAGE LAKE HARBOR, MI......................................  ...............  ...............              225
PRESQUE ISLE HARBOR..........................................  ...............  ...............              292
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI................................  ...............  ...............              178
ROUGE RIVER, MI..............................................  ...............  ...............               20
SAGINAW RIVER, MI............................................  ...............  ...............            3,642
SEBEWAING RIVER, MI..........................................  ...............  ...............              500
ST CLAIR RIVER, MI...........................................  ...............  ...............            1,471
ST JOSEPH HARBOR, MI.........................................  ...............  ...............              450
ST MARYS RIVER, MI...........................................  ...............  ...............           19,267
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MI.................  ...............  ...............            2,594
WHITE LAKE HARBOR, MI........................................  ...............  ...............              100

                          MINNESOTA

BIGSTONE LAKE WHETSTONE RIVER, MN & SD.......................  ...............  ...............              239
DULUTH-SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN & WI..............................  ...............  ...............            4,890
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN............................  ...............  ...............              132
LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA RIVER, MN.....................  ...............  ...............              594
MINNESOTA RIVER, MN..........................................  ...............  ...............              188
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVP PORTION).......  ...............  ...............           59,296
ORWELL LAKE, MN..............................................  ...............  ...............              339
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN................................  ...............  ...............               67
RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN.......................................  ...............  ...............              147
RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN............  ...............  ...............            2,928
ST. PAUL, HARRIET ISLANDS, LOWER HARBOR, MN..................  ...............  ...............              200
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MN.................  ...............  ...............              314
TWO HARBORS, MN..............................................  ...............  ...............              198

                         MISSISSIPPI

CLAIBORNE COUNTY PORT, MS....................................  ...............  ...............               62
EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS...............................  ...............  ...............              210
GULFPORT HARBOR, MS..........................................  ...............  ...............            3,683
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS............................  ...............  ...............               61
MOUTH OF THE YAZOO RIVER, MS.................................  ...............  ...............              110
OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS...........................................  ...............  ...............            1,885
PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS........................................  ...............  ...............            5,500
PEARL RIVER, MS & LA.........................................  ...............  ...............              283
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MS................................  ...............  ...............               77
ROSEDALLE HARBOR, MS.........................................  ...............  ...............              600
YAZOO RIVER, MS..............................................  ...............  ...............              140

                           MISSOURI

CARUTHERSVILLE HARBOR, MO....................................  ...............  ...............              350
CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE, MO..................  ...............  ...............            5,916
CLEARWATER LAKE, MO..........................................  ...............  ...............            2,660
HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO.........................  ...............  ...............            8,173
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO............................  ...............  ...............              768
LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO..................................  ...............  ...............              795
LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO.........................................  ...............  ...............              860
MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS (REG WORKS), MO.......  ...............  ...............           26,013
NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO........................................  ...............  ...............              660
NEW MADRID HARBOR, MILE 889, MO..............................  ...............  ...............              200
POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO......................................  ...............  ...............            2,080
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MO................................  ...............  ...............                2
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MO..........................  ...............  ...............              327
SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO..........................................  ...............  ...............            1,137
STOCKTON LAKE, MO............................................  ...............  ...............            3,775
TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO..........................................  ...............  ...............            6,589
UNION LAKE, MO...............................................  ...............  ...............                6

                           MONTANA

FT PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT.....................................  ...............  ...............            4,076
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MT............................  ...............  ...............               19
LIBBY DAM, LAKE KOOCANUSA, MT................................  ...............  ...............            1,642
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MT..........................  ...............  ...............               89

                           NEBRASKA

GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK LAKE, NE & SD..............  ...............  ...............            5,803
HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE.......................................  ...............  ...............            3,133
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NE............................  ...............  ...............              102
MISSOURI R MASTER WTR CONTROL MANUAL, NE, IA, KS, MO.........  ...............  ...............              350
PAPILLION CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES LAKES, NE....................  ...............  ...............              583
PAPIO CREEK, NE..............................................  ...............  ...............                1
SALT CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, NE...............................  ...............  ...............              734

                            NEVADA

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV............................  ...............  ...............               47
MARTIS CREEK LAKE, NV & CA...................................  ...............  ...............            1,820
PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV...........................  ...............  ...............              173

                        NEW HAMPSHIRE

BLACKWATER DAM, NH...........................................  ...............  ...............              659
COCHECO RIVER, NH............................................  ...............  ...............            2,000
EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH....................................  ...............  ...............              573
FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH.......................................  ...............  ...............              734
HOPKINTON-EVERETT LAKES, NH..................................  ...............  ...............            1,488
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NH............................  ...............  ...............               12
OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH.........................................  ...............  ...............              685
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NH................................  ...............  ...............              231
SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH......................................  ...............  ...............              659

                          NEW JERSEY

BARNEGAT INLET, NJ...........................................  ...............  ...............               75
COLD SPRING INLET, NJ........................................  ...............  ...............              350
DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ.................................  ...............  ...............               15
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE SEA, NJ, PA & DE.........  ...............  ...............           17,909
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO TRENTON, NJ..............  ...............  ...............              250
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NJ............................  ...............  ...............               85
MANASQUAN RIVER, NJ..........................................  ...............  ...............              335
NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NJ.........................  ...............  ...............               75
NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC RIVERS, NJ................  ...............  ...............            5,000
PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD WARNING SYSTEMS, NJ......................  ...............  ...............              460
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NJ................................  ...............  ...............            1,318
RARITAN RIVER, NJ............................................  ...............  ...............              200
SALEM RIVER, NJ..............................................  ...............  ...............               70
SANDY HOOK AT LEONARDO, NJ...................................  ...............  ...............              300
SHARK RIVER, NJ..............................................  ...............  ...............               80
SHREWSBURY RIVER MAIN CHANNEL, NJ............................  ...............  ...............              500

                          NEW MEXICO

ABIQUIU DAM, NM..............................................  ...............  ...............            3,211
ALBUQUERQUE LEVEES, NM.......................................  ...............  ...............              500
COCHITI LAKE, NM.............................................  ...............  ...............            6,422
CONCHAS LAKE, NM.............................................  ...............  ...............            3,887
GALISTEO DAM, NM.............................................  ...............  ...............            1,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM............................  ...............  ...............              221
JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM.........................................  ...............  ...............            2,733
RIO GRANDE BOSQUE REHABILITATION, NM.........................  ...............  ...............            4,000
SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM..................................  ...............  ...............            1,329
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NM..........................  ...............  ...............            1,471
TWO RIVERS DAM, NM...........................................  ...............  ...............              531
UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS MODEL......................  ...............  ...............            1,895

                           NEW YORK

ALMOND LAKE, NY..............................................  ...............  ...............              473
ARKPORT DAM, NY..............................................  ...............  ...............              280
BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR, NY..................  ...............  ...............            1,147
BUFFALO HARBOR, NY...........................................  ...............  ...............              332
DUNKIRK HARBOR, NY...........................................  ...............  ...............               19
EAST RIVER, NY...............................................  ...............  ...............               70
EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY......................................  ...............  ...............            2,800
EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY.........................................  ...............  ...............              592
EASTCHESTER CREEK, NY........................................  ...............  ...............              250
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY.........................  ...............  ...............              200
FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY...................................  ...............  ...............              200
GLEN COVE CREEK, NY..........................................  ...............  ...............              350
HUDSON RIVER CHANNEL, NY.....................................  ...............  ...............            5,410
HUDSON RIVER, NY (MAINT).....................................  ...............  ...............            1,745
HUDSON RIVER, NY (O&C).......................................  ...............  ...............            1,120
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY............................  ...............  ...............              507
JAMAICA BAY, NY..............................................  ...............  ...............              200
JONES INLET, NY..............................................  ...............  ...............              100
LITTLE SODUS BAY HARBOR, NY..................................  ...............  ...............               15
LONG ISLAND INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NY........................  ...............  ...............              100
MORICHES INLET, NY...........................................  ...............  ...............              100
MT MORRIS LAKE, NY...........................................  ...............  ...............            3,320
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS, NY.........................  ...............  ...............            6,735
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY AND NJ (PREV OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSI.......  ...............  ...............              700
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY..........................................  ...............  ...............            3,475
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY & NJ (DRIFT REMOVAL).....................  ...............  ...............            4,800
OSWEGO HARBOR, NY............................................  ...............  ...............              844
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY................................  ...............  ...............            1,418
ROCHESTER HARBOR, NY.........................................  ...............  ...............              957
SHINNECOCK INLET, NY.........................................  ...............  ...............              100
SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS, NY.................  ...............  ...............              618
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, NY.................  ...............  ...............              460
WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY.......................................  ...............  ...............              722

                        NORTH CAROLINA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NC...........................  ...............  ...............            3,370
B EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC............................  ...............  ...............            1,935
CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC.........................  ...............  ...............              558
CAROLINA BEACH INLET, NC.....................................  ...............  ...............              550
FALLS LAKE, NC...............................................  ...............  ...............            1,856
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC............................  ...............  ...............               79
LOCKWOODS FOLLY RIVER, NC....................................  ...............  ...............              950
MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC..................................  ...............  ...............           10,000
MASONBORO INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS, NC..................  ...............  ...............              500
MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC.....................................  ...............  ...............            5,200
NEW RIVER INLET, NC..........................................  ...............  ...............              820
NEW TOPSAIL INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS, NC................  ...............  ...............              675
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC................................  ...............  ...............              675
ROLLINSON CHANNEL, NC........................................  ...............  ...............              200
W KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC...........................  ...............  ...............            3,170
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC........................................  ...............  ...............           11,000

                         NORTH DAKOTA

BOWMAN--HALEY LAKE, ND.......................................  ...............  ...............              168
GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND.............................  ...............  ...............           14,245
HOMME LAKE, ND...............................................  ...............  ...............              184
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND............................  ...............  ...............               87
LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND..........................  ...............  ...............            1,281
PIPESTEM LAKE, ND............................................  ...............  ...............              499
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ND..........................  ...............  ...............              118
SOURIS RIVER, ND.............................................  ...............  ...............              402
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ND.................  ...............  ...............               32

                             OHIO

ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH..........................................  ...............  ...............            1,243
ASHTABULA HARBOR, OH.........................................  ...............  ...............              676
BERLIN LAKE, OH..............................................  ...............  ...............            1,714
CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH........................................  ...............  ...............            1,376
CLARENCE J BROWN DAM, OH.....................................  ...............  ...............              853
CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH.........................................  ...............  ...............            2,694
CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH..........................................  ...............  ...............            1,033
DEER CREEK LAKE, OH..........................................  ...............  ...............            1,006
DELAWARE LAKE, OH............................................  ...............  ...............            1,000
DILLON LAKE, OH..............................................  ...............  ...............              763
FAIRPORT HARBOR, OH..........................................  ...............  ...............            1,941
HURON HARBOR, OH.............................................  ...............  ...............              690
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH............................  ...............  ...............              256
LORAIN HARBOR, OH............................................  ...............  ...............            1,283
MICHAEL J KIRWAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, OH.......................  ...............  ...............              714
MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH......................................  ...............  ...............              832
MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH....................................  ...............  ...............            7,986
NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, OH.........................  ...............  ...............              169
PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH.........................................  ...............  ...............              976
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH................................  ...............  ...............              225
SANDUSKY HARBOR, OH..........................................  ...............  ...............              397
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OH.................  ...............  ...............              180
TOLEDO HARBOR, OH............................................  ...............  ...............            4,010
TOM JENKINS DAM, OH..........................................  ...............  ...............              567
WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH.............................  ...............  ...............              560
WILLIAM H HARSHA LAKE, OH....................................  ...............  ...............              923

                           OKLAHOMA

ARCADIA LAKE, OK.............................................  ...............  ...............              443
BIRCH LAKE, OK...............................................  ...............  ...............              736
BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK..........................................  ...............  ...............            1,716
CANTON LAKE, OK..............................................  ...............  ...............            2,360
COPAN LAKE, OK...............................................  ...............  ...............              974
EUFAULA LAKE, OK.............................................  ...............  ...............            5,055
FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK.........................................  ...............  ...............            5,404
FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK.........................................  ...............  ...............              743
GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK...................................  ...............  ...............              411
HEYBURN LAKE, OK.............................................  ...............  ...............              567
HUGO LAKE, OK................................................  ...............  ...............            1,412
HULAH LAKE, OK...............................................  ...............  ...............              506
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OK............................  ...............  ...............              123
KAW LAKE, OK.................................................  ...............  ...............            3,012
KEYSTONE LAKE, OK............................................  ...............  ...............            3,867
OOLOGAH LAKE, OK.............................................  ...............  ...............            3,149
OPTIMA LAKE, OK..............................................  ...............  ...............              127
PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE CHEROKEES, OK...............  ...............  ...............               64
PINE CREEK LAKE, OK..........................................  ...............  ...............              942
ROBERT S KERR LOCK AND DAM AND RESERVOIRS, OK................  ...............  ...............            5,059
SARDIS LAKE, OK..............................................  ...............  ...............              975
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OK..........................  ...............  ...............              972
SKIATOOK LAKE, OK............................................  ...............  ...............            1,700
TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK.....................................  ...............  ...............            4,039
WAURIKA LAKE, OK.............................................  ...............  ...............            1,445
WEBBERS FALLS LOCK AND DAM, OK...............................  ...............  ...............            4,164
WISTER LAKE, OK..............................................  ...............  ...............              610

                            OREGON

APPLEGATE LAKE, OR...........................................  ...............  ...............              736
BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR..........................................  ...............  ...............              287
BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA.............................  ...............  ...............            8,829
CHETCO RIVER, OR.............................................  ...............  ...............              451
COLUMBIA & LWR WILLAMETTE R BLW VANCOUVER, WA & PORTLA.......  ...............  ...............           17,800
COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR & WA.........................  ...............  ...............           20,189
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA AND THE DALLES, O.......  ...............  ...............              415
COOS BAY, OR.................................................  ...............  ...............            4,189
COQUILLE RIVER, OR...........................................  ...............  ...............              275
COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR.......................................  ...............  ...............              876
COUGAR LAKE, OR..............................................  ...............  ...............              993
DEPOE BAY, OR................................................  ...............  ...............                3
DETROIT LAKE, OR.............................................  ...............  ...............              782
DORENA LAKE, OR..............................................  ...............  ...............              704
FALL CREEK LAKE, OR..........................................  ...............  ...............              853
FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR..........................................  ...............  ...............            1,436
GREEN PETER-FOSTER LAKES, OR.................................  ...............  ...............            1,415
HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR.........................................  ...............  ...............              586
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR............................  ...............  ...............              168
JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA...............................  ...............  ...............            5,571
LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR.......................................  ...............  ...............            1,692
LOST CREEK LAKE, OR..........................................  ...............  ...............            2,842
MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA.................................  ...............  ...............            5,845
PORT ORFORD, OR..............................................  ...............  ...............              273
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR................................  ...............  ...............              180
ROGUE RIVER AT GOLD BEACH, OR................................  ...............  ...............              483
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OR..........................  ...............  ...............               62
SIUSLAW RIVER, OR............................................  ...............  ...............              486
SKIPANON CHANNEL, OR.........................................  ...............  ...............               93
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OR.................  ...............  ...............              400
TILLAMOOK BAY AND BAR, OR (PORT OF GARIBALDI)................  ...............  ...............            1,500
UMPQUA RIVER, OR.............................................  ...............  ...............              979
WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS, OR.....................  ...............  ...............              258
WILLAMETTE RIVER BANK PROTECTION, OR.........................  ...............  ...............               94
WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR........................................  ...............  ...............              612
YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR...................................  ...............  ...............            1,566
YAQUINA RIVER, OR............................................  ...............  ...............              836

                         PENNSYLVANIA

ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA..........................................  ...............  ...............            6,361
ALVIN R BUSH DAM, PA.........................................  ...............  ...............              641
AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA....................................  ...............  ...............              283
BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA..........................................  ...............  ...............            1,080
BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA..........................................  ...............  ...............            2,411
CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA.....................................  ...............  ...............            1,144
COWANESQUE LAKE, PA..........................................  ...............  ...............            2,023
CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA.......................................  ...............  ...............            1,192
CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA........................................  ...............  ...............              741
EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA...........................  ...............  ...............              906
ERIE HARBOR, PA..............................................  ...............  ...............               22
FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA.................................  ...............  ...............              799
FRANCIS E WALTER DAM, PA.....................................  ...............  ...............              770
GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND RESERVOIR, PA...................  ...............  ...............              223
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA............................  ...............  ...............              311
JOHNSTOWN, PA................................................  ...............  ...............            1,864
KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PA.......................  ...............  ...............            1,834
LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA..........................................  ...............  ...............            1,699
MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA......................................  ...............  ...............              737
MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA........................................  ...............  ...............           12,520
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, PA, OH & WV.......................  ...............  ...............           17,901
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, PA, OH & WV....................  ...............  ...............              520
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA................................  ...............  ...............               55
PROMPTON LAKE, PA............................................  ...............  ...............              575
PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA.............................................  ...............  ...............               14
RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA............................................  ...............  ...............            4,482
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, PA..........................  ...............  ...............               57
SCHUYLKILL RIVER, PA.........................................  ...............  ...............              950
SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA......................................  ...............  ...............            2,015
STILLWATER LAKE, PA..........................................  ...............  ...............              405
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, PA.................  ...............  ...............               75
TIOGA-HAMMOND LAKES, PA......................................  ...............  ...............            2,541
TIONESTA LAKE, PA............................................  ...............  ...............            1,458
UNION CITY LAKE, PA..........................................  ...............  ...............              242
WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA......................................  ...............  ...............              754
YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA.....................................  ...............  ...............              663
YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA & MD.............................  ...............  ...............            1,994

                         PUERTO RICO

SAN JUAN HARBOR, PR..........................................  ...............  ...............            4,000

                         RHODE ISLAND

BLOCK ISLAND HARBOR, RI......................................  ...............  ...............              850
BULLOCKS POINT COVE, RI......................................  ...............  ...............              900
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, RI............................  ...............  ...............               15
POINT JUDITH POND HARBOR OF REFUGE, RI.......................  ...............  ...............            1,866
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, RI................................  ...............  ...............              400
SOUTH COAST, RHODE ISLAND, REGIONAL SEDIMENT MGMT, RI........  ...............  ...............              250

                        SOUTH CAROLINA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC...........................  ...............  ...............              539
CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC........................................  ...............  ...............            7,655
COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC..........................  ...............  ...............            3,345
FOLLY RIVER, SC..............................................  ...............  ...............              250
GEORGETOWN HARBOR, SC........................................  ...............  ...............            3,644
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC............................  ...............  ...............               61
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC................................  ...............  ...............              532
TOWN CREEK, SC...............................................  ...............  ...............              520

                         SOUTH DAKOTA

BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD................................  ...............  ...............            6,948
CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUS, SD............  ...............  ...............            2,500
COLD BROOK LAKE, SD..........................................  ...............  ...............              327
COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD..................................  ...............  ...............              236
FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS CASE, SD......................  ...............  ...............            6,737
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SD............................  ...............  ...............               17
LAKE TRAVERSE, SD & MN.......................................  ...............  ...............              561
MISSOURI R BETWEEN FORT PECK DAM AND GAVINS PT, SD, MT.......  ...............  ...............              200
OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD & ND.................................  ...............  ...............            9,133
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, SD..........................  ...............  ...............               53

                          TENNESSEE

CENTER HILL LAKE, TN.........................................  ...............  ...............            4,817
CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN....................................  ...............  ...............            5,677
CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TN.........................................  ...............  ...............            1,250
CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN...........................  ...............  ...............            5,014
DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN.........................................  ...............  ...............            4,256
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN............................  ...............  ...............              141
J PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN.........................  ...............  ...............            3,696
OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN.................................  ...............  ...............            7,178
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TN................................  ...............  ...............                2
TENNESSEE RIVER, TN..........................................  ...............  ...............           19,306
WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN........................................  ...............  ...............              251

                            TEXAS

AQUILLA LAKE, TX.............................................  ...............  ...............              844
ARKANSAS--RED RIVER BASINS CHLORIDE CONTROL--AREA VI.........  ...............  ...............            1,153
BARDWELL LAKE, TX............................................  ...............  ...............            1,741
BELTON LAKE, TX..............................................  ...............  ...............            3,570
BENBROOK LAKE, TX............................................  ...............  ...............            2,185
BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TX.....................................  ...............  ...............            3,480
BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX............................  ...............  ...............            2,164
CANYON LAKE, TX..............................................  ...............  ...............            3,494
CHANNEL TO PORT BOLIVAR, TX..................................  ...............  ...............              310
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX..............................  ...............  ...............            7,000
DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX.................................  ...............  ...............            5,855
ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT, TX...................  ...............  ...............                6
FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O' THE PINES, TX...................  ...............  ...............            3,146
FREEPORT HARBOR, TX..........................................  ...............  ...............            4,400
GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX.............................  ...............  ...............            2,600
GIWW, CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX................................  ...............  ...............            3,120
GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX.....................................  ...............  ...............            1,822
GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX...........................................  ...............  ...............            2,717
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX...............................  ...............  ...............           35,190
HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX.........................................  ...............  ...............            1,270
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX.....................................  ...............  ...............           15,225
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX............................  ...............  ...............              613
JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX.........................................  ...............  ...............            1,553
JOE POOL LAKE, TX............................................  ...............  ...............              729
LAKE KEMP, TX................................................  ...............  ...............              207
LAVON LAKE, TX...............................................  ...............  ...............            3,266
LEWISVILLE DAM, TX...........................................  ...............  ...............            3,373
MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX...................................  ...............  ...............            5,367
NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX.......................................  ...............  ...............            2,871
NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE GEORGETOWN, TX................  ...............  ...............            2,261
O C FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX..................................  ...............  ...............            2,263
PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX...........................................  ...............  ...............            1,431
PROCTOR LAKE, TX.............................................  ...............  ...............            2,156
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TX................................  ...............  ...............              500
RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX.........................................  ...............  ...............            1,251
SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX...................................  ...............  ...............            9,972
SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX............................  ...............  ...............            7,524
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, TX..........................  ...............  ...............              103
SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX..........................................  ...............  ...............            3,242
STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX....................................  ...............  ...............            2,068
TEXAS CITY SHIP CHANNEL, TX..................................  ...............  ...............              850
TEXAS WATER ALLOCATION ASSESSMENT, TX........................  ...............  ...............            1,000
TOWN BLUFF DAM, B A STEINHAGEN LAKE, TX......................  ...............  ...............            2,694
WACO LAKE, TX................................................  ...............  ...............            2,590
WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX.........................................  ...............  ...............            2,437
WHITNEY LAKE, TX.............................................  ...............  ...............            6,293
WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX...............................  ...............  ...............            4,036

                             UTAH

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT............................  ...............  ...............               42
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, UT..........................  ...............  ...............              672

                           VERMONT

BALL MOUNTAIN LAKE, VT.......................................  ...............  ...............            1,299
CONNECTICUT RIVER FLOOD CONTROL DAMS.........................  ...............  ...............              188
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VT............................  ...............  ...............               49
NARROWS OF LAKE CHAMPLAIN, VT & NY...........................  ...............  ...............               10
NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT......................................  ...............  ...............              850
NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT...................................  ...............  ...............              981
TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT...........................................  ...............  ...............              873
UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT........................................  ...............  ...............              666

                           VIRGINIA

APPOMATTOX RIVER, VA.........................................  ...............  ...............              500
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--ACC, VA......................  ...............  ...............            1,798
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--DSC, VA......................  ...............  ...............              867
CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA.......................................  ...............  ...............              852
GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA............................  ...............  ...............            2,082
HAMPTON RDS, NORFOLK & NEWPORT NEWS HBR, VA (DRIFT REM.......  ...............  ...............              920
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA............................  ...............  ...............              211
JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA......................................  ...............  ...............            3,043
JOHN H KERR LAKE, VA & NC....................................  ...............  ...............           11,060
JOHN W FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA.......................  ...............  ...............            1,366
NORFOLK HARBOR, VA...........................................  ...............  ...............           13,518
NORFOLK HARBOR, VA (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS.......  ...............  ...............              221
NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA...........................  ...............  ...............              601
PHILPOTT LAKE, VA............................................  ...............  ...............            4,688
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA................................  ...............  ...............              840
RUDEE INLET, VA..............................................  ...............  ...............              953

                          WASHINGTON

CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA.........................................  ...............  ...............              837
COLUMBIA RIVER AT BAKER BAY, WA (PORT OF ILWACO).............  ...............  ...............              750
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN CHINOOK AND THE HEAD OF SAND..........  ...............  ...............              750
EDIZ HOOK, WA................................................  ...............  ...............              310
EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WA.......................  ...............  ...............              895
GRAYS HARBOR AND CHEHALIS RIVER, WA..........................  ...............  ...............            6,679
HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA........................................  ...............  ...............            1,232
ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA..................................  ...............  ...............            4,538
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA............................  ...............  ...............              311
LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA...............................  ...............  ...............            6,112
LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, WA................................  ...............  ...............            2,755
LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, WA...............................  ...............  ...............            3,280
LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA............................  ...............  ...............            2,398
MILL CREEK LAKE, WA..........................................  ...............  ...............            1,584
MT ST HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA............................  ...............  ...............              301
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA.........................................  ...............  ...............            2,639
NEAH BAY, WA.................................................  ...............  ...............               33
OLYMPIA HARBOR, WA...........................................  ...............  ...............            1,918
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA................................  ...............  ...............              317
PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, WA.........................  ...............  ...............              907
QUILLAYUTE RIVER, WA.........................................  ...............  ...............            1,052
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WA..........................  ...............  ...............              570
SEATTLE HARBOR, WA...........................................  ...............  ...............               66
STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA......................................  ...............  ...............              128
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WA.................  ...............  ...............               98
SWINOMISH CHANNEL, WA........................................  ...............  ...............              627
TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA...................................  ...............  ...............              140
THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM, WA & OR.............................  ...............  ...............            3,432
WILLAPA RIVER AND HARBOR, WA.................................  ...............  ...............               84

                        WEST VIRGINIA

BEECH FORK LAKE, WV..........................................  ...............  ...............            1,078
BLUESTONE LAKE, WV...........................................  ...............  ...............            1,098
BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV..........................................  ...............  ...............            1,738
EAST LYNN LAKE, WV...........................................  ...............  ...............            1,699
ELKINS, WV...................................................  ...............  ...............               17
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV............................  ...............  ...............              129
KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV.............................  ...............  ...............            9,185
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY & OH.......................  ...............  ...............           20,665
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, WV, KY & OH....................  ...............  ...............            2,140
R D BAILEY LAKE, WV..........................................  ...............  ...............            2,302
STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV...................................  ...............  ...............              830
SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV........................................  ...............  ...............            1,883
SUTTON LAKE, WV..............................................  ...............  ...............            1,750
TYGART LAKE, WV..............................................  ...............  ...............            1,350

                          WISCONSIN

EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI.....................................  ...............  ...............              723
FOX RIVER, WI................................................  ...............  ...............            2,147
GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI.........................................  ...............  ...............            3,607
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WI............................  ...............  ...............               41
MANITOWOC HARBOR, WI.........................................  ...............  ...............              650
MILWAUKEE HARBOR, WI.........................................  ...............  ...............              176
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WI................................  ...............  ...............              105
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WI.................  ...............  ...............              472

                           WYOMING

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WY............................  ...............  ...............               11
JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY......................................  ...............  ...............              853
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WY..........................  ...............  ...............               87
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, PROJECTS LISTED UNDER STATES.................  ...............  ...............        2,008,455

O&M Regions:
    NEW ENGLAND..............................................           42,703           45,078  ...............
    MID-ATLANTIC.............................................          146,700          143,250  ...............
    SOUTH ATLANTIC-GULF......................................          318,443          297,043  ...............
    GREAT LAKES..............................................           96,660          101,407  ...............
    OHIO.....................................................          249,331          252,886  ...............
    TENNESSEE................................................           20,701           21,301  ...............
    UPPER MISSISSIPPI........................................          247,967          233,803  ...............
    LOWER MISSISSIPPI........................................          140,613          147,021  ...............
    SOURIS-RED-RAINY.........................................            2,999            2,999  ...............
    MISSOURI.................................................          180,200          151,180  ...............
    ARKANSAS-WHITE-RED.......................................          176,934          178,084  ...............
    TEXAS-GULF...............................................          147,422          141,113  ...............
    RIO GRANDE...............................................           10,209           10,209  ...............
    UPPER COLORADO...........................................              722              722  ...............
    LOWER COLORADO...........................................            3,327            3,327  ...............
    GREAT BASIN..............................................              761              761  ...............
    PACIFIC NORTHWEST........................................          252,093          242,593  ...............
    CALIFORNIA...............................................           98,232          102,461  ...............
    ALASKA...................................................           22,204           22,204  ...............
    HAWAII...................................................            1,995            1,995  ...............
    CARIBBEAN................................................            4,000            4,000  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, PROJECTS LISTED UNDER REGIONS................        2,164,216        2,103,437  ...............

REMAINING ITEMS:
    AQUATIC NUISANCE CONTROL RESEARCH........................              690              690              690
    ASSET MANAGEMENT/FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE....            4,000            4,000            4,000
    COASTAL INLET RESEARCH PROGRAM...........................            2,475            2,475            2,475
    CULTURAL RESOURCES (NAGPRA/CURATION).....................            2,000            2,000            2,000
    DREDGE WHEELER READY RESERVE.............................            8,000            8,000            8,000
    DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROGRAM.............           18,000           18,000  ...............
    DREDGING DATA AND LOCK PERFORMANCE MONITORING SYSTEM.....            1,062            1,062            1,062
    DREDGING OPERATIONS AND ENVRIONMENTAL RESEARCH (DOER)....            6,080            6,080            6,080
    DREDGING OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT PROGRAM (DOTS).....            1,391            1,391            1,391
    EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM.....................              270              270              270
    FACILITY PROTECTION......................................           12,000           12,000           12,000
    GREAT LAKES TRIBUTARY MODEL..............................              900              900              900
    INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP PR...              500              500  ...............
    INLAND WATERWAY NAVIGATION CHARTS........................            3,708            3,708            3,708
    MONITORING OF COMPLETED NAVIGATION PROJECTS..............            1,575            1,575            1,575
    NATIONAL COASTAL MAPPING.................................            2,400            2,400            8,600
    NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM..............................            6,300            6,300            6,300
    NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM (NEPP)...........            5,000            5,000            5,000
    PERFORMANCE BASED BUDGETING SUPPORT PROGRAM..............            2,540            2,540            2,540
    PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT FOR WATER STORAGE REALLOCA-  TION...              300              300              300
    PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT TECHNICAL SUPPORT (ABS,P2,WINABS)....              300              300              300
    PROTECTION OF NAVIGATION.................................            5,541            5,541            5,541
    RECREATION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT PROGRAM (MSP)..............            1,600            1,600            1,600
    REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.......            1,391            3,641            2,041
    RELIABILITY MODELS PROGRAM FOR MAJOR REHABILITATION......              608              608  ...............
    STEWARDSHIP SUPPORT PROGRAM..............................              500              500              500
    WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT (WOTS)................              653              653              653
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
       SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS.............................           89,784           92,034           78,634

SAVINGS & SLIPPAGE...........................................  ...............  ...............          -57,089
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.......................        2,254,000        2,195,471        2,030,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Alabama and Mississippi.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000 for the 
construction of mooring cells at Columbus, Mississippi and 
additional funding for additional maintenance dredging, aquatic 
plant control activities and backlog maintenance.
    Cordova Harbor, Alaska.--The Committee has included 
$500,000 for maintenance dredging of the harbor.
    Helena Harbor, Arkansas.--The Committee includes $430,000 
for maintenance dredging of this harbor.
    McClellan-Kerr, Arkansas River Navigation System, Arkansas 
and Oklahoma.--An additional $4,000,000 is provided to complete 
the general reevaluation study to identify the long term fix 
for the Arkansas-White Cutoff Structure and for repairs along 
the existing Melinda Structure.
    Ouachita and Black Rivers, Arkansas and Louisiana.--The 
Committee recommendation includes an additional $2,000,000 for 
backlog maintenance.
    Crescent City, California.--The Committee has provided 
$500,000 for dredging.
    Oakland Harbor, California.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $8,543,000 for dredging the Inner and Outer Harbors.
    Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor, California.--$4,000,000 is 
provided for dredging the Los Angeles River Estuary.
    Cherry Creek, Chatfield, and Trinidad Lakes, Colorado.--The 
Committee has included an additional $2,000,000 for continued 
repairs at these three lakes. This action in no way is intended 
to alter the Corps of Engineers' lease and property 
accountability policies. It is the Committee's understanding 
that the State of Colorado has agreed to cost share this 
project on a 50-50 basis. It is also the understanding of the 
Committee that the Secretary is not to assume, nor share in the 
future of the operation and maintenance of these recreation 
facilities. Of the funds provided, the Corps is directed to 
conduct a reallocation study for Chatfield Reservoir project.
    Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, 
Delaware and Maryland.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$12,008,000 for this project.
    AIWW, Norfolk, Virginia to St. Johns River, Florida, 
Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia.--The 
Committee includes $2,100,000 for maintenance dredging.
    Intracoastal Waterway, Caloosahatchee to Anclote, 
FLorida.--The Committee provides $1,500,000 for maintenance 
dredging.
    Intracoastal Waterway, Jacksonville to Miami, Florida.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000 for maintenance 
dredging.
    Miami River, Florida.--The Committee provides $7,000,000 
for continued operations and maintenance of the Miami River 
Channel. This project will provide the first maintenance 
dredging of the Miami River since its original authorization in 
1930. The Corps of Engineers is currently studying the economic 
benefits of the dredging project. In so doing, the Secretary 
should take into consideration the broad economic benefits of 
this project, including the increase in maritime cargo, the 
increased maritime business activity on the Miami River that 
will result from the project, such as mega-yacht servicing, and 
other economic and environmental benefits related to the 
revitalization of the area bordering the Miami River.
    Apalachiacola, Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers and Alabama, 
Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida.--
Prior notification of the House and Senate Appropriations 
Committees and affected congressional Members is required 
before any funding shall be reprogrammed or otherwise used for 
updating masterplans having to do with projects in these river 
basins.
    Pohiki Bay, Hawaii, Hawaii.--The Committee includes 
$200,000 to complete plans and specifications for the 
breakwater repair.
    Mississippi River Between Missouri River and Minneapolis 
(MVR Portion), Illinois.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$40,790,000. Within the funds provided, $3,582,000 is for 
continuation of the major maintenance of Lock and Dam 11 and 
Lock and Dam 19 as well as dredging small boat harbors.
    Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf and Black, 
Louisiana.--The Committee has provided an additional funds for 
maintenance dredging activities.
    Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana.--The Committee 
provides additional funding for maintenance dredging of this 
channel.
    J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Louisiana.--The Committee 
recommendation includes an additional $2,548,000 for bank 
stabilization repairs, dredging entrances to oxbow lakes, 
routine operation and maintenance activities, annual dredging 
requirements, and backlog maintenance.
    Herring Bay and Rockhold Creek, Maryland.--The Committee 
recommendation includes funds to dredge this project.
    Boston Harbor, Massachusetts.--The Committee has provided 
$7,000,000 to initiate dredging in the Inner Harbor.
    Weymouth-Fore River, Massachusetts.--$1,728,000 is provided 
for dredging this project.
    Grand Marais Harbor, Michigan.--The Committee provides 
$1,500,000 to continue construction of the replacement 
breakwater.
    Mouth of the Yazoo River, Mississippi.--The Committee 
includes additional funds for the maintenance dredging of the 
entrance to Vicksburg Harbor.
    Okatibbee Lake, Mississippi.--The Committee includes 
additional funds for maintenance of public use facilities.
    Rosedale Harbor, Mississippi.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $600,000 for maintenance dredging of the harbor.
    Cocheco River, New Hampshire.--The Committee provides 
$2,000,000 continue dredging of the Cocheco River project.
    Albuquerque Levees, New Mexico.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $500,000 to complete plans and 
specifications.
    Cochiti Lake, New Mexico.--The Committee provides 
additional funds to fully fund routine operation and 
maintenance, campground construction, Cochiti baseline, gate 
automation, grout control tower to stop all water leaks, and 
structural review of the project water tower.
    Rio Grande Bosque Rehabilitation, New Mexico.--The 
Committee includes $4,000,000 to continue fire reduction work 
and general Bosque rehabilitation in order to complete repairs 
and fire protection resulting from 2003 and 2004 fires in the 
urban interface.
    Scheduling Reservoir Operations, New Mexico.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $1,471,000. Within these funds, 
$250,000 is provided to develop an outline for an Integrated 
Management Plan of the Rio Grande in New Mexico in cooperation 
with the Bureau of Reclamation, other Federal, State and local 
agencies.
    Upper Rio Grande Water Operations Model, New Mexico.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for assessment of 
options to develop a conservation pool to assist in meeting ESA 
requirements in the Middle Rio Grande.
    Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, North Carolina.--The 
Committee includes an additional $3,370,000 for dredging of the 
project. Within the funds provided, $500,000 is for dredging 
Snow's cut.
    Manteo (Shallowbag Bay), North Carolina.--The Committee 
includes additional funds for dredging of the project.
    Garrison Dam and Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota.--The 
Committee provides $100,000 for mosquito control, $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, and $5,000,000, along with prior year unobligated 
balances, shall be used for the relocation of the Fort 
Stevenson marina.
    Columbia and Lower Willamette River Below Vancouver, 
Washington and Portland, Oregon.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $17,800,000 for this project. Within the funds 
provided, up to $1,384,000 shall be used for dredging the 43 
foot channel and $470,000 is for dredging at the Old Mouth of 
the Columbia River at Longview, Washington.
    Columbia River at the Mouth, Oregon and Washington.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $20,189,000 for the project. 
Within these funds, $9,315,000 is provided to complete interim 
repairs on the South jetty; complete the Phase 1 Major 
Rehabilitation Report; and to initiate a Design Documentation 
Report for Phase 1 and the Phase 2 Major Rehabilitation Report.
    Cheyenne River Siuox Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux, South 
Dakota.--The Committee notes that title VI of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1999, as amended, requires that 
funding to inventory and stabilize cultural and historic sites 
along the Missouri River in South Dakota, and to carry out the 
terrestrial wildlife habitat programs, shall be provided from 
the Operation and Maintenance account. The Committee provides 
$2,500,000 to protect cultural resource sites and provide 
funding to the State and tribes for approved restoration and 
stewardship plans and in compliance with the requirements of 
title VI, directs the Corps to contract with or reimburse the 
State of South Dakota and affected tribes to carry out these 
duties.
    Houston Ship Channel, Texas.--The Committee includes an 
additional $2,000,000 for additional dredging and dredging 
related activities.
    Texas Water Allocation Study, Texas.--The Committee 
provides $1,000,000 for this ongoing study.
    Connecticut River Flood Control Dams, Vermont.--$188,000 is 
provided to complete the evaluation of structural modifications 
to the five Corps dams within the Connecticut River Basin in 
Vermont.
    Norfolk Harbor, Virginia.--The Committee provides an 
additional $3,747,000 for maintenance dredging and to raise the 
containment dikes to provide the capacity needed for the 
Norfolk Harbor Deepening project.
    Mud Mountain Dam, Washington.--Within the funds provided, 
the Corps is directed to use up to $500,000 to satisfy Federal 
fish passage obligations for the term of the cooperative 
agreement with Puget Sound Energy.
    R.D. Bailey Lake, West Virginia.--The Committee includes an 
additional $770,000 for drift removal and for drift removal 
equipment.
    Fox River, Wisconsin.--The Committee has included an 
additional $1,000,000 to reimburse Wisconsin, in accordance 
with the agreement, for the costs of repairs and rehabilitation 
of the transferred property.
    Independent Assessment of Environmental Stewardship 
Program.--The Committee has not provided funding for this new 
study.
    Reliability Models Program for Major Rehabilitation.--The 
Committee has not provided funding for this new study.
    Regional Sediment Management Demonstration Program.--The 
Committee has provided $2,041,000 for this program. Within the 
funds provided, $500,000 is for the southeast coast of Oahu, 
Hawaii and $250,000 for Ocean and Bay Coastlines in Virginia. 
The Committee has not included funds for the Benson Beach 
demonstration project. It is the Committee's understanding that 
funds are available from prior year appropriations for this 
project. The Committee directs the Corps to work with the State 
of Washington to study the effects of nearshore disposal and 
littoral drift on nourishment of Benson Beach.
    National Coastal Mapping.--$8,600,000 is provided for this 
program. Within the funds provided $1,600,000 is for collection 
of LIDAR bathymetry and $4,600,000 is for Coastal Zone Mapping 
and Imaging Laser to be conducted with the University of 
Southern Mississippi.

                 FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

Appropriations, 2006....................................         ( \1\ )
Budget estimate, 2007...................................     $81,000,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................      32,000,000

\1\ Excludes emergency appropriation of $5,422,989,000.

    The Committee has included $32,000,000 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.
    Since Hurricane Katrina made landfall in late August 2005, 
nearly $5,500,000,000 has been provided to this account through 
supplemental appropriations. The Committee believes that 
carryover funds should be available to address unexpected 
disasters that occur in fiscal year 2007. Therefore, the 
Committee provides $32,000,000. This is the amount considered 
necessary for annual readiness and preparedness activities of 
the Corps.

                           REGULATORY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2006....................................    $158,400,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................     173,000,000
House allowance.........................................     173,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     168,000,000

    An appropriation of $168,000,000 is recommended for the 
regulatory program of the Corps of Engineers.
    This appropriation provides for salaries and costs incurred 
administering regulation of activities affecting U.S. waters, 
including wetlands, in accordance with the Rivers and Harbors 
Act of 1899 33 U.S.C. section 401, the Clean Water Act of 1977 
Public Law 95-217, and the Marine Protection, Research and 
Sanctuaries Act of 1972 Public Law 92-532.
    The appropriation helps maintain program performance, 
protects important aquatic resources, and supports partnerships 
with States and local communities through watershed planning 
efforts.
    The Committee continues to be concerned about the backlog 
of permit applications and the delay in making permit 
decisions, especially in certain areas. Some of these permit 
actions have major national or regional impacts and the delays 
are, accordingly, having negative consequences on the Nation's 
economy and environmental quality. To partially address this 
concern, the Corps of Engineers is directed to initiate a 
series of pilot programs aimed at streamlining decisions for 
high impact permit applications with national or regional 
implications, especially those which are repetitive or which 
have common characteristics with other similar permit 
applications. These pilot programs are to be designed to gain 
efficiencies by sharing knowledge and expertise gained by Corps 
regulators in processing similar types of applications in one 
area with their colleagues facing similar applications in 
another, promoting consistency, developing and sharing ``best 
practices'' approaches to evaluating such permit applications, 
and use of virtual or dedicated teams to expedite broad-impact 
permit applications. In establishing these pilot programs, the 
Corps shall give priority to applications aimed at streamlining 
the expansion of interstate rail capacity in an economically 
and environmentally sound manner and in reaching similarly 
sound, streamlined decisions on large-scale commercial and 
residential land developments involving complex land use 
considerations.
    The Committee is keenly aware that U.S. economic health and 
national security depends on the continued availability of 
reliable and affordable energy. The Committee is also aware 
that the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Regulatory Branch 
plays a key role by authorizing much of the 1.13 billion tons 
of coal production expected this year through its regulatory 
program.
    Therefore, the Committee directs the Corps to work with the 
Office of Surface Mining [OSM] to develop a more efficient 
process for issuing permits associated with surface coal mining 
operations. To avoid unnecessary time delays and duplication of 
agency resources, the Corps shall maintain the availability of 
a meaningful general permit for surface coal mining that may be 
issued in coordination with and for the term of the permit 
already required pursuant to the Surface Mining Control and 
Reclamation Act [SMCRA]. The Corps should also dedicate 
sufficient personnel and financial resources to support a 
consistent program for permit review and issuance.

            FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2006....................................    $138,600,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................     130,000,000
House allowance.........................................     130,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     140,000,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $140,000,000 
to continue activities related to the Formerly Utilized Sites 
Remedial Action Program [FUSRAP] in fiscal year 2005.
    The responsibility for the cleanup of contaminated sites 
under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program was 
transferred to the Army Corps of Engineers in the fiscal year 
1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, Public 
Law 105-62.
    FUSRAP is not specifically defined by statute. The program 
was established in 1974 under the broad authority of the Atomic 
Energy Act and, until fiscal year 1998, funds for the cleanup 
of contaminated defense sites had been appropriated to the 
Department of Energy through existing appropriation accounts. 
In appropriating FUSRAP funds to the Corps of Engineers, the 
Committee intended to transfer only the responsibility for 
administration and execution of cleanup activities at eligible 
sites where remediation had not been completed. It did not 
intend to transfer ownership of and accountability for real 
property interests that remain with the Department of Energy.
    The Corps of Engineers has extensive experience in the 
cleanup of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive wastes through its 
work for the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies. 
The Committee always intended for the Corps' expertise be used 
in the same manner for the cleanup of contaminated sites under 
FUSRAP. The Committee expects the Corps to continue programming 
and budgeting for FUSRAP as part of the Corps of Engineers--
Civil program.
    The Committee directs the Corps of Engineers during fiscal 
year 2007 to complete expeditiously its Site Ownership and 
Operational History review and continue its Remedial 
Investigation/Feasibility Study toward the goal of initiating 
any necessary remediation of the former Sylvania nuclear fuel 
site at Hicksville, New York, in accordance with CERCLA.
    The Committee directs the Corps to continue ongoing cleanup 
efforts at the Former Linde Air Products, Tonawanda, New York, 
consistent with current CERCLA cleanup standards.

                            GENERAL EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006....................................\1\ $152,460,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................     164,000,000
House allowance.........................................     142,100,000
Committee recommendation................................     164,000,000

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

    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.
    Millions of dollars have been spent over the last several 
years on an initiative to contract out Government jobs in order 
to make the Government more efficient. However, in more than 70 
percent of the cases Government employees win the competition 
for their jobs. The Committee fails to see any evidence of cost 
savings or increased efficiency by undergoing these expensive 
competitions. Therefore, the Committee directs that no funds 
provided in this account or otherwise available for expenditure 
shall be used to comply with the competitive sourcing 
initiative.
    The Committee acknowledges that the General Expense account 
has not kept pace with inflation. Over the last 6 years this 
account has fluctuated. The low point was in fiscal year 2000, 
when the account was funded at $149,500,000 for a 
$4,100,000,000 program. The high point was in fiscal year 2005, 
when the account was funded at $167,000,000 for a 
$4,700,000,000 program. Both of these numbers represent about 
3.6 percent of the total dollars appropriated. The Committee 
recommendation for fiscal year 2007 program is about 
$5,100,000,000. Using the same percentage, this translates to 
$181,000,000 for the GE account for fiscal year 2007. Obviously 
other variables must be considered than a single percentage, 
but it is one way to approximate the level of funding needed in 
the GE account to provide similar levels of service.
    While the Committee did not provide $181,000,000 for the GE 
account, it did retain the requested level of $164,000,000, 
which includes $6,000,000 to fund the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works). The Committee directs that 
the funds proposed for the ASA[CW] along with the funds 
proposed for competitive sourcing in the budget request be used 
to provide up to 40 additional staff for the headquarters 
office. Additional staff should also be provided for the 
Mississippi Valley Division in order to oversee hurricane 
recovery efforts and the more than $6,000,000,000 that Congress 
has provided for that effort. Up to $1,500,000 may be used to 
augment the General Expense budget of the Mississippi Valley 
Division. The Committee expects the administration to budget 
for this increased staffing in future budget submissions.

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

    The Committee has provided no funding for the Office of the 
Assitant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. The Committee 
does not believe that the ASA[CW] has the time nor should be 
involved in the day-to-day operational matters of the civil 
works program. It is the Committee's opinion that the 
traditional role of the ASA[CW] is to provide the Chief of 
Engineers advice about policy matters and generally be the 
political spokesperson for the administration's policies; 
however, the Chief of Engineers is responsible for carrying out 
the program.
    The decisions of fiscal year 2005 and 2006 to fund the 
expenses of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil 
Works through Energy and Water appropriations were an 
experiment in striving for management improvements in the Civil 
Works program. The desired management improvements can be and 
are being achieved but, based on the experience of these 2 
years, it is apparent that funding the Assistant Secretary's 
office out of Energy and Water appropriations, rather than the 
military appropriation that funds the rest of the Army 
Secretariat, is neither necessary to achieve these improvements 
nor is it an efficient way to fund the office. As a result, the 
Senate Appropriations Committee recommends that in fiscal year 
2007 and thereafter the expenses of the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works again should be funded 
through the Defense Department appropriations for Operation and 
Maintenance, Army [OMA].
    The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works advises 
the Secretary of the Army on a variety of matters, including 
the Civil Works program of the Corps of Engineers. The 
Assistant Secretary is a member of the Army Secretariat with 
responsibilities, such as participating in Continuity of 
Government exercises that extend well beyond Civil Works. The 
Assistant Secretary also oversees the administration, operation 
and maintenance, and capital development of Arlington National 
Cemetery and the Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery. 
Congressional oversight of the Army Cemetery program lies not 
with the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, but 
rather with the Appropriation Subcommittee on Military 
Construction and Veterans Affairs and with the Committee on 
Veterans Affairs.
    The Assistant Secretary has broad responsibilities to 
oversee the Support for Others program of the Corps of 
Engineers, totaling nearly $2,400,000,000 in fiscal year 2005. 
Through this program, the Corps provides reimbursable 
engineering and construction services for more than 70 other 
Federal agencies and, under certain conditions specified in 
law, provides services for States, localities and tribes. The 
Assistant Secretary also has oversight over Corps international 
activities that are not directly in support of U.S. military 
forces overseas. These include more than $500,000,000 in design 
and construction for the Defense Department's Foreign Military 
Sales program and more than $150,000,000 in vertical 
construction for the Department of State's Cooperative Threat 
Reduction program. Oversight of domestic activities includes 
support for the Department of Homeland Security (in both 
national security activities and emergency response under the 
Stafford Act in support of the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency), the Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund 
program, the Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration, and many other agencies.
    The Army's accounting system does not track OMA funding of 
overhead or Army-wide support offices on the basis of which 
office receives support, nor would it be efficient or effective 
to do so for a 20 person office. Instead, expenses such as 
legal support, personnel services, finance and accounting 
services, the executive motor pool, travel on military 
aircraft, and other support services are centrally funded and 
managed on a department-wide basis. Transferring the funding 
for the expenses of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works to 
a separate account has greatly complicated the Army's 
accounting for such indirect and overhead expenses with no 
commensurate benefit to justify the change.

             GENERAL PROVISIONS--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL

    Section 101. The bill includes language concerning 
reprogramming.
    Section 102. The bill includes language limiting 
reimbursements.
    Section 103. The bill includes language prohibiting the 
divesting or transferring Civil Works functions.
    Section 104. The bill includes language prohibiting any 
steps to dismantle the St. Georges Bridge in Delaware.
    Section 105. The bill includes language concerning report 
notifications.
    Section 106. The bill includes language concerning 
reallocations in Lake Cumberland, Kentucky.
    Section 107. The bill includes language regarding the Lower 
Mud River, Milton, West Virginia, project.
    Section 108. The bill includes language allowing the use of 
the revolving fund to construct two buildings.
    Section 109. The bill includes language concerning 
cooperative agreements.
    Section 110. The bill includes language concerning in-kind 
services for the Rio Grande Basin Watershed study.
    Section 111. The bill includes language regarding the 
Middle Rio Grande Collaborative Program, New Mexico.
    Section 112. The bill includes language regarding 
Apalachiacola, Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers and Alabama, 
Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida.
    Section 113. The bill includes language regarding the Rio 
De Flag, Arizona, project.
    Section 114. The bill includes language regarding Avian 
Predation in the Columbia River Fish Mitigation project.
    Section 115. The bill includes language regarding the Santa 
Ana, California, project.
    Section 116. The bill includes language regarding the Upper 
Guadalupe, California, project.
    Section 117. The bill includes language concerning the 
conveyance of surplus property in Tate County, Mississippi.
    Section 118. The bill includes language regarding two 
environmental infrastructure projects in Nevada.
    Section 119. The bill includes language regarding the 
Devils Lake, North Dakota, environmental infrastructure.
    Section 120. The bill includes language regarding the 
Federal dredges.
    Section 121. The bill includes language regarding the 
Federal dredges.
    Section 122. The bill includes language regarding the 
Federal dredges.
    Section 123. The bill includes language concerning Missouri 
River mitigation.
    Section 124. The bill includes language limiting Corps of 
Engineers expenditure on a project.
    Section 125. The bill includes language repealing two 
sections of Public Law 109-103.
    Section 126. The bill includes language concerning the 
Shore Line Erosion Control Development and Demonstration 
Program.
    Section 127. The bill includes language regarding 
congressional budget justifications.
    Section 128. The bill includes language regarding non-
Federal sponsors.
    Section 129. The bill includes language regarding 
reimbursements.
    Section 130. The bill includes language regarding Johnson 
Creek, Texas.
    Section 131. The bill includes language regarding McAlpine 
Lock and Dam.
    Section 132. The bill includes language regarding Federal 
Civilian Employee Compensation.
    Section 133. The bill includes language regarding crediting 
of non-Federal expenditures.
    Section 134. The bill includes language regarding the San 
Lorenzo River, California.
    Section 135. The bill includes a provision regarding the 
Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers Enhancement Project.

                                TITLE II

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                Central Utah Project Completion Account

Appropriations, 2006....................................     $34,007,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................      40,155,000
House allowance.........................................      40,155,000
Committee recommendation................................      40,155,000

    The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2007 to carry 
out the provisions of the Central Utah Project Completion Act 
totals $40,155,000. An appropriation of $37,587,000 has been 
provided for Central Utah project construction; $937,000 for 
fish, wildlife, and recreation, mitigation and conservation. 
The Committee recommendation provides $1,603,000 for program 
administration and oversight.
    Legislative language in the bill that accompanies this 
report allows up to $1,500,000 to be used for administrative 
costs. The one time increase in administrative expenses is to 
provide funding for costs associated with securing new office 
space and relocating the Commission's office, due to the 
cancellation of its building lease.
    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, 2006....................................\1\ $874,679,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... \2\ 745,424,000
House allowance......................................... \2\ 761,122,000
Committee recommendation................................     888,994,000

\1\ Includes Emergency Supplemental Appropriations of $9,000,000.
\2\ Includes a rescission of $88,000,000.

    An appropriation of $888,994,000 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 and the House 
allowance.

                               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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 ARIZONA

AK CHIN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT       ..........       7,920  ..........       7,920  ..........       7,920
 PROJECT................................
CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT, COLORADO RIVER       27,050         153      27,050         153      27,650         153
 BASIN..................................
COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE            5,495  ..........       5,495  ..........       5,495  ..........
 SYSTEM.................................
FORT MCDOWELL SETTLEMENT ACT............         396  ..........         396  ..........         396  ..........
NORTHERN ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.         297  ..........         297  ..........         297  ..........
PHOENIX METROPOLITAN WATER REUSE PROJECT         198  ..........         198  ..........         198  ..........
SALT RIVER PROJECT......................         297  ..........         297  ..........         297  ..........
SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE WATER SETTLEMENT         297  ..........         297  ..........         297  ..........
 ACT....................................
SOUTHERN ARIZONA WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT       4,713  ..........       4,713  ..........       4,713  ..........
 ACT PROJECT............................
SOUTH/CENTRAL ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS           1,074  ..........       1,074  ..........       1,074  ..........
 PROGRAM................................
TRES RIOS WETLANDS DEMONSTRATION........         223  ..........         473  ..........         223  ..........
YUMA AREA PROJECTS......................       1,652      21,080       2,147      21,080       1,652      21,080
YUMA EAST WETLANDS, AZ..................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........

               CALIFORNIA

CACHUMA PROJECT.........................       1,021         558       1,521         558       1,521         558
CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.......         574  ..........         574  ..........         574  ..........
CALLEGUAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT               990  ..........         990  ..........       1,200  ..........
 RECYCLING PLANT........................
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT:
    AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION.............       1,815       7,158       3,065       7,158       1,815       7,158
    AUBURN-FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT............       4,025  ..........       5,025  ..........       4,025  ..........
    DELTA DIVISION......................      10,819       5,840      10,819       5,840      10,819       5,840
    EAST SIDE DIVISION..................       1,598       2,523       1,598       2,523       1,598       2,523
    FRIANT DIVISION.....................       1,894       3,814       1,894       3,814       1,894       3,814
    MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS......      13,658       1,259      13,658       1,259      13,658       1,259
    REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND          ..........      18,315  ..........      18,315  ..........      18,315
     EXTRAORDINARY MAINT................
    SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVERSION..........       2,445       1,740       2,445       1,740       4,395       1,740
    SAN FELIPE DIVISION.................       1,015  ..........       1,015  ..........       1,015  ..........
    SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION................         309  ..........         309  ..........         309  ..........
    SHASTA DIVISION.....................         802       7,625         802       7,625         802       7,625
    TRINITY RIVER DIVISION..............       7,379       3,318       7,379       3,318       9,379       3,318
    WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS..........       1,648       9,483       1,648       9,483       1,648       9,483
    WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS        3,921       6,992       3,921       6,992       3,921       6,992
     UNIT...............................
    YIELD FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION.....         792  ..........         792  ..........         792  ..........
HI-DESERT WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND       ..........  ..........         500  ..........  ..........  ..........
 REUSE..................................
LAKE TAHOE REGIONAL WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       4,500  ..........
LONG BEACH AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND            743  ..........         743  ..........         907  ..........
 REUSE PROJECT..........................
LONG BEACH DESALINATION PROJECT.........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........
IRVINE BASIN GROUND AND SURFACE WATER     ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........         250  ..........
 IMPROVEMENT............................
NAPA-SONOMA-MARIN AGRICULTURAL REUSE      ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         200  ..........
 PROJECT................................
NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY AREA WATER              1,238  ..........       1,238  ..........       1,238  ..........
 RECYCLING PROJECT......................
ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL WATER RECLAMATION       1,238  ..........       1,238  ..........       2,500  ..........
 PROJECT, PHAS..........................
ORLAND PROJECT..........................          14         674          14         674          14         674
SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVERSION STUDY........  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........  ..........  ..........
SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT.............         743  ..........       2,243  ..........         743  ..........
SAN DIEGO AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND           3,465  ..........       3,465  ..........       3,465  ..........
 REUSE PROGRAM..........................
SAN GABRIEL BASIN PROJECT...............         743  ..........         743  ..........         743  ..........
SAN GABRIEL BASIN RESTORATION PROJECT...  ..........  ..........      10,000  ..........  ..........  ..........
SAN JOSE AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND              495  ..........         495  ..........         495  ..........
 REUSE PROGRAM..........................
SANTA MARGARITA RIVER CONJUNCTIVE USE     ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
 PROJECT................................
SOLANO PROJECT..........................       1,287       2,558       1,287       2,558       1,287       2,558
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS               406  ..........       1,308  ..........         406  ..........
 PROGRAM................................
WATSONVILLE AREA WATER RECYCLING PROJECT  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........  ..........  ..........
VENTURA RIVER PROJECT...................         824  ..........         824  ..........         824  ..........

                COLORADO

ANIMAS-LA PLATA PROJECT, CRSP SECTION 5       57,420  ..........      57,420  ..........      65,000  ..........
 & 8....................................
COLLBRAN PROJECT........................         170       1,370         170       1,370         170       1,370
COLORADO--BIG THOMPSON PROJECT..........         334      14,861         334      14,861         334      14,861
COLORADO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.........         396  ..........         396  ..........         396  ..........
FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT................          81         144          81         144          81         144
FRYINGPAN--ARKANSAS PROJECT.............         196       6,868         196       6,868         196       6,868
GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II.....         167         882         167         882         167         882
LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY.......          74       1,970          74       1,970          74       1,970
MANCOS PROJECT..........................          50          85          50          85         500          85
PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II...          60       2,067          60       2,067          60       2,067
PINE RIVER PROJECT......................         182         125         182         125         182         125
SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT.................         292       5,141         292       5,141         292       5,141
UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT.....................         128         162         128         162         128         162

                 HAWAII

HAWAIIAN RECLAIM AND REUSE STUDY........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         500  ..........

                  IDAHO

BOISE AREA PROJECTS.....................       2,523       2,706       2,523       2,706       2,523       2,706
COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY      17,325  ..........      17,325  ..........      17,325  ..........
 PROJECT................................
IDAHO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM............         574  ..........         574  ..........         574  ..........
LEWISTON ORCHARDS PROJECTS..............         339          31         339          31         339          31
MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS..................       3,266       2,938       3,266       2,938       3,266       2,938
MINIDOKA NORTHSIDE DRAIN WATER                   114  ..........         114  ..........         114  ..........
 MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.....................
MINIDOKA PROJECT, GRASSY LAKE SOD.......  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........

                 KANSAS

KANSAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...........         150  ..........         150  ..........         150  ..........
WICHITA PROJECT.........................          15         436          15         436          15         436

                 MONTANA

FORT PECK DRY PRAIRIE RURAL WATER SYSTEM       5,000  ..........       6,000  ..........      10,000  ..........
HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT....................  ..........         990  ..........         990  ..........         990
HUNTLEY PROJECT.........................          50         131          50         131          50         131
MILK RIVER PROJECT......................         487       1,099         487       1,099         487       1,099
MONTANA INVESTIGATIONS..................         318  ..........         318  ..........         318  ..........
NORTH CENTRAL MONTANA RURAL WATER         ..........  ..........       5,500  ..........       6,000  ..........
 PROJECT................................
ST. MARY'S FACILITIES REHABILIATION.....  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       5,000  ..........
SUN RIVER PROJECT.......................          98         249          98         249          98         249

                NEBRASKA

MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT....................          31          82          31          82          31          82
NEBRASKA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.........         129  ..........         129  ..........         129  ..........

                 NEVADA

HALFWAY WASH PROJECT STUDY..............         198  ..........         198  ..........         198  ..........
LAHONTAN BASIN PROJECT..................       4,982       2,807       4,982       2,807       4,982       2,807
LAKE MEAD/LAS VEGAS WASH PROGRAM........         476  ..........         476  ..........       2,274  ..........
NORTH LAS VEGAS WATER REUSE.............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       3,000  ..........

               NEW MEXICO

ALBUQUERQUE METRO AREA WATER &            ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       2,770  ..........
 RECLAMATION REUSE......................
CARLSBAD PROJECT........................       2,031       1,604       2,031       1,604       2,031       2,804
CHIMAYO, NM.............................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       2,000  ..........
EASTERN NEW MEXICO WATER SUPPLY.........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         500  ..........
EASTERN NEW MEXICO INVESTIGATIONS                 50  ..........          50  ..........          50  ..........
 PROGRAMS...............................
JICARILLA APACHE RESERVATION RURAL WATER  ..........  ..........         500  ..........  ..........  ..........
 SYSTEM.................................
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT...............      15,470       8,290      15,470       8,290      23,980      15,520
NAVAJO GALLUP WATER SUPPLY..............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         500  ..........
NAVAJO NATION INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM....          50  ..........          50  ..........          50  ..........
PECOS RIVER BASIN WATER SALVAGE PROJECT.  ..........         189  ..........         189  ..........         189
RIO GRANDE PROJECT......................         960       3,564         960       3,564         960       3,564
SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN INVESTIGATIONS              149  ..........         149  ..........         149  ..........
 PROGRAM................................
SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO/WEST TEXAS                   179  ..........         179  ..........         179  ..........
 INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.................
TUCUMCARI PROJECT.......................          23          13          23          13          23          13
UPPER RIO GRANDE BASIN INVESTIGATIONS...          99  ..........          99  ..........          99  ..........

              NORTH DAKOTA

DAKOTAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM..........         378  ..........         378  ..........         378  ..........
DAKOTAS TRIBES INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
LOWER YELLOWSTONE PROJECT...............          30          64          30          64          30          64
GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT.................      19,255       4,966      20,255       4,966      24,255       4,966

                OKLAHOMA

ARBUCKLE PROJECT........................          37         151          37         151          37         151
MCGEE CREEK PROJECT.....................          26         545          26         545          26         545
MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT...................           6         370           6         370           6         370
NORMAN PROJECT..........................          12         332          12         332          12         332
OKLAHOMA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.........          25  ..........         775  ..........          25  ..........
WASHITA BASIN PROJECT...................          10       1,187          10       1,187          10       1,187
W.C. AUSTIN PROJECT.....................           7         425           7         425           7         425

                 OREGON

CROOKED RIVER PROJECT...................         433         508         433         508         433         508
DESCHUTES PROJECT.......................         330         231         330         231         330         231
EASTERN OREGON PROJECTS.................         662         364         662         364         662         364
KLAMATH PROJECT.........................      23,504       1,246      23,504       1,246      23,504       1,246
MALHEYR, OWYHEE, POWDER,................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
    BURNT RIVER BASIN FEASIBILITY ST....  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         240  ..........
OREGON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...........         389  ..........         389  ..........         389  ..........
ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT                756         418         756         418         756         418
 DIVISION...............................
SAVAGE RAPIDS DAM REMOVAL...............      13,000  ..........      13,000  ..........      13,000  ..........
TUALATIN PROJECT........................         165         216         165         216         165         216
TUALATIN VALLEY WATER SUPPLY FEASIBILITY  ..........  ..........         280  ..........         280  ..........
 PROJECT................................
UMATILLA PROJECT........................         721       3,006         721       3,006         721       3,006

              SOUTH DAKOTA

LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM......      21,000  ..........      22,000  ..........      23,500  ..........
MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT..........  ..........          15  ..........          15  ..........  ..........
MNI WICONI PROJECT......................      22,914       9,256      22,914       9,256      23,914       9,256
PERKINS COUNTY RURAL WATER DISTRICT.....  ..........  ..........       1,250  ..........       1,000  ..........
RAPID VALLEY PROJECT, DEERFIELD DAM.....  ..........          54  ..........          54  ..........          54

                  TEXAS

BALMORHEA PROJECT.......................          26          16          26          16          26          16
CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT..................          68          87          68          87          68          87
DALLAS TRINITY WATER RECLAMATION AND      ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........         205  ..........
 REUSE..................................
LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY WATER RESOURCES.          50  ..........          50  ..........       2,000  ..........
NUECES RIVER............................          27         488          27         488          27         488
SAN ANGELO PROJECT......................           6         367           6         367           6         367
TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM............         204  ..........         204  ..........         204  ..........
WILLIAMSON COUNTY WATER RECYCLING         ..........  ..........         750  ..........  ..........  ..........
 PROJECT................................

                  UTAH

HYRUM PROJECT...........................         122          29         122          29         122          29
MOON LAKE PROJECT.......................           3          29           3          29           3          29
NEWTON PROJECT..........................          55          25          55          25          55          25
NORTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM....          74  ..........          74  ..........         274  ..........
OGDEN RIVER PROJECT.....................         199          70         199          70         199          70
PARK CITY FEASIBILITY STUDY.............  ..........  ..........         200  ..........         200  ..........
PROVO RIVER PROJECT.....................         798         321         798         321         798         321
SCOFIELD PROJECT........................          72          33          72          33          72          33
SOUTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM....         149  ..........         149  ..........         149  ..........
STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT...............         199          14         199          14         199          14
WEBER BASIN PROJECT.....................       1,121         406       1,121         406       1,121         406
WEBER RIVER PROJECT.....................          46          66          46          66          46          66

               WASHINGTON

COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT..................       4,050       6,104       4,050       6,104       4,050       6,104
MAKAH INDIAN COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY       ..........  ..........         200  ..........         200  ..........
 FEASIBILITY STUDY......................
STORAGE DAM FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY             693  ..........         693  ..........         693  ..........
 STUDY..................................
WASHINGTON AREA PROJECTS................         104           5         104           5         104           5
WASHINGTON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.......         352  ..........         352  ..........         952  ..........
YAKIMA PROJECT..........................       2,267       6,890       2,267       6,890       2,267       6,890
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT          11,484  ..........       9,484  ..........      11,484  ..........
 PROJECT................................
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE........  ..........  ..........       2,500  ..........       2,000  ..........

                 WYOMING

KENDRICK PROJECT........................         109       4,265         109       4,265         109       4,265
NORTH PLATTE PROJECT....................         328       2,446         328       2,446         328       2,446
SHOSHONE PROJECT........................          89         733          89         733          89         733
WYOMING INVESTIGATION PROGRAM...........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........

                 VARIOUS

COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL     ..........      10,566  ..........      10,566  ..........      10,566
 PROJECT, TITLE I.......................
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL,         8,910  ..........       8,910  ..........       8,910  ..........
 TITLE II...............................
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, SECTION        2,455       3,291       2,455       3,291       2,455       3,291
 5......................................
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, SECTION        4,455  ..........       4,455  ..........       4,455  ..........
 8......................................
COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT         401  ..........         401  ..........         401  ..........
 PROGRAM................................
DAM SAFETY PROGRAM:
    DEPARTMENT DAM SAFETY PROGRAM.......  ..........       1,485  ..........       1,485  ..........       1,485
    INITIATE SOD CORRECTIVE ACTION......  ..........      49,203  ..........      49,203  ..........      47,203
    SAFETY OF EVALUATION OF EXISTING      ..........      18,315  ..........      18,315  ..........      18,315
     DAMS...............................
DROUGHT EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE............         475  ..........         475  ..........         475  ..........
EMERGENCY PLANNING & DISASTER RESPONSE    ..........       1,346  ..........       1,346  ..........       1,346
 PROGRAM................................
ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY                   11,299  ..........      10,190  ..........      11,299  ..........
 IMPLEMENTATION.........................
ENVIRONMENTAL & INTERAGENCY COORDINATION       1,695  ..........       1,695  ..........       1,695  ..........
 ACTIVITIES.............................
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION....         836  ..........         836  ..........         836  ..........
EXAMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES......          15       6,083          15       6,083          15       6,083
FEDERAL BUILDING SEISMIC SAFETY PROGRAM.  ..........       1,559  ..........       1,559  ..........       1,559
GENERAL PLANNING STUDIES................       1,986  ..........       1,466  ..........       1,986  ..........
LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.......       8,461  ..........       8,461  ..........       8,461  ..........
LOWER COLORADO RIVER INVESTIGATIONS              297  ..........         297  ..........         297  ..........
 PROGRAM................................
LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM.      17,028  ..........      17,028  ..........      17,028  ..........
MISCELLANEOUS FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS..  ..........         653  ..........         653  ..........         653
NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM.........       6,307  ..........       6,307  ..........       6,307  ..........
NATURAL RESOURCES DAMAGE ASSESSMENT.....  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
NEGOTIATION & ADMINISTRATION OF WATER          1,492  ..........       1,492  ..........       1,492  ..........
 MARKETING..............................
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE PROGRAM           ..........       1,176  ..........       1,176  ..........       1,176
 MANAGEMENT.............................
PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN--OTHER               4,150      37,700       4,150      37,700       4,150      37,700
 PROJECTS...............................
POWER PROGRAM SERVICES..................         719         212         719         212         719         212
PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY PROGRAM........         624         147         624         147         624         147
RECLAMATION LAW ADMINISTRATION..........       1,965  ..........       1,965  ..........       1,965  ..........
RECLAMATION RECREATION MANAGEMENT--TITLE  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       1,000  ..........
 XXVIII.................................
RECREATION & FISH & WILDLIFE PROGRAM           1,201  ..........       1,201  ..........       1,201  ..........
 ADMINISTRATION.........................
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: DESALINATION            25  ..........          25  ..........       7,025  ..........
 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.......
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM..........       8,514  ..........       8,514  ..........      10,764  ..........
SITE SECURITY...........................  ..........      39,600  ..........      39,600  ..........      39,600
SOIL AND MOISTURE CONSERVATION..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO STATES..........       1,832  ..........         832  ..........       1,832  ..........
TITLE XVI, WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE           990  ..........         990  ..........       4,740  ..........
 PROGRAM................................
UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER ISSUES--              89  ..........          89  ..........          89  ..........
 TECHNICAL SUPPORT......................
WATER CONSERVATION FIELD SERVICE PROGRAM       7,221  ..........       7,221  ..........       8,421  ..........
 \1\....................................
WATER 2025..............................      14,500  ..........  ..........  ..........      14,500  ..........
UNDISTRIBUTED REDUCTION BASED ON          ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........     -35,000      -3,664
 ANTICIPATED DELAYS.....................
RESCISSION--Public Law 109-148..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES.     456,526     376,898     471,724     376,898     509,345     379,649
                                         =======================================================================
      GRAND TOTAL.......................     833,424  ..........     849,122  ..........     888,994  ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Starting in fiscal year 2006 the new line item combines two previous line items: Efficiency Incentives
  Program and Water Management Conservation Program.

    Central Arizona Project, Colorado River Basin.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $600,000 for activities 
related to the Gila River Settlement in New Mexico.
    Central Valley Project--Sacramento River Division.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $450,000 for the Colusa Basin 
Intergrated Resources Management Plan.
    Miscellaneous Project Programs.--An additional $1,500,000 
above the budget request is provided for the Sacramento Valley 
Integrated Regional Water Management Program, $735,000 of which 
shall be made available for a cooperative agreement or 
agreements with the Northern California Water Association to be 
provided to the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District for continued 
work on the Stony Creek Fan Conjunctive Water Management 
Program, $240,000 of which shall be available in the same 
manner for the Sacramento Valley Conjunctive Water Management 
Technical Investigation to be provided to the Stony Creek Fan 
Partnership and the Natural Heritage Institute, and $525,000 of 
which shall be made available in the same manner for the Lower 
Tuscan Formation Aquifer System Recharge Investigation and 
Environmental Monitoring Program to be provided to the counties 
of Butte and Tehama, California.
    Trinity River Division.--The Committee has provided 
$2,000,000 above the budget request to accelerate 
implementation of the Trinity River Restoration Program.
    Animas-La Plata, Colorado.--The Committee has provided 
$65,000,000 for construction of this project.
    Fort Peck, Dry Prairie Rural Water System, Montana.--The 
Committee has provided $10,000,000 for continued construction 
of the project.
    Carlsbad Project, New Mexico.--$200,000 is provided above 
the request for rehabilitation of the radial gates at Sumner 
Dam. $1,000,000 is provided 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.
    Chimayo, New Mexico.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 
to continue this project.
    Middle Rio Grande Project, New Mexico.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $39,500,000 for the Middle Rio Grande 
project, $23,980,000 for Resources Management and $15,520,000 
for Operations, Maintenance and Replacements. Within the 
$23,980,000 for Resources Management, the Committee includes 
$14,980,000 for the Collaborative Program; $5,000,000 for water 
acquisition for the Collaborative Program; $1,000,000 to be 
transferred to the USGS for stream gages for the Collaborative 
Program; $1,000,000 for continued refinements to the Upper Rio 
Grande Water Operations Model; and $2,000,000 for the Silvery 
Minnow off-channel sanctuaries. Within the $15,520,000 for 
Operations, Maintenance and Replacements, the Committee 
includes $14,770,000 for Operations and Maintenance; $250,000 
for an integrated management plan; and $500,000 to evaluate a 
conservation pool.
    The Committee is concerned with the significant amount of 
funds spent by the Bureau of Reclamation on the administration 
of the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative 
Program. The Committee directs the Secretary of Interior to 
undertake a study of the administrative costs associated with 
the Bureau of Reclamation's administration of the program and 
opportunities to increase the percentage of funds that are 
spent to comply with the 2003 Biological Opinion referenced in 
section 205(b) of the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447; 118 Stat. 2949) 
as amended by section 121(b) of the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-103; 119 
Stat. 2256).
    Deschutes Ecosystem Restoration Project, Oregon.--The 
Committee is supportive of this program, however the 
authorization has expired. The Committee is unable to provide 
funds for an unauthorized program.
    Williamson County Water Reclamation and Reuse Project, 
Texas.--The Committee has provided $200,000 to initiate this 
project.
    Northern Utah Investigations Program, Utah.--The Committee 
has included an additional $500,000 for the Rural Water 
Technology Alliance.
    Washington Investigations Program, Washington.--The 
Committee has provided $952,000 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.--In 
the fiscal year 2006 conference report (House Report 109-275), 
the conferees expressed their concern that the Bureau of 
Reclamation was making excess releases of approximately 100,000 
acre-feet of water per year from storage in Colorado River 
reservoirs to help meet the United States' Colorado River water 
quality obligations to Mexico. The excess releases are being 
made because Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District's 
agricultural return flows--that bypass the Colorado River and 
are discharged to the Cienega de Santa Clara in Mexico (bypass 
flows)--are not counted as part of the 1.5 million acre-feet of 
water that the United States is required to deliver annually to 
Mexico. Because the bypass flows are not counted, system 
storage from the Colorado River has been used to make up for 
the bypass flows. The Yuma Desalting Plant was originally 
constructed to treat the flows and return a portion of them to 
the river, thus reducing excess releases from Colorado River 
reservoirs.
    The current drought and projected long-term water demands 
have heightened concern about this demand on the river system. 
Consequently, in fiscal year 2006, the conferees indicated 
their support for Reclamation's ongoing public process to 
address this complex hydrologic problem, considering various 
methods of recovering or replacing the flows, including options 
that address potential impacts to wetlands in the Cienega de 
Santa Clara. This Committee encourages Reclamation to continue 
this stakeholder process. In fiscal year 2006, the conferees 
also directed the Bureau of Reclamation to dedicate sufficient 
resources to the Yuma Desalting Plant so that one-third 
operational capacity may be achieved by the end of calendar 
year 2006. To date, the plant is not one-third operational, and 
the Committee is concerned that it will not be one-third 
operational by the end of calendar year 2006. Accordingly, the 
Committee, once again, directs the Bureau of Reclamation, 
within the funds provided for the Colorado River Basin Salinity 
Control Project, title I, to dedicate sufficient funds to the 
Yuma Desalting Plant so that one-third operational capacity may 
be achieved by the end of calendar year 2006. The Bureau of 
Reclamation is also directed to provide the Committee with a 
status report of the plant's operational status by no later 
than March 1, 2007. If the plant is not one-third operational 
by the end of calendar year 2006, the report shall include an 
explanation as to why the Bureau of Reclamation has failed to 
comply with the Committee's directive.
    Drought Emergency Assistance.--The Committee has provided 
the budget request for this program. Within the funds provided, 
the Committee urges the Bureau of Reclamation to provide full 
and fair consideration for drought assistance from the State of 
Hawaii.
    Research and Development, Desalination Research and 
Development Program.--The Committee has provided $7,025,000 for 
this program. The Bureau of Reclamation is directed to develop 
a cooperative agreement with New Mexico State University under 
which Bureau transfers operations and maintenance of the 
Tularosa Basin National Desalination Research Facility and 
transfers the administration of research activities undertaken 
at the Tularosa Facility to New Mexico State University 
following the completion of construction of the Tularosa 
Facility by the Bureau. Title to the facility shall remain in 
the United States.
    Of the funds provided, $4,000,000 is provided to New Mexico 
State University of which $1,600,000 is provided for operations 
and maintenance of the newly constructed Tularosa Basin 
National Desalination Research Facility and $1,300,000 is 
provided to New Mexico State University for research activities 
undertaken at or associated with the Tularosa Facility.
    An amount of $3,000,000 is provided to New Mexico State 
University to undertake a research program for development and 
commercialization of water treatment technology in 
collaboration with Federal agencies, State agencies, local 
agencies, industry, other educational institutions or other 
water research entities New Mexico State University deems 
necessary to carry out the program. New Mexico State University 
may enter into any cost-sharing agreements, grants, contracts 
or any other agreements necessary to carry out the program.
    Research and Development, Science and Technology Program.--
$10,764,000 is provided for this program. Within the funds 
provided, $250,000 is provided to initiate a salt cedar 
management demonstration on the Canadian River. $1,000,000 is 
provided to further a salt cedar management demonstration on 
the Rio Grande River. $1,000,000 is provided to further a salt 
cedar management demonstration on the Pecos River.
    Title XVI, Water Reclamation and Reuse.--The Committee has 
provided $4,740,000 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. $500,000 is for Sandoval 
County, New Mexico, Desalination Project and $250,000 is for 
Rio Rancho Recycled Water and Groundwater Recharge, New Mexico.
    Water Conservation Field Service Program.--The Committee 
has provided $8,421,000 for the Water Conservation Field 
Services Program. Within the amounts provided, $400,000 shall 
be allocated for urban water conservation projects identified 
through the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 
Innovative Conservation Program, including the California 
Friendly program for water conservation in new home 
construction; $100,000 shall be allocated for industrial water 
efficiency surveys to assess opportunities to conserve water in 
industrial water use; and $200,000 shall be allocated for 
weather based irrigation controller activities to pilot ways to 
speed distribution and acceptance of these landscape water 
efficiency devices. $500,000 shall be for the Elephant Butte 
Irrigation District for irrigation water efficiency 
improvements.
    Water 2025.--The dire drought the West is currently 
experiencing, combined with an unprecedented number of water 
users and endangered species and related requirements, make 
water use efficiencies more critical than ever. The Committee 
has provided $14,500,000 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 $2,000,000 to provide for continued 
efficiency and water improvements related to the Middle Rio 
Grande Conservancy District. A critical component of reducing 
tension among multiple water users is collaborative planning 
and joint operations. Within the funds provided, $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.

                CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

Appropriations, 2006....................................     $52,219,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................      41,478,000
House allowance.........................................      41,478,000
Committee recommendation................................      41,478,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $41,478,000, 
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, 2006....................................     $36,630,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................      38,610,000
House allowance.........................................      40,110,000
Committee recommendation................................      38,610,000

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

                       POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2006....................................     $57,338,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................      58,069,000
House allowance.........................................      58,069,000
Committee recommendation................................      58,069,000

    The Committee recommendation for general administrative 
expenses is $58,069,000. This is the same as the budget 
request.
    The policy and administrative expenses program provides for 
the executive direction and management of all reclamation 
activities, as performed by the Commissioner's offices in 
Washington, DC, Denver, Colorado, and five regional offices. 
The Denver office and regional offices charge individual 
projects or activities for direct beneficial services and 
related administrative and technical costs. These charges are 
covered under other appropriations.

             General Provisions--Department of the Interior

    Section 201. The bill includes language regarding the San 
Luis Unit and the Kesterson Reservoir in California.
    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 concerning Water 
2025.
    Section 205. The bill includes language regarding the Rio 
Grande Collaborative water operations team.
    Section 206. The bill includes language concerning the 
project at Las Vegas Wash and Lake Mead.
    Section 207. The bill includes language concerning the 
Truckee River Settlement Act.
    Section 208. The bill includes language regarding the All 
American Canal. Z10rept.007

                               TITLE III

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                          EPACT Implementation

    The Energy Policy Act of 2005 [EPACT] is a landmark piece 
of legislation which has begun to shape the future of America's 
energy policy while supporting the President's Advanced Energy 
Initiative through a wide variety of clean and economically 
feasible alternative energy sources. It is critical at this 
juncture that the United States decreases its dependence on 
foreign oil, and the Energy Policy Act lays out a tangible plan 
for action. Whether in the arena of ethanol, nuclear power, 
solar power, or clean vehicles, the Energy Policy Act has set 
the stage for a new wave of energy solutions.
    A renewed focus on alternative sources of energy has the 
potential to benefit communities throughout the country. The 
Energy Policy Act has created an environment which has 
stimulated renewed interest in the construction of nuclear 
power plants. Already, companies have announced that they have 
identified reactor technology for more than 20 new sites. If 
built, these reactors will not only generate enough power for 
15-19 million households, these plants will also create 
thousands of new jobs across the country without contributing 
to greenhouse gas emissions. Rural communities also have much 
to gain from the EPACT legislation. Investment in ethanol 
production will lead to the displacement of 2 billion barrels 
of foreign oil over the next 6 years and to the construction 
and expansion of ethanol plants in the rural United States. 
Additionally, this legislation encourages clean coal 
generation, a move that will bring about significant benefits 
to the environment and attention to an industry that has been 
and continues to be the major source of energy in America.

                        Asia Pacific Partnership

    The Committee is unaware of the mission and goals of the 
recently developed Asian Pacific Partnership, as it is not 
described in the Department's budget justification, and the 
Committee has no direction by which to designate funding. The 
Committee understands that the administration has not requested 
additional funding for this initiative, but has ``earmarked'' 
funding within available funds. Nevertheless, the Committee 
understands this is a top priority for the administration. 
Therefore the Committee directs the Department to fund this 
activity in three parts and from within available funds. One-
third is to be provided from the Office of Policy and 
International Affairs, one-third from the Office of Science, 
Biological and Environmental Research, Climate Change Research 
Account, and one-third from the Office of Energy Supply and 
Conservation, Wind Energy activities. Prior to submitting an 
official reprogramming request for the movement of these funds, 
the Department shall provide a report to support the 
justification of these activities and the impact this will have 
on the programs from which the Department has withdrawn 
funding.
    This new partnership is directed to work in conjunction 
with the existing Clean Energy Techology Exports program in 
order to pursue project development, implementation assistance, 
and capacity building and to work with foreign governments, 
international financial insitutions, the private sector, and 
non-governmental organizations to establish the appropriate 
technology and investment frameworks and to improve governance 
practices in emerging markets around the world.

          Historically Black Colleges and Universities [HBCUs]

    The Department has a long history of supporting HBCUs. 
HBCUs receive support for research and development, 
fellowships, scholarships, internships, administrative 
infrastructure, and private sector partnerships. In recent 
years, departmental programs have established innovative multi-
year programs to support various mission-focused programs. For 
example, in 2005 and 2006 the National Nuclear Security 
Administration within the Department established partnerships 
with HBCUs to advance its national security and 
nonproliferation missions. In 2007, the Department should 
broaden its HBCU support to include each departmental 
programmatic area, not just the NNSA. The Department's mission 
includes activities where the HBCUs can be brought into the 
energy supply and conservation, nuclear security, and science 
based programs, which would represent a well-rounded program 
supported by key DOE programs to further the Department's 
mission. The Department should also consider initiating a 
similar program with Hispanic-serving Institutions. The 
Committee directs the Department to provide $2,000,000 for the 
Jackson State University Bioengineering Research Training 
Complex and $2,000,000 for the Morehouse College National 
Nuclear Security Administration Research and Education Project.

          Laboratory Directed Research and Development [LDRD]

    The Committee recognizes the invaluable role the Laboratory 
Directed Research and Development [LDRD] program provides to 
the Federal Government and the Nation in general. Discretionary 
LDRD investments have been and will continue to be responsive 
to the energy needs of the Nation, as evidenced by recent R&D 
projects in materials science, optoelectronics, computer 
science, and high energy density physics. Cutting-edge LDRD 
research provides the science base for energy-specific 
applications such as fuel cells, hydrogen technologies, carbon 
management, nuclear energy and solid state lighting. In 
addition, LDRD is the national labs' most important tool for 
maintaining the vitality of the national labs in support of 
other national security missions. LDRD enables the labs to hire 
the ``best and brightest'' young scientists and engineers and 
allows them to seek innovative science and technology solutions 
for current or emerging national security issues, including 
those of energy security. LDRD investments have been effective 
in providing solutions for today's energy problems and 
demonstrate the inherent flexibility of the program to provide 
national security mission support on a very timely basis. 
Energy research needs can best be addressed by continuing a 
vibrant LDRD program at the national labs.
    The laboratories work in close partnership with DOE/NNSA to 
ensure that the LDRD projects are providing strong support for 
national security missions, which is the primary focus of our 
laboratories. Because of the fundamental nature of R&D, LDRD 
provides multiple benefits to the taxpayer across multiple 
national security missions. For example, R&D in high energy 
density physics [HEDP] is directly relevant to the R&D needs of 
the nuclear weapons program, but it also has the potential to 
support DOE's long-term energy security goal of controlled 
nuclear fusion as a cheap and reliable energy source. 
Similarly, LDRD projects that develop the tools to synthesize, 
characterize, and understand novel materials for nuclear 
weapons systems also have shown promise for the development of 
fuel cell membranes. Because of LDRD projects' multiple 
benefits, taxpayers obtain a greater return on their tax dollar 
investment. Furthermore, this is an indicator of a successful 
R&D program that continues to refocus on and provide solutions 
for the national security challenges facing our Nation.

                        Reprogramming Guidelines

    The Committee requires the Department to promptly and fully 
inform the Committee when a change in program execution or 
funding is required during the fiscal year. A reprogramming 
includes the reallocation of funds from one activity to another 
within an appropriation, or any significant departure from a 
program, project, or activity described in the agency's budget 
justification, including contemplated site budgets as presented 
to and approved or modified by Congress in an appropriations 
act or the accompanying statement of managers or report. For 
construction projects, a reprogramming constitutes the 
reallocation of funds from one construction project identified 
in the justifications to another or a significant change in the 
scope of an approved project.
    Reprogrammings should not be employed to initiate new 
programs or to change program, project, or activity allocations 
specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in the 
act or report. In cases where unforeseen events or conditions 
are deemed to require such changes, proposals shall be 
submitted in advance to the Committee and be fully explained 
and justified. The Committee has not provided the Department 
with any internal reprogramming flexibility in fiscal year 
2007, unless specifically identified in the House, Senate, or 
conference reports. Any reallocation of new or prior year 
budget authority or prior year de-obligations must be submitted 
to the Committees in writing and may not be implemented prior 
to approval by the Committees on Appropriations.

                     Energy Supply and Conservation

            ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

Appropriations, 2006....................................  $1,173,843,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................   1,176,421,000
House allowance.........................................   1,319,434,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,385,504,000

    The Committee recommendation provides $1,410,254,000 for 
renewable energy resources, an increase of $211,660,000 from 
the current year level. Within the funds provided, $4,000,000 
is for the National Center on Energy Management and Building 
Technologies and $3,000,000 for the UNR Renewable Energy Center 
for Geothermal Energy and Hydrogen.
    Hydrogen.--The Committee recommends $189,860,000, an 
increase of $34,233,000 above current year levels. The 
President's budget also provides additional R&D support to the 
hydrogen program through the Office of Science, Office of 
Nuclear Energy, and Fossil Energy for a total of just under 
$290,000,000 in fiscal year 2007. The full benefits of a 
hydrogen economy will be realized when we are able to generate 
hydrogen from renewable sources and nuclear energy. At present, 
our hydrogen economy remains far too reliant on natural gas. 
The Committee recommends full funding for Technology Validation 
at $39,566,000, which combines infrastructure and vehicle 
validation accounts from the fiscal year 2006, as proposed by 
the President. 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 Department requires extensive data collection 
and sharing that will be used to help advance this technology 
toward commercialization. The program requires full cost 
sharing. The Committee recommends an increased investment into 
Hydrogen Storage R&D and provides $40,000,000 to advance this 
critical research through the Hydrogen Centers of Excellence. 
Consistent with the energy and water conference report for 
fiscal year 2006 and the recommendation from the National 
Academies, no funding is provided to support Distributed Energy 
Fuel Cell Systems, as this technology is already fully 
commercialized. The Committee provides $13,848,000 for Safety 
Codes and Standards and Hydrogen Education Activities. The 
Committee recommends $9,892,000 for Systems Analysis, which 
represents an increase of $4,925,000 above current year levels. 
The Committee directs the Department to provide $1,978,000 for 
Manufacturing R&D activities from within the funds provided for 
Systems Analysis.
    Within available funds, $4,000,000 is provided for the UNLV 
Research Foundation to continue evaluation of solar-powered 
thermo-chemical production of hydrogen; $3,500,000 is for the 
UNLV Research Foundation for hydrogen fuel cell and storage 
research and development; $2,500,000 for the National Center 
for Hydrogen Technology; $500,000 for Michigan Technical 
University fuel cell research; and $3,400,000 for the UNLV 
Research Foundation to continue development of photovoltaic 
high pressure integrated electrolysis.
    Biomass.--The Committee strongly endorses the President's 
commitment to decreasing our reliance on foreign oil and has 
made an investment in biomass research and development 
commensurate with that goal. The President has set an ambitious 
goal of 100 billion gallons of ethanol production by 2025. This 
equals one-half of our domestic gasoline consumption today. 
Consistent with the goals of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the 
Committee recognizes an increased investment in demonstrating 
first-of-its-kind technology to develop the refining and 
production technologies that will lead to commercial deployment 
of cellulosic biomass ethanol production facilities. The 
Committee recommends $213,000,000, an increase of $63,313,000 
above the President's request. The Committee provides the 
authorized level of funding as provided in EPACT. The Committee 
recommends $50,000,000 for the Integration of Biorefinery 
Technologies program to support deployment of several pilot 
scale demonstrations using a variety of feed stocks in order to 
promote a competitive cellulosic biofuels industry. The 
Department shall use a combination of competitive grants and 
loan guarantees as provided in section 17 of EPACT to support 
the deployment consistent with the goals of section 932(d) of 
EPACT. The Secretary shall consider the following projects as 
part of the open competition:
  --Florida Farm to Fuel Project, Florida;
  --Biorefinery and Hydrogen Fuel Cell Research, Development 
        and Demonstration, Georgia;
  --Expanding Unique Plant Production for Alternative Energy, 
        Idaho;
  --Chemistry Consortium Biomass Initiative, Maine;
  --Minnesota Center for Renewable Energy Research, Minnesota;
  --Center for Applied Biofuel Research, Minnesota;
  --Laurentian Bioenergy Project, Minnesota;
  --Biological and Economic Feasability Analysis of Wood Waste 
        to Energy, Missouri;
  --Ohio University--Biorefining for Energy Security, Ohio;
  --Biodiesel Injection Blending Facilities Project, 
        Pennsylvania;
  --Messiah College Bio-Diesel Production Center, Pennsylvania.
  --City of Stamford Waste-to-Energy Project, Connecticut;
  --University of Connecticut Bio-Energy Project to Meet the 
        Renewable Energy needs of Connecticut, Connecticut;
  --Development of Applied Membrane Technology for Processing 
        Ethanol from Biomass, Delaware;
  --Chariton Valley Biomass Power for Rural Development 
        Project, Iowa;
  --Bio-Waste to Bio-Energy Project at SUNY Cobleskill, New 
        York;
  --Center for Bioproducts and Bioenergy, Washington;
  --Snohomish County Biodiesiel Initiative, Washington
  --Small Wood Biomass Project, Washington;
  --Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe Energy Project, Nevada;
  --North Spring Valley Pinyon Juniper Biomass Project, Nevada;
  --UNR Renewable Energy Center Biofuels Project, Nevada;
  --Aberdeen Biorefinery and ethanol production, Mississippi; 
        and
  --National Com-to-Ethanol Research Center project, Illinois.
    Feedstock Infrastructure.--The Committee recommends an 
additional $13,000,000 to support demonstration activities 
within the Feedstock Infrastructure account. Within the 
additional funds provided, $10,000,000 is provided to the 
Sustainable Energy Center, Mississippi. The Committee also 
supports the Department's investment in research and 
development for a variety of cellulosic feed stocks that will 
encourage regional fuel supply diversity as provided in section 
945 of the Energy Policy Act. The Committee directs the 
Department to provide $3,000,000 to designate several 
universities in different regions across the country as 
``Department of Energy Biomass Centers of Excellence''. These 
centers will recommend a cellulosic biomass fuel strategy that 
identifies the variety of regionally available cellulosic feed 
stocks and develops a strategy for the collection, 
pretreatment, hydrolysis and fermentation process using 
regionally available material. These centers will recommend any 
additional research necessary to support the use of regional, 
sustainable feedstocks for the conversion of that material into 
cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel feedstock including using 
brackish water.
    Provided within the budget request, within the Feedstock 
Infrastructure subprogram, is $4,500,000 to work with the 
Department of Agriculture on biomass feedstock. The Committee 
directs that the $4,500,000 be allocated among the Sun Grant 
Initiative Centers (identified in section 9011, of the Farm 
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8190)) to 
work in collaboration with the Department of Energy, on 
consultation with the USDA, to facilitate regional feedstock 
development.
    The Committee understands the Department intends to pursue 
a new solicitation for biomass research. However, the Committee 
strongly recommends that the Department complete unfinished or 
ongoing competitively awarded research to the greatest extent 
possible before funding new biorefineries. In addition, the 
Committee urges the Department to focus on supporting the 
production of cellulosic ethanol to reduce our need for foreign 
oil. The Committee is aware the Department solicited input on 
implementation of reverse auction incentives. The Committee 
directs the Department to make recommendations on the 
implementation of section 942 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 
The Department shall provide this report to Congress concurrent 
with the President's budget submission for fiscal year 2008. 
Within available funds, $4,000,000 is provided to the 
Consortium for Plant Biomass Consortium Research and $500,000 
for the Washington State University Bioproducts and Bioenergy 
project. The Committee supports the budget request for biomass-
related activities at PNNL.
    Solar.--The Committee applauds the efforts by the President 
to diversify our energy supply and minimize the generation of 
greenhouse gas emissions as part of his Advanced Energy 
Initiative. To that end, the President has recommended a 
significant funding increase in solar energy research as part 
of the Solar America Initiative. The Committee recommends 
$2,400,000 in support for the Southwestern Regional 
Photovoltaic Experimental Station.
    The Committee recommends $148,372,000 for the Solar America 
Initiative. The Committee provides $130,472,000 for 
Photovoltaic Energy Systems. The Committee wants to ensure that 
the Department continues its support of a balanced research 
program that focuses not only on major system breakthroughs, 
but will support R&D efforts to improve the manufacture, 
reliability and cost-effectiveness of solar technology 
components and balance-of-systems through which breakthroughs 
are likely to come from smaller corporations. Within available 
funds, $5,000,000 is provided for solar heating and lighting. 
The Committee is concerned that funding for the solar water 
heater program was eliminated and directs the Department to 
prepare a report, by January 31, 2007, on the potential energy 
savings generated by solar water heaters, market impediments, 
and strategy for wider deployment of this technology.
    The Committee is concerned about the increasing cost of 
silicon feedstock, the raw material used in photovoltaic cells. 
Material costs have risen with the increasing demand for 
computer chips and photovoltaic cells. The Committee urges the 
Department to support research into solar technology that uses 
materials other than silicon as a hedge against rising material 
costs. The Committee directs the Department to provide a study 
to the Committee by March 31, 2007, on the short- and long-term 
market conditions of silicone and possible impacts it could 
have on the photovoltaic market.
    The Committee recommends $17,900,000 for concentrating 
solar research and development. Within the available funding 
for the Concentrating Solar Power program, the Committee 
recommends that $9,000,000 be used in cooperation with the 
Office of Nuclear Energy to support the deployment of a solar-
hydrogen pilot plant using sulfur based thermo-chemical process 
consistent with sections 812, 934, and 974 of the Energy Policy 
Act. Without a reactor available to support the nuclear 
hydrogen program, the Office of Nuclear Energy can utilize the 
National Thermal Test Facility as a suitable proxy for a high 
temperature reactor at this stage of research. The Committee 
recommendation includes $3,500,000 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; 
$4,000,000 is provided for research and development into 
advanced thermal management systems designed for, and 
integrated into, high efficiency photovoltaic collector 
modules.
    The Committee directs that the funding of a 1 megawatt dish 
sterling demonstration facility can only be used to support the 
deployment in New Mexico.
    Wind.--The Committee recommends $39,428,000 a reduction of 
$4,391,000 below the budget request. The Committee has shifted 
the funding to the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy 
Reliability to support the interconnection of wind, solar and 
other renewable and distributed sources of electricity 
consistent with the Senate and conference report for fiscal 
year 2006. As such, the Committee provides no funding in the 
System Integration Account. In addition, the Committee 
recommends no funding for the distributed wind technology 
accounts, of which the Department only allocated $481,000. The 
Committee does not believe this level of funding will support 
meaningful long-term research. Instead, the Department should 
focus its efforts within the Technology Acceptance program to 
support deployment in areas of the country where wind energy 
can compete in a competitive marketplace and can make the 
biggest impact in displacing natural gas and coal usage. By 
March 2007, the Committee requests that the Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy and the Office of Electricity 
Delivery and Energy Reliability provide a report to Congress as 
to the location of the most promising wind resources and the 
best opportunities to integrate that power into the electric 
grid. The Department should also identify which States provide 
incentives for the deployment of wind or other renewable energy 
resources.
    The Committee encourages the Department to convene an 
interagency working group to promote renewable energy use and 
production in all aspects of Federal agency operation and 
particularly on Federal lands. In particular, such a working 
group would be valuable in avoiding the delays on a variety of 
wind energy projects that have been caused by inconsistent 
Federal policies and approval procedures and the slow pace of 
application of strategies and techniques to mitigate any 
adverse radar effects.
    While the Committee strongly supports the research 
objective of the low wind speed technology program, which is to 
reduce the cost of electricity from large onshore and offshore 
wind systems, the Committee is concerned that the Department 
has not fully funded the competitively awarded 2 megawatt 
permanent magnet direct-drive [PMDD] wind turbine development 
program. Therefore, the Committee recommends that $2,400,000 be 
provided in fiscal year 2007 (as a competitive award) for 
continued development of the 2 megawatt PMDD wind turbine, 
which will eliminate the use of gearboxes, a main failure 
mechanism in current generation wind turbines.
    Geothermal Energy.--The Committee recommends $22,500,000 
for geothermal research and development.
    Hydropower.--The Committee provides $4,000,000 to support 
research and development and a study of advanced hydropower 
technology, including ocean energy. The study shall provide an 
evaluation of the opportunities for development of these next 
generation technologies and the technical justification for 
such development. The study shall also evaluate the 
characteristics of the various regions in the United States so 
that likely candidates for demonstrating these technologies may 
be identified. The Committee would also benefit from knowing 
the electric generating potential and cost/kilowatt, as well as 
developing a better understanding of the regulatory issues and 
controlling legal authorities associated with the various 
technology. Finally, the Committee expects the Department to 
outline a thorough research and development roadmap and the 
possible role for the Department in supporting the R&D efforts. 
This report shall be delivered to the Committee by May 1, 2007.
    Vehicles Technology.--The Committee recommends 
$180,024,000, an increase of $14,000,000. This program seeks to 
develop cars and trucks that are more energy-efficient in order 
to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Transportation needs 
consume over 50 percent of total U.S. oil consumption. The 
Committee recommends $109,724,000, as requested for FreedomCAR 
activities within this account. The Committee is encouraged by 
the President's support of hybrid and electric propulsion 
technologies, which support critical research into battery 
storage R&D and provides full funding for this activity. The 
Committee directs the Department to use the expertise in the 
Vehicles Technology and the Office of Electricity Delivery and 
Energy Reliability to study possible impacts to the electricity 
supply and distribution networks if plug-in hybrids become 
commercially viable. The study should pay particular attention 
to urban areas, which are already transmission constrained and 
also the most likely market for plug-in hybrids. The study 
should also consider the net environmental demand as a result 
of shifting from gasoline consumption to electricity 
consumption. This report should be provided to the Congress by 
March 31, 2007.
    The Committee continues to recognize 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.
    The Committee provides $15,031,000, an increase of 
$3,000,000, for the Technology Introduction activity, including 
the Clean Cities activities that were previously funded in the 
weatherization account. For the Clean Cities program the 
Committee recommends $6,393,000, an additional $3,000,000, to 
encourage the expansion of alternative fuel and vehicle 
technology through competitive solicitation. The Committee 
recommends $10,000,000 to support Advanced Materials and 
Computer modeling at Mississippi State University; and 
$1,000,000 for the lightweight composite materials for heavy-
duty vehicles program.
    The Committee also recommends $4,534,000, an increase of 
$1,000,000 for the Testing and Evaluation program to support 
work with automakers to improve engine performance and increase 
fuel mileage for higher octane ethanol based fuels.
    Buildings Technologies.--The Committee recommends 
$95,329,000, an increase of $26,063,000 to support technology 
deployment of increased energy efficiency technologies that can 
improve energy savings in the home and reduce the cost of 
operating lighting, heating and cooling, and electricity using 
energy efficient appliances in residential and commercial 
buildings. The Department has set a goal of achieving zero 
emission homes by 2020, using the most energy-efficient 
technology and applying state-of-the-art distributed renewable 
generation so as to achieve a net zero energy consumption. This 
goal is important, and the timetable by which the homebuilders 
across the country deploy the very best in energy saving 
technology should be accelerated by at least 5 years. Based on 
the administration's proposed reduction of the weatherization 
accounts, it is incumbent on the Department to improve home 
energy efficiency as soon as possible. By March 31, 2007, the 
Department shall provide the Committee a technology road map 
that will outline a strategy to accelerate the zero energy 
goals by 5 to 7 years. The Committee encourages the Department 
to support a Challenge X program for housing in the same manner 
as the Department supports technology development in the auto 
industry. Within the Research and Development program, the 
Department should initiate design competitions in each of the 
five climate regions identified by the Department in which 
participants design a modest-sized home with the goal of 
demonstrating how the Department's Zero Emission House goal of 
2020 can be accelerated by at least 5 years. The Committee 
recommends $5,000,000 for this activity. The Committee provides 
$5,000,000 to implement section 140 of the Energy Policy Act of 
2005 to establish an Energy Efficiency Pilot Program.
    The Committee recommends $27,000,000 for the solid state 
lighting program, an increase of $5,000,000. The Committee is 
encouraged by the potential to realize significant energy 
savings in the area. The Committee directs the Department to 
provide $5,000,000 to the competitively awarded National Center 
for Solid State Lighting consistent with funding provided in 
the current year. The Committee recommendation includes 
$3,000,000 for the UNLV Research Foundation for photonics 
research including evaluation of advanced fiber optics and 
LEDs.
    Industrial Technologies.--The Committee recommends 
$47,563,000 for the Industries of the Future, an increase of 
$2,000,000 above the budget request. The mission of this 
program is to reduce the energy intensity of the U.S. 
industrial sector. The Committee recommends that from within 
available funds, $2,000,000 is provided to Sandia National 
Laboratories, in partnership with a computer chip manufacturer, 
to support research into energy efficiency applications that 
might decrease the amount of energy used by computer 
technology. In a recent study conducted for the Department of 
Energy, it was concluded that residential energy consumption 
has escalated dramatically, due to the use of home computers 
and other related technologies.
    Federal Energy Management Program.--The Committee 
recommends $16,906,000, as requested. This program is intended 
to support the deployment of energy efficiency and renewable 
technology to U.S. Government buildings. The Department should 
lead by example within the Federal Government to demonstrate 
state-of-the-art technology deployment. The Committee notes 
that the PART score for program results and accountability were 
50 percent in 2005. The Committee hopes that the Department can 
deliver stronger results.
    Facilities Infrastructure.--The Committee recommends 
$5,935,000 for operations and maintenance costs and general 
infrastructure upgrades at the National Renewable Energy 
Laboratory.
    Weatherization.--The Committee provides $204,550,000, an 
increase of $40,352,000, to support Weatherization and 
Intergovernmental Activities. This program provides critical 
assistance to encourage the use of energy efficient technology 
to reduce energy costs for low and moderate income families hit 
hardest by high energy costs.
    The Committee provides $49,457,000 to the State Energy 
Program. The Committee also provides $2,473,000 for 
International Renewable Energy Program; $4,957,000 for Tribal 
Energy Activities, with $1,000,000 provided to the Council of 
Renewable Energy Resource Tribes [CERT]; and $4,946,000 for 
Renewable Energy Production Incentives.
    Program Direction.--The Committee recommendation for 
Program Direction is $91,024,000. The Committee recommends the 
Department provide the necessary funding to support the Office 
of Loan Guarantees as authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 
2005, be provided from within available funds.
    Program Support.--The Committee recommendation for Program 
Support is $10,930,000.

    CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED ENERGY SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Committee
                     Project name                        recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Distribution Management System in Alabama          $1,000,000
 [OE].................................................
Distributed energy systems for telecommunications              1,500,000
 applications in Kansas [OE]..........................
University of Missouri Rolla Energy Research and               1,000,000
 Development Center [OE]..............................
Load Control System Reliability, Montana [OE].........         1,000,000
Hawaii/New Mexico Sustainable Energy Project [OE].....         2,000,000
Dine Power Authority, New Mexico [OE].................         1,000,000
National Center for Reliable Electric Power                      400,000
 Transmission, Arkansas [OE]..........................
Electric Power Surety Institute, New Mexico [OE]......           200,000
Navajo Electrification Program, New Mexico [OE].......         1,000,000
New York Polytechnic University [OE]..................           500,000
Nevada Energy Independence Partnership [OE]...........           500,000
Gerlach Green Energy Project, Nevada [OE].............           400,000
Transportable Emissions Testing Laboratory, West               2,000,000
 Virginia [OE]........................................
Eastern Michigan University Coatings Research                    400,000
 Institute [OE].......................................
The University of Louisville Sustainable Buildings               400,000
 Project, Kentucky (Buildings Tech)...................
Affordable, Energy Efficient Self-Help Housing,                  300,000
 Mississippi (Buildings Tech).........................
University of Dubuque Environmental Science Center,              500,000
 Iowa (Buildings Tech)................................
Arts & Sciences Center at Quincy University, Illinois            250,000
 (Buildings Tech).....................................
Green Shingle Initiative, Tennessee (Buildings Tech)..           500,000
Improved Materials for Fuel Cell Membranes at USM,               500,000
 Mississippi (Hydrogen)...............................
University of Mississippi Bio-processing Research              1,500,000
 Center (Biomass).....................................
Cooling, Heating, and Power [CHP] at MSU, Mississippi          2,000,000
 (Biomass)............................................
Mississippi Ethanol (Biomass).........................         1,000,000
Alternative Fuel for Cement Processing, Alabama                1,000,000
 (Biomass)............................................
The Kentucky Rural Energy Consortium (Biomass)........         1,000,000
Trees and Waste Wood to Energy in Missouri (Biomass)..           400,000
Biodiesel Injection Blending Facilities Project,               1,000,000
 Pennsylvania (Biomass)...............................
Foster Glocester School District Biomass Project,              1,000,000
 Rhode Island (Biomass)...............................
Sugar Ethanol Research at the University of Florida/             250,000
 Earth University (Biomass)...........................
National Ag-Based Industrial Lubricants Center at the            400,000
 University of Northern Iowa (Biomass)................
Pecos Valley Biomass Cooperative, New Mexico (Biomass)           250,000
Michigan Biotechnology Initiative (Biomass)...........           500,000
Vermont Biomass Energy Resource Center (Biomass)......           400,000
Oxydiesel Demonstration, Nevada (Biomass).............           400,000
UNLV Research Foundation continued development of              2,000,000
 biofuels utilizing ionic transfer membranes, Nevada
 (Biomass)............................................
Biomass Research through Thermal Gasification                    450,000
 Technology Project, Nevada (Biomass).................
Chatauqua County, New York Landfill at Ellery                    500,000
 (Biomass)............................................
Demonstration of Plug-In Hybrid Vehicles, Kansas               1,000,000
 (Vehicles Tech)......................................
Southern Regional Center for Lightweight Innovative            2,100,000
 Design, Mississippi (Vehicles Tech)..................
Engine Turbocharger Research, Montana (Vehicles Tech).         1,000,000
Biodiesel Engine Testing Program, Missouri (Vehicles           1,500,000
 Tech)................................................
National Ethanol Vehicle Coaltion: E-85 Fueling                  250,000
 Infrastructure in Montana (Clean Cities).............
Solar to Biofuels Research Program at USU, Utah                1,000,000
 (Solar)..............................................
High Efficiency Cascade Solar Cells, New Mexico                1,500,000
 (Solar)..............................................
Stirling Demonstration Concentrating Solar Program,            3,500,000
 New Mexico (Solar)...................................
NCSU Nanostructures for Energy, North Carolina (Solar)           250,000
Ohlone College Energy Innovation & Conservation,                 250,000
 California (Solar)...................................
Tonopah Green Energy Feasibility Study, Nevada (Solar)           400,000
Texas Tech University Great Plains Wind Power Test             1,500,000
 Facility (Wind)......................................
Renewable Energy for Rural Economic Development                  500,000
 Program, Utah (Wind).................................
Emissions Reduction Technologies related to megawatt-            500,000
 scale solid oxide fuel cells, Ohio (Hydrogen)........
University of Tennessee, Chattanooga Fuel Cell                   500,000
 Reliability study (Hydrogen).........................
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Bus Project, Washoe County, RTC,            2,500,000
 Nevada (Hydrogen)....................................
UNLV Research Foundation Photoelectric Chemical                2,500,000
 Production of Hydrogen, Nevada (Hydrogen)............
Des Moines Hydrogen Fleet Vehicle Demonstration, Iowa            250,000
 (Hydrogen)...........................................
National Center for Manufacturing Technologies,                  400,000
 Michigan (Hydrogen)..................................
Portland State University Science and Technology                 400,000
 Center, Oregon (Hydrogen)............................
Hydrogen and Alkane Generation from Biomass Derived              400,000
 Carbohydrates, Wisconsin (Hydrogen)..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

         OFFICE OF ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY

Appropriations, 2006....................................    $161,878,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................     124,928,000
House allowance.........................................     144,028,000
Committee recommendation................................     135,004,000

    The Committee recognizes the hard work by staff of the 
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability following 
Hurricane Katrina. This Office worked to coordinate the Federal 
Government's energy supply response to restore electricity and 
pipeline capacity for natural gas and gasoline as quickly as 
possible to ensure rescue and recovery efforts could proceed 
unimpeded. In addition to responding during emergencies, this 
Office supports fundamental R&D activities to increase the 
efficiency, reliability and security of our electricity grid 
and to minimize impacts during energy loss or operational 
disturbances.
    This Office has also been charged with the implementation 
of several provisions in the Energy Policy Act 2005, to 
encourage the identification and designation of energy 
corridors that would help improve the reliability and capacity 
of our national energy infrastructure. This Office also has the 
expertise to lead the Department's technology deployment of 
renewable technology including wind and various distributed 
energy sources.
    The Committee directs the Department to provide this Office 
with the full responsibility to work at the local, State, and 
Federal level to define constructive standards and policies 
that are technically sound to support the effective integration 
of renewable and distributed technology into the electricity 
grid. The Committee strongly urges the Department to heed this 
advice for fiscal year 2007 and beyond. The Committee 
recommendation also includes $4,500,000 for research and 
development of thermal and electrical components specific to 
micro-grid systems and for optimizing the integration of 
components of such systems.
    The Committee recommendation is $135,004,000, an increase 
of $10,076,000 above the budget request. The Committee provides 
$105,636,000 for Research and Development activities, including 
$45,468,000 for Superconductivity R&D and $27,551,000 for 
Visualization Controls, as requested in the budget. The 
Committee appreciates the fact that this Office has developed a 
SCADA roadmap to prioritize critical research and industry 
standardization. The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to 
support continued research and development into the SCADA 
systems R&D to be divided equally between Sandia and Idaho 
National laboratories, consistent with current year levels. The 
Committee encourages the Department to continue its efforts at 
the Integrated Energy Operations Center at PNNL. The Committee 
provides $5,000,000, within available funds, at the National 
Energy Technology Laboratory associated with electricity 
transmission, distribution, and energy assurance activities.
    The Committee recommends $17,000,000, an increase of 
$4,991,000, for Operations and Analysis. This funding is 
provided for Permitting, Siting, and Analysis. These funds were 
transferred from the Wind Energy Office to coordinate renewable 
energy integration with the electricity system.

                        NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAMS

Appropriations, 2006....................................    $535,660,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................     632,698,000
House allowance.........................................     499,805,000
Committee recommendation................................     711,285,000

    The Committee recommendation for the Office of Nuclear 
Energy is $711,285,000, an increase of $151,533,000 above the 
request.
    Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.--The Committee 
recognizes and appreciates the considerable investment this 
administration has made in this area and supports efforts to 
close the nuclear fuel cycle. It is imperative that the Federal 
Government support long-term research to discover ways to 
reduce the amount of nuclear waste and recycle the vast amount 
of untapped energy that remains in the current once-through 
nuclear fuel cycle. Faced with the reality of long-term storage 
needs and the fact that our Nation is unlikely to permit and 
license more than one permanent repository, our best 
alternative is to vastly reduce the amount of waste, the heat 
content, and the radiotoxicity of the spent fuel before 
permanent disposal. The President has proposed the Global 
Nuclear Energy Partnership as a multi-pronged technical 
approach to close the nuclear fuel cycle and encourage the 
recycling of uranium and destruction of long-lived actinides 
through advanced reactor technology. The budget supports the 
development of recycling technologies that have the opportunity 
to enhance the proliferation resistance of existing recycling 
or separation technologies. By utilizing the proposed UREX 
approach, scientists will not separate pure plutonium. The 
Committee expects the Department to continue to fully integrate 
proliferation resistant controls within the recycling 
technology. The Committee has provided additional funding 
within the National Nuclear Security Administration, Office of 
Nuclear Nonproliferation to support long-term research and 
deployment of improved nuclear safeguards to enhance 
proliferation resistance and to allow for the safe expansion of 
nuclear power. The Committee encourages the Department to 
involve private industry in the GNEP program through 
competitive grants.
    University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support.--From 
within available funds provided to the NERI program, the 
Committee recommends $10,000,000 to support fuels research for 
the Next Generation Nuclear Reactor. The Committee is 
disappointed the Department has eliminated funding for this 
program without warning. Universities depend on technical 
support from the Department, and the nuclear industry relies on 
the Universities to provide academic training to the next 
generation of nuclear scientists, reactor operators, and 
experts trained in health physics. The Committee is pleased 
with the success this program has had thus far and recognizes 
that a more modest level of funding is appropriate. The 
Committee supports this activity again this year and directs 
the Department to provide $27,000,000 to support the University 
Reactor Infrastructure and Education Initiative that was 
eliminated in the fiscal year 2007 budget request and strongly 
encourages the administration to budget for these activities in 
fiscal year 2008.

                        RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

    The Committee recommendation for nuclear energy research 
and development includes a total of $446,655,000, an increase 
of $99,533,000.
    Nuclear Power 2010.--The Committee has included 
$88,000,000, an increase of $33,969,000 to support the 
development license application for new nuclear power plant 
designs under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Combined 
Operating License [COL] process. The Committee believes this 
program is critical and has consistently provided additional 
funding to accelerate this effort in the past. The Committee 
understands the appetite for funding this program continues to 
grow beyond what the Department has budgeted and the level of 
funding the Committee can provide. It is clear that the 
original budget baselines were not sufficient and additional 
work is needed. Therefore, the Department must ensure that the 
limited Federal funds are applied in the most effective and 
useful fashion. The Department should focus funding on 
supporting the design and engineering work of the two reactors 
designs. The Department should also eliminate any unnecessary 
overhead charges incurred by the Department and its industry 
partners for this program. The Committee supports the 
Department's decision to contract directly with two reactor 
vendors to support a standardized nuclear plant design that can 
validate the untested regulatory licensing process. The 
Committee also has significant concerns with financial conduct 
of the industry consortium involved in the NP2010 program. The 
Committee expects that the Department work with its industry 
partners to instill fiscal discipline and ensure conformity to 
the Federal budget rules and standards.
    Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative.--The Committee recommends 
$31,665,000 for nuclear hydrogen research and development, an 
increase of $9,000,000. The added funding will be matched with 
$9,000,000 from the Solar program to support the creation of a 
hydrogen pilot plant using a sulfur-based thermo chemical 
process coupled with the Department of Energy's National Solar 
Thermal Test Facility as the proxy for a high temperature 
nuclear reactor. Deployment of this pilot-scale demonstration 
by 2010 will accelerate the completion of a commercial scale 
facility by 2015, the date at which automakers are expected to 
make a decision on commercial deployment of hydrogen cars. This 
demonstration is also consistent with objectives established in 
sections 643, 812(a), 934 and 974 of the Energy Policy Act, 
2005. The Committee recommendation also includes $5,000,000 for 
the UNLV Research Foundation to continue research and 
development of high temperature heat exchangers and chemical 
processing equipment to permit demonstration of nuclear-powered 
production of hydrogen from water.
    Generation IV.--The recommendation includes $48,000,000 for 
the Generation IV nuclear energy systems initiative. The 
Committee directs that within the available funds $40,000,000 
be provided to support the Next Generation Nuclear Plant 
[NGNP]. This level of funding is consistent with funding in 
fiscal year 2006 and is $16,564,000 above the budget request. 
The increased level of funding is provided to support research 
on the Very High Temperature Reactor [VHTR] at Idaho National 
Lab. This technology, if developed, is the only reactor 
technology which supports the production of electricity and 
hydrogen. The increased funds shall be used to support fuels 
and material research and accelerate design activities 
necessary to develop a Nuclear Regulatory Commission license 
application. The Committee directs the Department to continue 
its efforts to work with the private sector in VHTR technology. 
The Committee directs the Department to provide a report as to 
how the Department of Energy is implementing subtitle C of 
EPACT 2005. The Committee recommendation includes $1,500,000 
for completion of the IAC LCS upgrade.
    Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative.--The Committee recommends 
$279,000,000, an increase of $36,000,000 above the budget 
request. The initiative should continue its focus on the 
technological underpinnings of the closed fuel cycle through a 
robust research and development program that includes the 
national laboratories, the university community, industries, 
and the international research community. The initiative should 
also continue to develop designs for the facilities necessary 
for demonstrating the technologies and the associated 
environmental analyses.
    In working with the Department, the Committee has 
recommended significant changes to the budget priorities for 
GNEP to encourage increased research and development on fuels, 
separation, and transmutation research. The Committee 
encourages the Department to coordinate the fuels research 
within the Office of Nuclear Energy, including research of the 
Next Generation Nuclear Plant. Within the Advanced Fuel Cycle 
Initiative, the Committee provides $53,800,000 for separations 
technology, $60,000,000 for advanced fuels development, 
$25,000,000 for transmutation engineering, $35,000,000 for 
systems analysis. Within the initiative, the Committee provides 
$40,000,000 for design of an engineering scale demonstration of 
a spent fuel separations facility, which will provide feedstock 
of transuranic materials for remanufacture into reactor fuel 
and dispose of waste products; $10,000,000 for design of this 
advanced fuel cycle facility and the operational support for 
the separations facility and burner reactor facility; and 
$15,000,000 for design of an advanced burner reactor to be 
powered by transuranic fuel. In addition, the Committee 
recommends $10,000,000 to support the modernization of Wing 9 
of the CMR facility, which contains hot cells capable of 
accommodating fuel fabrication for the GNEP program. The 
Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the material test station 
at Los Alamos to support materials and fuel experiments using 
fast neutron spectrum systems. Without the use of the Fast Flux 
Test Facility, the United States has lost its domestic fast 
neutron source needed to conduct actinide transmutation. The 
Committee provides $2,000,000 for the UNLV Research Foundation 
to extend fuel cycle studies to high temperature gas reactors. 
Additionally, the Department is directed to enter into a 5 year 
cooperative agreement with the UNLV Research Foundation for 
these activities. Finally, the Committee provides $4,000,000 
for the Center for Materials Reliability at the University of 
Nevada Reno.
    The Committee instructs the Department not to support any 
further research with Russia or Russian entities until the 
Russian Federation and U.S. Government are able to come to an 
agreement on the disposal of 34 tons of Russian weapons-grade 
plutonium.
    Advanced Fuel Cycle Facility.--The Committee supports the 
deployment of an engineering-design scale recycling facility to 
demonstrate the feasibility and technical capacity of a 
demonstration-scale advanced recycling facility. The Committee 
has provided direction in section 311 in the report to the 
Department to clarify the amount of spent nuclear fuel that can 
be used for the demonstration and requires that the material be 
removed from the site within 1 year, upon completion of the 
demonstration.
    Program Direction.--The Committee recommends $67,608,000 in 
Program Direction, which includes $7,000,000 for the Federal 
and contractor staff to plan, implement, and manage the 
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative research, development, and 
demonstration activities.

             CONSOLIDATION OF COMMERCIAL SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL

    The Committee has included language to provide the 
Secretary with expanded authority to consolidate commercial 
spent nuclear fuel at a separate facility within a State or at 
a regional site. Section 313 of the bill section requires the 
Secretary of Energy to appoint a Director of Consolidation and 
Preparation. Within 180 days of enactment, the CAP Director is 
required to issue a report making recommendations to the 
Secretary regarding the siting of a facility for the 
consolidation and preparation of spent nuclear fuel (``AP 
facility'') in each State containing a civilian nuclear power 
reactor. Within 90 days of the issuance of the report, the 
Secretary, in consultation with the Governor of each State 
containing a civilian nuclear power reactor shall designate a 
site for a CAP facility within that State. Recognizing that 
Governors can recommend sites, the Committee also believes that 
it is desirable for the Secretary, in selecting a site, to 
first consider sites recommended by the Governors.
    The Secretary may determine that it is in the National 
interest to designate a regional CAP facility. No regional CAP 
facility may be designated in a State in which a State-wide CAP 
facility has previously been designated. The Committee believes 
it is desirable that States address their own waste needs and 
the Committee directs the Secretary to provide sufficient time 
for a State site to be designated and licensed before making a 
decision to designate a regional facility. A regional facility 
cannot be located in a State with a designated and licensed 
State site. Any site owned by the Federal Government, and any 
site that can be purchased from a willing seller may be 
designated as a CAP facility site. Nevada, as the State that 
has been designated as the site of the permanent repository is 
ineligible, along with any State in which a commercial, away-
from-reactor, dry cask storage facility is authorized. Lands 
within national parks, wildlife refuges, or wilderness areas 
are also ineligible.
    The Secretary shall submit a license application to the NRC 
no later than 30 days after the designation of a CAP facility 
site. The license for a CAP facility shall be for a term of 25 
years, and shall be non-renewable. The Secretary must submit an 
environmental report with the license application to the NRC. 
The NRC is required to issue an environmental impact statement 
in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969 prior to issuing a license. Judicial review of the EIS 
will be consolidated with the review of the NRC's licensing 
decision. The NRC is required to grant or deny a license 
application for a CAP facility within 32 months.
    In addition, at the request of the owner of a shut-down 
reactor, the Secretary of Energy (the ``Secretary'') is 
required to assume title to, and responsibility for, spent 
nuclear fuel at the site of the shut-down reactor.
    The provisions of this section, along with the Secretary's 
obligation to develop a permanent repository under the Nuclear 
Waste Policy Act of 1982, provide sufficient and independent 
grounds for further findings by the NRC that spent nuclear fuel 
will be disposed of safely for purposes of licensing civilian 
nuclear power reactors.
    Finally, this section provides that the Secretary shall 
make expenditures from the Nuclear Waste Fund for the siting, 
construction and operation of CAP facilities. Funding for this 
activity is provided within the Office of Civilian Radioactive 
Waste Management.

                   RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

    The purpose of the Radiological Facilities Management 
program is to maintain critical nuclear facilities in a safe, 
environmentally-compliant and cost-effective manner. The 
primary user is the Office of Nuclear Energy with facilities at 
Idaho, Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, Sandia, and Brookhaven National 
Laboratories. The Committee recommends $54,722,000 an increase 
of $5,000,000, for the Radiological Facilities Management 
program.
    Space and Defense Infrastructure.--The Committee recommends 
$35,640,000, an increase of $5,000,000. The Committee 
recommends $12,200,000 to support activities at Idaho, 
$13,800,000 at Los Alamos, and $9,650,000 for Oak Ridge, 
including an additional $5,000,000 to upgrade hot cells. The 
Committee is aware of the fact that the Department has 
conducted its mid-term report to Congress on the relocation of 
the Nuclear Operations for Plutonium 238 activities, which 
found that the total cost of moving the purification, 
pelletization and encapsulation operations from Los Alamos to 
Idaho would cost $100,000,000 to $250,000,000 in relocation 
costs. The Committee appreciates the benefits that would be 
gained by consolidating the mission, but requires more 
information on the overall benefits to the program, including 
what new activities will replace the existing PU-238 mission 
within TA-55. The Committee directs the Department to provide a 
more detailed breakdown of the costs to transition this mission 
to Idaho by activity (i.e. transportation, security 
requirements and facility construction). In addition, the 
Department shall provide to the Congress options for replacing 
the PU-238 mission within TA-55. The Department shall provide 
this new analysis no later than March 31, 2008.
    The Committee recommends $15,634,000, as requested for the 
medical isotopes infrastructure, $491,000 for Enrichment 
Facility Infrastructure, and $2,947,000 for the Research 
Reactor Infrastructure programs.

                      IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

    The Committee recommends $115,290,000 to support nuclear 
power research and development at the Idaho National 
Laboratory. The Committee recommendation includes an increase 
in funding of $15,000,000 for planning, design and 
implementation of safety posture improvements at the Advanced 
Test Reactor at Idaho National Laboratory. The Committee 
recommends an additional $5,000,000 to support infrastructure 
upgrades at Idaho National Laboratory. The Committee also 
recommends $6,030,000, as requested, to support 06-E-200 
Nuclear Energy Project Engineering and Design [PED].

                IDAHO SITE-WIDE SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

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

                    ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY, AND HEALTH

    The Office of Environment, Safety, and Health is committed 
to ensuring that the safety and health of the Department of 
Energy workforce, the public, and the environment are 
integrated into activities throughout the Department. The 
Committee recommendation includes $19,993,000 for program 
direction, the amount of the budget request. The Committee has 
also provided $94,814,000 from Other Defense Activities.

                           LEGACY MANAGEMENT

    The Committee provides $33,139,000 for Energy Supply-
related activities of the Office of Legacy Management, the same 
the budget request. Funds will be used to protect human health 
and the environment through efficient long-term surveillance 
and maintenance, to protect and make accessible legacy records 
and information, and to ensure contractor worker pension and 
medical benefits. The Committee recommendation includes 
$5,000,000 for the completion of the Office of Legacy 
Management Records Management Facility.

                         CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

                   (INCLUDING DEFERRAL AND RECISSION)

    The Committee recommends the deferral of $203,000,000 in 
clean coal technology funding until fiscal year 2008. The 
Committee recommends that the Department rescind $50,000,000 of 
prior year balances from excess contingency estimates in 
demonstration projects.

                 FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2006....................................    $593,014,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................     469,686,000
House allowance.........................................     558,204,000
Committee recommendation................................     644,267,000

    The Committee recommendation for Fossil Energy Research and 
Development is $644,267,000, an increase of $174,581,000 above 
the request.
    The Committee is concerned with the reduction in the fossil 
energy research and development activities proposed as part of 
this budget. Last year, the Congress passed and the President 
signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This legislation provided 
for several incentives to support the deployment of clean coal 
technology that would provide reliable domestic energy supply 
and the potential to diversify our transportation fuel supply. 
The Department is challenged with developing new technology 
that will support the continued deployment of coal through 
affordable and environmentally-sound generating facilities, 
while creating opportunities for production of hydrogen or 
other coal to liquid technologies at an affordable cost. The 
Committee has provided additional funding to sustain technology 
development and to send a clear message to the administration 
that the Congress is serious about making a long-term 
investment in fossil energy. The Committee also recognizes much 
of the oil and gas research has been replaced by the Ultradeep 
program authorized in section 999 of EPACT 2005. The Committee 
still expects that this program will continue to support 
transfer of oil and gas technology to small producers to 
enhanced production technology development as directed in 
section 999A(b)(3). The Committee recognizes that EPACT 
provides 7.5 percent of the annual allocation of $50,000,000 
provided from oil and gas lease income.
    Clean Coal Power Initiative.--The Committee recommends 
$70,000,000. The Committee is frustrated by the remarkably low 
level of funding provided to this initiative which demonstrates 
advanced coal technologies including carbon capture, mercury 
control and other co-production opportunities. The budget only 
provided $4,957,000. The Committee is aware that not all of the 
previously awarded projects have been successfully developed 
for a variety of reasons, and available balances will not be 
used. The Department has identified one project that will not 
be able to spend the remaining balances of $50,000,000. The 
Committee directs the Department to rescind the available 
balances and apply that funding to the Clean Coal Power 
Initiatives for a future competitive award. In addition, the 
Committee provides an additional $20,000,000.
    Combined with existing balances of $70,000,000 provided in 
the current year, the Department will have $140,000,000 to 
commit to the next CCPI solicitation.
    FutureGen.--The Committee recommends $54,000,000 for the 
FutureGen program, as requested. The Committee understands and 
recognizes the value of FutureGen project. However, the 
Committee is concerned about maintaining adequate funding for 
the core fossil energy research, development, and demonstration 
programs, especially with the new programmatic demands of the 
Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Committee will continue to give 
full consideration to the FutureGen project, contingent upon 
the administration maintaining adequate funding requests for 
other related fossil energy programs.
    Fuels and Power Systems.--The Committee recommends 
$311,000,000 for fuels and power systems activity, an increase 
of $39,838,000. The recommendation includes $25,000,000 for 
Innovations for Existing Plants, including $10,000,000 to be 
provided to support research and development of ways to 
minimize the water usage at electric generating plants, with 
particular attention paid to problems of the desert Southwest. 
Within the available funds, $8,000,000 is provided to Sandia 
National Lab energy-water technology research program to 
support water reduction strategies for power plant operations. 
Within available funds, the Committee urges the National 
Environmental Technology Laboratory to work with the West 
Virginia University on an Advanced Energy/Water Management 
Initiative. The Committee recommends $54,000,000 for the 
Advanced Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle activities. The 
Committee recommends $90,000,000 for Carbon Sequestration 
activities, including $10,000,000 for Los Alamos National Lab 
to study the long term stability of deposited carbon dioxide in 
geological reservoirs and $6,000,000 is provided to the Zero 
Emissions Coal Research and Technology program. The Committee 
recommends $29,000,000 for Fuels, $63,000,000 for Fuel Cell 
Research and $30,000,000 for Advanced Research. Within 
available funds for advanced research, the Committee 
recommendation includes $8,000,000 for the advanced metals for 
energy and industrial systems program, including $2,000,000 for 
West Virginia University. From within available funds, the 
Committee recommends $3,000,000 for the Center for Advanced 
Separation Technology [CAST], and $700,000 for West Virginia 
University to continue the long-term study of the environmental 
and economic impacts of the development of coal liquefaction in 
China. The Committee directs the Department to consider the 
potential for a demonstration program of coal to liquid low-
rank coal water fuels produced from hydrothermal treatment of 
lignite and sub-bituminous coals in Choctaw County, 
Mississippi. The Committee directs the Department to consider 
coal to liquid technology to be located in Natchez, Mississippi 
for support under title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
    The Committee recommends, from within available funds 
$2,000,000 to complete research under the Ion Transportation 
Membrane Syngas Project.
    United States/China Energy and Environmental Centers.--No 
funding is provided to support this activity.
    Natural Gas Technology.--The Committee recommends 
$17,000,000 to support natural gas production from gas hydrates 
located in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. Of this amount, 
$1,000,000 is to be provided to University of Mississippi to 
support gas hydrates research. From within available funds the 
Committee recommends $7,000,000 for the Arctic Energy Office.
    Oil Technology.--The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to 
support oil technology research and development to reduce the 
cost of domestic unconventional resources including oil shale 
and tar sands extraction. The Committee recommends $1,500,000 
to support the Risk Based Management System, a nationwide data 
base of oil and gas regulations and technology developments.
    Program Direction.--The committee recommendation includes 
$142,396,000. The additional funds shall be provided to the 
National Energy Technology Laboratory.
    Plant and Capital Equipment.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $12,000,000 for plant and capital equipment, an 
increase of $12,000,000 above the budget request. Within these 
funds, $8,000,000 is for the infrastructure improvement program 
at the National Energy Technology Laboratory and $4,000,000 is 
for General Plant Projects.
    Fossil Energy Environmental Restoration.--The Committee 
recommendation for fossil energy environmental restoration is 
$11,700,000, $2,000,000 above the request. The Committee 
recommendation includes $2,000,000 for the remediation of 
environmental issues at the Albany Research Center.

            CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED FUELS AND POWER PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Committee
                     Project name                        recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western State IGCC CO2 Capture, Colorado..............        $1,850,000
Colorado Center for Sustainable Energy at Colorado             1,000,000
 School of Mines......................................
University of Kentucky Coal-Derived Low Energy                 1,000,000
 Materials for Sustainable Construction Project.......
High Temperature Electrochemistry Center, Montana.....         4,000,000
Contribution of the Petroleum Industry to the Montana            150,000
 Economy..............................................
Solid Oxide Fuel Cells, Pennsylvania..................           750,000
Heavy Oil Research at University of Utah..............         2,000,000
Mine of the Future, New Mexico........................         1,750,000
Hardin Generating Station Coal-Fired Power Plant               1,000,000
 Mercury Emission Control Demonstration project,
 Montana..............................................
Truckee Meadows Water Reclamation Methane Conversion           1,000,000
 Project, Nevada......................................
NOX Reduction Vehicle Project, Nevada.................         1,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES

Appropriations, 2006....................................     $21,285,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................      18,810,000
House allowance.........................................      18,810,000
Committee recommendation................................      39,810,000

    The Committee recommends $39,810,000, an increase of 
$21,000,000 above the requested level. The Committee has 
provided an additional $2,000,000 to support the activities 
under the NPR/Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming program. Within the 
available funds, $4,169,000 is provided to support the Rocky 
Mountain Oil Technology Centers, $4,559,000 is recommended to 
support NPR-3, and $3,276,000 is provided to cover operational 
costs, including program direction, business management 
activities, and salaries.
    Development of Oil Shale and Tar Sands.--The Committee 
recommends an increase of $10,000,000 above the budget estimate 
to initiate a program to accelerate the commercial development 
of oil shale and tar sands, as required in section 369 of the 
Energy Policy Act of 2005 and consistent with the 
recommendations from the Taskforce on Strategic Unconventional 
Fuels to support technology development and production from 
unconventional resources. Within the available funding 
$2,000,000 is provided to Los Alamos to support an 
investigation of basin-scale environmental impacts of in-situ 
production methods for oil shale development. The Committee 
also includes $6,000,000 for the Energy and Environment 
Research Center/Western Research Institute.

                      ELK HILLS SCHOOL LANDS FUND

Appropriations, 2006....................................     $83,160,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

    The Committee requests no funds for the Elk Hills School 
Lands Fund for fiscal year 2007, consistent with the budget 
request. The State of California is to receive 9 percent of the 
net sales proceeds generated from the sale of Elk Hills. The 
level of future budget requests is dependent on the results of 
the equity finalization process.
    The State of California maintains that they are due 
$9,000,000 under the Elk Hills program in fiscal year 2007. The 
Department disagrees. If this legal dispute is resolved prior 
to the completion of the conference report, this issue may be 
re-visited.

                      STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

Appropriations, 2006....................................    $164,340,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................     155,430,000
House allowance.........................................     155,430,000
Committee recommendation................................     155,430,000

    The Strategic Petroleum Reserve was created to reduce the 
economic impact of a major petroleum supply interruption to the 
United States and to carry obligations created by the 
international energy program. The Committee recommends 
$155,430,000 for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, consistent 
with the budget request.

                   NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE

Appropriations, 2006....................................................
Budget estimate, 2007...................................      $4,950,000
House allowance.........................................       4,950,000
Committee recommendation................................       4,950,000

    The Committee recommends $4,950,000 for the Northeast Home 
Heating Oil Reserve, the same as the President's request, for 
storage, operation, and management in case of severe energy 
supply interruption in the Northeast.

                   ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2006....................................     $85,314,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................      89,769,000
House allowance.........................................      89,769,000
Committee recommendation................................      93,032,000

    The Committee recommends $93,032,000, for the Energy 
Information Administration. The additional funds will be used 
to support improved data collection and research into gasoline 
markets and gasoline storage capacity, as well as ethanol-based 
renewable fuels markets. A recent external study team 
recommended that the EIA take precautions to protect the data 
stored on the EIA computer systems and protect against 
malicious use and unauthorized access. The Committee requests 
that the Department provide a report to Congress on the 
precautions being taken to protect the market sensitive data 
and any needs related to upgrading the EIA computer facilities 
to provide the necessary precautions. This report is due to the 
Congress by March 1, 2008.

                   NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Appropriations, 2006....................................    $349,687,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................     310,358,000
House allowance.........................................     309,946,000
Committee recommendation................................     310,358,000

    The Committee recommends $310,358,000, as requested by the 
President. The Committee recommendation includes $35,201,000 
for the Paducah gaseous diffusion plant uranium conversion and 
stabilization activities and $72,215,000 for Portsmouth gaseous 
plants, including $32,700,000 for depleted uranium conversion. 
The recommendation includes $34,843,000 for the Fast Flux Test 
Reactor and $73,400,000 for West Valley Demonstration Project.
    Small Sites.--The Committee recommendation provides the 
President's request for the following projects: $10,726,000 for 
Argonne National Laboratory; $28,272,000 for Brookhaven 
National Laboratory; $16,000,000 for Energy Technology 
Engineering Center; $22,865,000 for the Moab site and $500,000 
is provided from within available for Grand County, Utah, for 
soil and water remediation measures at the former Atlas Uranium 
Mill Tailings site for infrastructure improvements, regulatory 
support, public education and related activities; and 
$5,720,000 for Stanford Linear Accelerator Center.

      URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING FUND

Appropriations, 2006....................................    $556,606,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................     579,368,000
House allowance.........................................     579,368,000
Committee recommendation................................     573,368,000

    For the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and 
Decommissioning Fund, the Committee recommends $573,368,000. 
The Committee provides $151,320,000 for cleanup activities at 
the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, and $110,000,000 for 
the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, an increase of 
$14,000,000. The Department shall use the additional funds at 
Paducah 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. In 
2004, the Government Accountability Office was commissioned to 
report on the outlook of the cleanup of the uranium enrichment 
facilities using the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and 
Decommissioning fund that was authorized in the 1992 Energy 
Policy Act. The GAO found that under no plausible scenario 
would the funds meet the cleanup needs at the three facilities. 
The GAO made a recommendation that the fund be extended for 3 
additional years beyond its expiration in 2007 to provide the 
Department time to develop a plan to support long-term cleanup 
needs at these enrichment facilities. Since the GAO's 
recommendation, the Department has neither developed a plan, 
nor extended the fee. The Committee directs the Department to 
provide a long-term plan to the Committee on the baseline 
cleanup schedules for each of the three facilities and how the 
Department intends to cover the costs of the cleanup without 
sufficient funding from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination 
and Decommissioning fund. The Committee expects the Department 
to deliver this plan by March 31, 2007.
    Uranium/Thorium Reimbursement.--The Committee recommends no 
funding for this activity.

                                SCIENCE

Appropriations, 2006....................................  $3,596,393,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................   4,101,710,000
House allowance.........................................   4,131,710,000
Committee recommendation................................   4,241,062,000

    The Committee recommends $4,241,062,000 for the Office of 
Science. These funds represent an investment in basic research 
that is critical to both the future economic competitiveness of 
the United Sates and to the success of our national and energy 
security.
    Economists estimate that about half of U.S. economic growth 
since World War II has been the result of technological 
innovation. Basic research and science education lay the 
groundwork for tomorrow's technology breakthroughs. The DOE 
Office of Science is the largest Federal provider of research 
in the physical sciences. In July 2005, the Congress passed and 
the President signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This 
directed the Department to increase its investment in funding 
for basic physical sciences. In his State of the Union address, 
the President unveiled his vision for science, embodied in the 
American Competitiveness Initiative [ACI], which proposes 
doubling the appropriation to the Office of Science over 10 
years. Congressional initiatives such as the PACE-Energy Act 
propose a similar objective. The fiscal year 2007 request will 
put the Office of Science on course to doubling the funding 
over the next decade. This is critical to augmenting 
fundamental research while also supporting the President's new 
investment in energy technologies such as solar, hydrogen, coal 
and nuclear power as outlined in the Advanced Energy Initiative 
[AEI]. Increased support from both the Office of Energy Supply 
and Conservation and the Office of Science should foster a 
healthy partnership to transfer fundamental research in 
genomic, advanced materials and biology into current and future 
technology applications that will result in field-test 
demonstrations. It will be incumbent of Federal managers and 
the Department of Energy leadership to ensure that research in 
both of these offices is shared in a mutually beneficial 
manner, especially as it relates to energy technology.
    Report on Scientific Cooperation.--The Department is 
directed to prepare a report supported by the Office of Science 
and the Office of Energy Supply and Conservation regarding the 
specific steps the Department is taking to ensure cooperation 
between the two offices in identifying broad research 
objectives and goals as well as specific R&D priorities 
required in the short term. This report should contain 
information as to how the various Department of Energy 
laboratories are supporting these activities and budget 
projections in the next 5 years. This report is due to the 
Committee concurrent with the President's fiscal year 2008 
budget submission.
    Science Education.--It is increasingly clear that the 
economic future of the United States will be tied to our 
ability to innovate and maintain a technological lead to ensure 
reliable and affordable energy supplies, advanced technologies 
that can be sold worldwide, and innovations that can deliver 
increases in productivity. These advantages must be earned and 
can only be guaranteed through investing in our education 
system and teachers. In 1999, only 41 percent of U.S. eighth 
graders received instruction from a teacher with specialization 
in mathematics, compared to the international average of 71 
percent. This is a frightening statistic, but one that can be 
changed. A recent National Academy of Sciences report, Rising 
Above the Gathering Storm, made several recommendations that 
closely track the recommendations of the Secretary of Energy's 
Advisory Board, Science and Mathematics Education Task Force. 
The Task Force recently concluded that the Department of Energy 
has a significant opportunity to enhance science and math 
education in the Nation, and it is already well positioned to 
take a leadership role. The Department of Energy's national 
laboratories are home to many of the best scientific minds, but 
are also geographically distributed over the country, allowing 
access to teachers across the Nation. Moreover, the network of 
national laboratories is also tightly linked with industrial 
and academic resources, giving DOE the ability to forge 
educational partnerships that can extend its reach, and 
therefore also its capacity to enhance science, engineering and 
math education nationwide. The Committee believes more should 
and can be done to tap the significant teaching potential 
within the labs, and therefore has supported several 
initiatives within the Office of Science. As such, the 
Committee recommends additional funding in the Workforce 
Development account to support teacher training and primary and 
secondary science and math education.
    The Committee is concerned that the Department is no longer 
abiding by the peer-reviewed 20 year Facilities plan the 
Department produced less than 3 years ago. This document 
established a prioritization of large investments and 
facilities the Department intended to support based on input 
from all of the scientific advisory boards within the 
Department. These investments are sufficiently large that they 
require long-term funding commitment that will exceed beyond a 
specific administration. As such, continual reprioritization 
will undermine the long-term goals and is likely to hinder the 
ability of the Office of Science to plan and this Committee's 
efforts to fund such long term investments. The Committee 
expects the Department to clarify its current priorities and 
update the 20 year plan to reflect these new priorities.

                          HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

    For High Energy Physics, the Committee recommends 
$766,789,000. Understanding the way the universe works is the 
key mission of the High Energy Physics program, and it succeeds 
by probing interactions among matter, energy, space and time. 
The Committee fully funds the investments at the user 
facilities including the Tevatron Collider, the Neutrinos in 
the Main Injector at Fermi Laboratory and the B-Factor at 
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. In addition, the Committee 
provides full funding for the Large Hadron Collider at the 
European Organization for Nuclear Research Laboratory. The High 
Energy Physics program has many promising opportunities to 
advance our understanding of the universe and its makeup. 
However, the Department must make important decisions about the 
future of this program, including balancing the immediate 
opportunities provided through the Joint Dark Energy Mission 
and large future investments in the International Linear 
Collider.
    International Linear Collider.--The Committee provides 
$45,000,000, an increase of $15,000,000 above current year 
levels, to support pre-conceptual research to support the U.S. 
ILC effort within the Accelerator Development, International 
Linear Collider R&D activities. The Committee appreciates the 
scientific challenge of building the ILC in the United States, 
establishing our leadership in this discipline among an 
international team. The budget calls for doubling the request 
above current year to support pre-conceptual R&D, yet the 
Committee does not have a clear understanding of the cost of 
this international project, which has been reported to exceed 
$8,000,000,000, twice the annual budget of the Office of 
Science. Despite the large financial commitment by the 
President in scientific research, the Committee is concerned 
that the ILC will crowd out other valuable research as has been 
demonstrated with both the National Ignition Facility within 
the NNSA, the Rare Isotope Accelerator and ITER, both within 
the Office of Science. Therefore, before the Committee agrees 
to adopt large budget increases for the ILC, the Department 
must provide a cost estimate including an out year funding plan 
and an explanation of how this initiative will impact other 
facilities and scientific research. In addition, the Committee 
would like to see the initial results from the Large Hadron 
Collider, which is set to begin operations in mid 2007 before 
the Committee commits to a long-term investment toward the ILC. 
The Committee looks forward to reviewing the data and visiting 
this matter again in 2008.
    Joint Dark Energy Mission.--The Committee has consistently 
demonstrated its support of the Department's initiative to 
launch a space probe to answer the fundamental physics question 
of our time--what is the ``dark energy'' that constitutes the 
majority of the universe? The Committee strongly believes that 
this initiative should move forward. Unfortunately, the multi-
agency aspect of this initiative faces insurmountable problems 
that imperil its future, and the Department risks losing a 
world-class scientific team. The Committee is concerned that 
the joint mission between the Department of Energy and NASA is 
untenable because of NASA's reorganization and change in focus 
toward manned space flight. The Committee directs the 
Department to immediately begin planning for a single-agency 
space-based dark energy mission and to conduct a peer-reviewed 
competition to select a single winning proposal based both upon 
the quality of the science and the overall cost to the 
Department. The competition should be initiated by the end of 
the calendar year 2006 and completed in 2007 with the goal of a 
launch in fiscal year 2013. The Committee encourages the 
Department to aggressively explore potential domestic and 
international partnerships and launch options to help defray 
the cost of the missions. The Committee provides $74,271,000 
for Non-Accelerator Physics, an increase of $15,000,000 above 
the request to support the Joint Dark Energy Mission. The 
Committee has moved $8,310,000 from Theoretical Physics to the 
High Energy Density Physics account.

                      HIGH ENERGY DENSITY SCIENCE

    The Committee recommends the creation of a new discipline 
within the Office of Science to support the growing research in 
high energy density sciences currently being pursued within the 
Office of Science, the National Nuclear Security Administration 
and universities worldwide. With his recent elevation of 
position, from Director to Under Secretary, the Under Secretary 
is increasing his field of view and now has the responsibility 
of developing science at all the labs within the Department, 
not just the Office of Science. As such, the Committee 
recommends that a new office be created to consolidate and 
support research in high energy density physics. This office 
will be charged with supporting research in inertial fusion 
energy, fast ignition, petawatt laser development, plasma 
accelerators and other laboratory and university sponsored 
research related to high energy density science that is 
presently funded within the Fusion Energy, Nuclear Physics, 
High Energy Physics and the NNSA, ICF accounts. This research 
has important applications ranging from materials research to 
fusion energy and fundamental research into the make up and 
reactions of nuclear matter. One of the of the primary 
responsibilities for this new program will be to establish a 
peer-reviewed technology and research and development roadmap 
to support a robust experimental program. This R&D roadmap is 
due to the Committee by March 31, 2007. The Committee directs 
the Department to break out the funding within the existing 
budgets and programs and consolidate within this new office. 
The Committee provides $79,924,000 to support this new research 
account, funded equally between the Office of Science and the 
NNSA and consistent with the high energy density research 
allocation within the Office of Science. Funding shall be drawn 
from the following accounts: $11,949,000 from the Fusion Energy 
Account, $20,000,000 from Nuclear Physics, and $8,310,000 from 
High Energy Physics. In addition, the Committee has provided 
funding from the ICF budget that includes the following: 
$8,903,000 to support university grants and $30,000,000 to 
support research on z pinches, high average power lasers and 
other HED research that has been exclusively funded within the 
NNSA accounts. The Committee provides $7,000,000 for the 
continued operation and experimental program on the Atlas Pulse 
Power Machine. This funding is in addition to the funding 
provided within the NNSA. Additionally, the Committee 
recommendation includes $2,000,000 for the Nevada Terawatt 
Facility for joint research on dynamics of materials under 
extreme conditions; and $2,000,000 for UNR to continue its 
advanced research on Z-pinch and wire array physics. The 
Committee directs the Department to renew its base Nevada 
Terawatt Facility high energy density physics research 
cooperative agreement at financial levels consistent with the 
current year. The Committee recommendation includes $5,300,000 
above the budget request for fast ignition research. The 
Committee provides $3,000,000 in the ICF and High Yield Science 
Campaign of the NNSA to continue the development of a short 
pulse laser at the University of Texas at Austin, and 
$2,000,000 for continued collaborative research under the z-
Petawatt Consortium for operations at the Z-Beamlet laser 
facility at Sandia National Laboratories, and $1,000,000 for 
collaborative research.
    The Department is directed to convene an advisory board to 
develop a technology roadmap for this program and provide the 
Congress with a plan to support HED science while contributing 
to the operations at the various facilities in the NNSA. The 
Committee strongly urges the Department to eliminate barriers 
to discovery that have developed by historic jurisdictional 
boundaries and line management responsibility.

                            NUCLEAR PHYSICS

    The Committee provides $434,060,000 for Nuclear Physics. 
The Nuclear Physics program fosters fundamental research that 
will advance our understanding of nuclear matter, helping the 
United States maintain a leading role in developing nuclear 
energy, nuclear medicine, and national security. The Committee 
has shifted a portion of the funding budgeted for High Energy 
Density R&D to the new High Energy Density Science program.

                 BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

    For Biological and Environmental Research [BER], the 
Committee provides $560,000,000, the same as the budget 
request. BER uses competitive and peer-reviewed research at 
national laboratories, universities, and private institutions 
to further the Nation's competitiveness in the scientific 
arena.
    Genomes to Life.--The Committee strongly supports the GTL 
program and provides full funding as requested. Even before the 
Department mapped the first human genome, the Committee 
encouraged the Department to expand its genomic research and 
recommended that the Department accelerate the deployment of 
the four Genomes to Life facilities as was proposed in the 20 
year plan. Now, a National Academies report has also concluded 
that the Department could greatly accelerate the research 
needed to unlock the genome. The Committee supports the 
Department's efforts to adjust its plan to move quickly to 
award two energy-related GTL collaborative research facilities. 
The Committee recommends full funding, as requested.
    Medical Applications and Measurement Science.--Modern 
nuclear medicine builds on the exploitation of nuclear energy 
to promote human health, a concept that has been successful 
since the middle of the 20th century. The Committee is 
disappointed the Department has eliminated funding for nuclear 
medicine for the second year in a row from its budget request. 
The Committee understands the Department is working with the 
National Institutes of Health on a research strategy between 
the two entities, furthering research in the nuclear medicine 
arena in a manner that does not duplicate efforts. However, 
because the Committee lacks necessary information about this 
partnership, the Committee is concerned that either research 
might be duplicated or that the NIH might not have the means to 
fund its share. Section 314 of the bill proposes to provide 
funding derived from a research account charged against 
Department of Energy research as provided in section 1001(e) of 
title X of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Committee expects 
that $25,000,000 will be available to support nuclear medicine 
research.
    Asia Pacific Project.--The Committee recommends that up to 
one-third of the funding be provided from the climate research 
activities from within this account.

           CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED OFFICE OF SCIENCE PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Committee
                     Project name                        recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Positron Emission Tomography [PET] Scanning for               $1,000,000
 Neurological Diseases, Alabama.......................
UCLA Institute for Molecular Medicine, California.....         3,700,000
Ultra Dense Supercomputing Memory Storage, Colorado...         1,000,000
Kansas University Cancer Center Laboratory                       500,000
 Reconfiguration, Kansas..............................
The University of Louisville Computational Biomarker           1,000,000
 Discovery Center, Kentucky...........................
Tulane Environmental and Material Science Clean Room             800,000
 Facility, Louisiana..................................
Contrast Media Savings Study-[MEDRAD], Mississippi....           500,000
Health Sciences Research and Education Facility at             1,500,000
 University of Missouri-Columbia......................
Billings Clinic Cancer Research Institute, Montana....         1,300,000
PET Scanner, Middletown Regional Health System, Ohio..           510,000
Enhanced Outpatient Cancer Services, Ohio.............           500,000
National Center for Regenerative Medicine, Ohio.......           500,000
Cuyahoga Community College, Ohio Alternative Energy              500,000
 Training Program.....................................
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.....         1,000,000
Texas A&M University Intelligent Power System                  1,500,000
 Monitoring and Diagnostics...........................
Center for River Dynamics and Restoration at USU, Utah           400,000
Blackstone River Science and Exploration Center, Rhode           250,000
 Island...............................................
Fisk University Science Laboratory Improvements,                 540,000
 Tennessee............................................
MIND Institute, New Mexico............................        12,000,000
University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences...........         1,000,000
Oakland Children's Hospital, California...............           225,000
St. Mary Medical Center, California...................           225,000
UCSD-NEES/NSF Outdoor Shake Table, California.........           600,000
St. John's Hospital Center, Santa Monica, California,            200,000
 Women's Health Center................................
Costilla County Biodiesel Pilot Project, Colorado.....            80,000
Lower AK Valley Water Conservancy District Small-Scale           250,000
 Biodiesel Plant, Colorado............................
Yale New Haven Health System Center for Public Health,           250,000
 Connecticut..........................................
Stamford Health Systems, Connecticut..................           250,000
Waterbury Hospital Clinical Information System                   250,000
 Initiative, Connecticut..............................
Norwalk Hospital Foundation, Connecticut..............           250,000
University of Delaware Brown Laboratory Renovation....           500,000
St. Francis Hospital, Delaware........................           500,000
Mt. Sinai Medical Center, Florida.....................           500,000
Upgrade Electrical at Hawaii's Major Trauma Centers...         1,000,000
Edward Hospital Cancer Center, Illinois...............           250,000
University of Chicago Hospitals, Illinois.............           250,000
Franklin County Hospital, Illinois....................           250,000
Rush University Medical Center, Illinois..............           500,000
Benedictine University Science Lab., Lisle, Illinois..           250,000
Marian College Biomedical Research Initiative, Indiana           400,000
University of Maryland-Baltimore Center for                      250,000
 Nanomedicine & Cellular Delivery.....................
Kennedy-Krieger Institute, Maryland...................           250,000
St. Agnes Hospital, Maryland..........................           500,000
University of Massachusetts at Boston                            500,000
 Multidisciplinary Research Facility..................
Noble Hospital Diagnostic Imaging Project,                       500,000
 Massachusetts........................................
Montana Cardiology Telemedicine Network...............           500,000
University of Nebraska Medical Center.................           500,000
Virtua Memorial Hospital, New Jersey..................           500,000
Atlantic Health System Comprehensive Cardiovascular              500,000
 Initiative, New Jersey...............................
Hauptman-Woodward Medical Research Institute, New York           750,000
Central New York Biotechnology Research Center........           250,000
Hospital for Special Surgery, New York................           250,000
Heart Center of Niagara, New York.....................           750,000
Rochester General Hospital Heart Failure MYOTECH                 400,000
 Treatment, New York..................................
University of North Dakota Center for Biomass                  1,000,000
 Utilization..........................................
University of Rhode Island Transgenic & Genomic Center           500,000
University of Vermont Functional MRI Research.........           500,000
University Medical Center, Nevada.....................           500,000
Nevada Cancer Institute...............................           500,000
Black Mountain Institute, Nevada......................         2,000,000
Tahoe Center for Environmental Sciences, Nevada.......           250,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

    The Committee recommends $1,445,930,000 for Basic Energy 
Sciences, an increase of $24,950,000 from the budget request. 
Basic Energy Sciences supports work on the natural sciences 
emphasizing fundamental research in materials sciences, 
chemistry, geosciences, and aspects of biosciences. The 
Committee recommends $1,004,212,000 to support the Materials, 
Sciences and Engineering research program. The Committee 
recommends the following: $174,409,000 in fully operational 
funding for Spallation Neutron Source; full funding for the 
four Nanoscale Science Research Centers to support construction 
and operations; full funding for Linac Coherent Light Source; 
the requested level of $25,000,000 for National Synchrotron 
Light Source-II; $10,582,000 to support operations for the 
Manuel Lujan, Jr. Neutron Scattering Center and $8,000,000, as 
requested for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive 
Research.
    The Committee recommends $293,449,000, an increase of 
$24,950,000 for Chemical Sciences, Geosciences and Energy 
Biosciences program. This program supports basic research in 
atomic and molecular chemistry, chemical physics, radiation 
chemistry, organic and inorganic chemistry, geochemistry and 
geophysics.
    Energy and Water Technology Development.--Consistent with 
section 979 of the Energy Policy Act, 2005, the Committee 
recommends $24,950,000 authorized by this section to support 
research, development and demonstration of water technology 
used in the production of energy. The Committee believes water 
planning and water conservation are critical factors in 
economic development, human health and environmental well 
being. There are many regions in this country and across the 
world facing severe water shortages that are forced to look to 
water reclamation and desalination activities for adequate 
supplies. The Committee urges the Department to draw on the 
existing expertise within Department of Energy laboratories and 
other Federal agencies to develop a program consistent with the 
authorities provided in section 979 of Public Law 109-58; the 
Committee provides $15,950,000 within the available funds to 
support this activity. The Committee directs the Department to 
provide Sandia National Lab with $10,000,000 for advanced 
concept desalination and arsenic treatment research to be used 
in partnership with other national laboratories and 
universities.
    The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 for the 
University of Vermont Plant Sciences Building and $500,000 for 
the Environmental Learning Center, Nevada.
    Construction.--The Committee recommends $148,269,000 to 
support construction activities within the Basic Energy Science 
activities, as requested. Full funding is provided to the 
Nanocenters and the Linac Coherent Light Source at SLAC. 
Construction funding for the Spallation Neutron Source is no 
longer needed as the construction phase is complete.

                 ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

    For Advanced Scientific Computing Research, the Committee 
provides $318,654,000, the same as the President's request. In 
the past two decades, leadership in scientific computation has 
become a cornerstone of the Department's strategy to ensure the 
security of the Nation and success in the areas of science and 
environmental quality. The Committee is supportive of advanced 
computing as the Department has taken technological risks as 
part of the weapons program. The decisions have paid off as the 
Department deploys the Red Storm and Blue G architecture across 
the complex to support fusion, nuclear energy, and other 
disciplines in need of high speed computational capabilities to 
support complex simulations.
    The Committee is concerned with the relationship between 
the Office of Science and the NNSA. As an example, the ASCR 
strategic plan discusses the need to work with other Federal 
agencies including several defense agencies, but only discusses 
in general terms three areas of research where NNSA and the 
Office of Science cooperated. In the area of basic research, 
the strategic plan states that it is an area that is ``not 
important enough to justify ASCI investment at this time.'' The 
Committee is also aware that the Office of Science has budgeted 
$13,000,000 for the DARPA to support a petaflop computer 
deployment by 2010. The Committee believes this funding would 
be better spent within the Department to support a petaflop 
initiative. The Department is directed to divide the funds 
equally between the Office of Science and the NNSA Advanced 
Simulation and Computing activities to support development of 
component architecture for high-performance software and 
storage.

                         FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

    For Fusion Energy Sciences, the Committee recommends 
$307,001,000. This program advances plasma science, fusion 
science, and fusion technology through collaborations among 
U.S. universities, industry, national research laboratories, 
and the international fusion community. Consistent with budget 
descriptions, the Committee has shifted $11,949,000 provided 
for High Energy Density Science to the new office within the 
Department of Energy.

                  SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

    The Committee recommends $50,888,000, to support 
infrastructure activities at the 10 Office of Science 
laboratories and the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and 
Education. Within available funds, $10,000,000 is provided as 
the Office of Science fiscal year 2007 contribution to the 
Capability Replacement Laboratory (300 Area) project. The 
Committee reiterates its recent criticisms that the Department 
has done a very poor job of coordinating this project between 
offices internally and with the Department of Homeland 
Security, the other 300 Area tenant.

                        SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

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

                       SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION

    The Committee recommends $170,877,000 for the Office of 
Science Program Direction, the same as the budget request. This 
level of funding will support approximately 1,000 FTEs for 
fiscal year 2007.

                     SCIENCE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

    These initiatives support the missions of the Department's 
Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists program. The 
Committee provides $6,000,000 to establish the Protecting 
America's Competitive Edge [PACE] fellows program as a 
competitive, merit-based graduate fellowship program for 
students pursuing doctoral degrees in a science or engineering 
field related to a mission area of the Department. Fellowship 
recipients must rank in the upper 10 percent of their class and 
be citizens or permanent resident aliens of the United States. 
Fellowships awarded under this program shall be portable with 
the fellow.
    The Committee recognizes that the scientific and 
professional staff of the Department of Energy and National 
Nuclear Security Administration laboratories are an untapped 
resource that should be used to support mathematics, science 
and engineering education and training in our primary and 
secondary schools. The Committee provides $35,000,000 to 
support this effort. Half of the funding will be used to 
establish or expand summer institutes at National Laboratories 
to provide additional training to strengthen the mathematics 
and science teaching skills of teachers employed at public 
schools in kindergarten through grade 12. The Committee directs 
the remaining funds to be used to support at each of the 
National Laboratories the establishment of a Center of 
Excellence in Mathematics and Science at one public secondary 
school located in the region of the National Laboratory. The 
Secretary is directed to provide scientific and engineering 
staff of the National Laboratories to assist in teaching 
courses at these Centers, and to use National Laboratory 
scientific equipment in the teaching of the courses. The 
Secretary shall consider the results of performance assessments 
of the Centers in any performance review of a National 
Laboratories management and operations contractor.

                         Nuclear Waste Disposal

Appropriations, 2006....................................    $148,500,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................     156,420,000
House allowance.........................................     186,420,000
Committee recommendation................................     136,420,000

    The Committee recommendation for the Office of Civilian 
Radioactive Waste Management includes $136,420,000 from fees 
collected by the Secretary which are deposited into the fund 
established by Public Law 97-425 as amended and $358,080,000 
provided from the defense contribution for a total of 
$494,500,000. The Committee is frustrated by challenges facing 
the Yucca Mountain project. The project is still recovering 
from several setbacks in the license application including: the 
remanding of the Environmental Protection Agency radiation 
standards, the quality control of the U.S. Geological Survey 
practices, and the subsequent rejection of the Department's 
certification of its License Support Network. The Committee is 
concerned that the Department is redesigning the repository 
with significant changes, including plans for the surface 
facility as well as changes to the in-mountain storage 
configuration and cost re-estimate for the entire project that 
will be included in the Total System Performance Assessment 
[TSPA] model. As a result of the program setbacks and redesign 
of repository, the Department does not intend to submit a 
License Application until the second quarter of fiscal year 
2008 at the earliest. These delays have forced the Committee to 
reconsider the project's budget needs.
    As a result of program design changes, the Department will 
have a new conceptual design for the surface facilities and for 
the canister retrieval and handling activities. The clean 
canister approach is intended to minimize the need to handle 
bare spent nuclear fuel with a goal to provide a uniform 
storage solution by requiring fuel to be handled at the 
individual utility or facility sites. However, the Department 
needs to account for and plan how to package fuel for locations 
where fuel handling facilities no longer exist. Without the 
necessary cost data and a clear understanding of the specifics 
of the TSPA, the Committee is greatly concerned with the 
redesign effort and will withhold support of the initiative 
until the TSPA is available for a more careful review.
    The Committee directs the Department to support only the 
preliminary design activities of the Canister Handling Facility 
and not to proceed with performance based engineering or any 
procurement or construction activities. In addition, the 
Committee limits the Department to spending current year levels 
for Disposable Canister work and Waste Package activities. The 
Committee does support the budget request for the Initial 
Infrastructure Readiness, Site Safety Upgrades work. The 
Committee recognizes this investment is important to 
maintaining a safe workplace. However, the Committee directs 
the Department to exercise great discretion to ensure that any 
construction undertaken at or near Yucca Mountain is consistent 
with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act's requirements that no 
repository construction can be undertaken prior to the issuance 
of a repository license by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 
The Committee directs the Government Accountability Office to 
review the fiscal year 2007 budget plan for the Office of 
Civilian Nuclear Waste Management to ensure that all of the 
activities planned for the fiscal year are consistent with the 
requirements of the NWPA.
    The Committee directs the Department to make funding 
reductions in transportation activities and not reduce funding 
for licensing support activities or infrastructure and safety 
upgrades.
    In the fiscal year 2006 energy and water conference report, 
the conferees directed the Department to enter into a 3-year 
cooperative agreement with Inyo County, California, to address 
groundwater contamination concerns. Instead, the Department 
provided a 5-year cooperative agreement. The Committee expects 
the Department to be far more respectful of explicit 
congressional direction and intent in the future and provides 
$750,000 (in addition to the amounts provided in the 
cooperative agreement) to accelerate the necessary drilling.
    The Committee recommendation includes $750,000 for Nuclear 
Transportation Hazard Research at the University of Nevada 
Reno, and $1,000,000 for the Nye County Resource Assessment.

                      Departmental Administration

                                (GROSS)

Appropriations, 2006....................................    $250,289,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................     278,382,000
House allowance.........................................     278,382,000
Committee recommendation................................     281,382,000

                        (MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES)

Appropriations, 2006....................................   -$121,770,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................    -123,000,000
House allowance.........................................    -123,000,000
Committee recommendation................................    -123,000,000

    The Committee recommends the President's request of 
$278,382,000 for Departmental Administration, a net 
appropriation of $158,382,000. The Departmental Administration 
account funds eleven Department-wide management organizations 
support administrative functions such as human resources, 
accounting, budgeting, workforce diversity and project 
management activities. The Committee is concerned with the lack 
of qualified program managers within the Department.
    Chief Financial Officer.--Last year, the Department 
encountered a number of challenges resulting from the 2005 
implement of the Standard Accounting and Reporting System 
[STARS]. Despite the work of the staff, the auditors issued a 
disclaimer of opinion on the Department's fiscal year 2005 
consolidated financial statements. Despite the staff's best 
effort, the Committee is skeptical that the fiscal year 2007 
budget request of $36,790,000 is sufficient to address all the 
issues identified in the financial audit. The Committee 
believes the additional funding is needed to fully support the 
transition to the Oracle-based accounting system and to hire 
additional staff to broaden the skill mix among the staff. The 
Committee recommends an additional $3,180,000 to support this 
transition.
    Policy and International Affairs.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $600,000 within available funds for 
continuation of the Clean Energy Technology Exports Initiative 
[CETE]. The primary goals of CETE are to strengthen U.S. 
Government interagency cooperation and private stakeholder 
outreach, to support the deployment of clean energy projects, 
and to open and expand clean energy markets abroad. CETE must 
be enhanced and carried out in a manner that is consistent with 
the 2002 strategic plan and should guide the implementation of 
other international energy technology and market deployment 
activities within the Department and other Federal agencies. 
The Committee also reminds the Department that up to one-third 
of the cost of the Asia Pacific Partnership can be taken from 
this office.

                      Office of Inspector General

Appropriations, 2006....................................     $41,580,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................      45,507,000
House allowance.........................................      45,507,000
Committee recommendation................................      45,507,000

    For the Office of Inspector General, the Committee 
recommends $45,507,000, consistent with the budget request. The 
Office of Inspector General identifies opportunities for cost 
savings and operational efficiencies and provides the 
Department of Energy with the assurance that those attempting 
to defraud the Government are apprehended.

                    ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

                National Nuclear Security Administration

                           Weapons Activities

Appropriations, 2006....................................  $6,369,603,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................   6,407,889,000
House allowance.........................................   6,412,001,000
Committee recommendation................................   6,503,051,000

    The Weapons Activities account provides for the 
maintenance, refurbishment and scientific validation regarding 
the reliability, security and safety of the nuclear weapons 
stockpile. In addition, the NNSA is charged with certifying the 
reliability of the stockpile without the use of underground 
testing, so all changes and updates that are integrated into 
the stockpile must utilize data from existing tests that are 
also supported through independent experimentation and 
validated using computer simulation. The NNSA is also working 
to upgrade their capability to develop new designs and the 
responsive nuclear weapons infrastructure needed to respond to 
an evolving, threat based environment as determined by the 
Nuclear Posture Review. The directors of Los Alamos, Sandia and 
Livermore National Labs and the Commander, U.S. Strategic 
Command share the belief that maintaining incremental 
modifications to the existing and highly optimized legacy 
systems is not sustainable. In order to reduce the concerns, 
the laboratory initiated the development of the Reliable 
Replacement Warhead. This program is intended to assure the 
reliability of the stockpile. In addition the laboratory design 
teams have been charged with developing a weapons system that 
is much easier to manufacture and maintain, as well as 
integrating 21st Century use controls to reduce the threat of 
unintended use. A key component of this design will be to 
increase the performance margins that will maintain the same 
level of reliability and counter the effects of aging so as to 
avoid the need for underground testing in the future. However, 
until the NNSA can demonstrate the ability to design and 
manufacture a weapon with the same or better performance 
margins, the Department of Defense will continue to maintain a 
significant hedge of reserve legacy systems and parts to 
protect against technical challenges within the stockpile. The 
Committee recognizes the need to protect against unforeseen 
challenges and urges the NNSA to accelerate the transition to a 
responsive infrastructure and to proceed expeditiously with the 
RRW design. The Committee also realizes that a dual track 
strategy of supporting eight legacy systems and a RRW program 
is not sustainable and therefore has taken steps in this 
legislation to reduce the number of legacy systems and begin 
the replacement with RRW designs. The Committee has also 
initiated a second design competition for another RRW design in 
lieu of the W80 life extension activities, which are no longer 
supported by the Nuclear Weapons Council and the Department of 
Defense.
    NNSA Act Reform.--The Committee is pleased that the 
Administrator has recognized that the NNSA operational and 
oversight culture was becoming risk-adverse and focused more on 
oversight and compliance activities than on implementing the 
mission and milestones. The Committee is aware of the numerous 
activities underway in the Department of Defense and the 
Department of Energy to address issues and recommendations of 
the Defense Science Board [DSB] Task Force on Nuclear 
Capabilities and the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board's 
[SEAB] Nuclear Weapons Complex Infrastructure Task Force. Their 
reports identified weaknesses and opportunities in the NNSA's 
ability to meet the future needs for the Nation's nuclear 
capabilities, including fundamental concerns with line 
management authority and accountability, staff and advisory 
groups directing line management, embedding safety and security 
functions in line management, and consolidating and modernizing 
the weapons complex. The Committee is also aware of responses 
to these actions to date including: organizational alignments 
to improve line management decision making; procedure changes 
to improve interfaces with oversight groups within and outside 
of the Department; formation of the Office of Transformation; 
formation of a senior management team to improve throughput at 
Pantex; review of certain orders, regulations and polices to 
eliminate practices that weaken line responsibilities; 
establishment of multi-site performance measures to increase 
delivery of work for the Department of Defense. Hopefully, 
these actions will address the fundamental concerns addressed 
by the Defense Safety Board.
    Material Consolidation.--The Committee recognizes the 
Department's challenge in consolidating both the nuclear 
weapons complex and the challenge to consolidate special 
nuclear material [SNM]. The Committee is supportive of the 
initiative taken by the Department to create the Nuclear 
Materials Disposition and Consolidation Committee [NMDCC] to 
develop a strategy to consolidate and dispose of special 
nuclear material. The Committee has yet to see a plan for 
consolidation of material outside of the broad goals included 
in Complex 2030. The planning team is encouraged to provide 
updates to the Committee on a regular basis and provide a 
consolidation roadmap to the Congress as soon as possible. The 
Committee also expects the Department to identify a disposal 
pathway for all excess SNM. The Committee has provided 
additional funding to initiate the first shipment of SNM out of 
Lawrence Livermore National Lab in fiscal year 2007.
    Indirect Security Funding.--The Committee understands the 
Department continues to consider the policy of indirectly 
funding security costs at NNSA facilities. The Committee 
strongly opposes this proposal and directs the Department to 
continue to provide transparency when it comes to its costs, 
especially security costs, and directly fund all security costs 
within the Department Energy and the NNSA.

                        DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK

    The Committee recommendation includes $1,323,224,000 for 
this activity. The Directed Stockpile Work [DSW] includes all 
activities that directly support weapons in the nuclear 
stockpile, including maintenance, research and development, 
engineering, certification, dismantlement and disposal 
activities.
    Life Extension Program.--Within the Life Extension Program 
[LEP], the Committee recommends $230,618,000 for LEP 
activities. The Committee recommends $58,934,000 for the B61 
LEP activities, as requested. The Committee recommends 
$151,684,000 as requested to support W76 LEP efforts.
    W80.--Based on the recent decision by the Nuclear Weapons 
Council decision to terminate the W80 LEP, the Committee 
allocates $20,000,000 to support the closeout of the W80 LEP 
activities. Delay of the W80 Life Extension Plan will result in 
a cost savings of $82,000,000 in fiscal year 2007 and 
additional savings in the FYNSP. The savings from the W80 plan 
should be used to support the Reliable Replacement Warhead and 
responsive infrastructure, so that the transformation of the 
stockpile and the NNSA infrastructure can proceed. 
Additionally, Stockpile Services funding must be maintained to 
enable NNSA to properly support the legacy stockpile, and this 
requirement is unaffected by the cancellation of the W80 LEP. 
Support for these legacy weapons is crucial since they will be 
needed for many more years until they can be replaced with 
Reliable Replacement Warhead systems. The Committee 
acknowledges that any further cuts in the Directed Stockpile 
Work and, in particular, the Stockpile Services, will further 
add to the significant challenges NNSA has in supporting the 
legacy stockpile.
    Stockpile Systems.--The Committee supports the budget 
request for the Stockpile Systems account and provides 
$325,545,000, as requested. These activities are critical to 
support the specific and routine repair and replacement of 
various limited-life components and to sustain the necessary 
surveillance activities of each weapons system. The Committee 
recommends the following: $63,782,000 for the B61; $3,738,000 
for the W62; $56,174,000 for the W76; $50,662,000 for the W78; 
$27,230,000 for the W80; $23,365,000 for the B83; $1,465,000 
for the W84; $59,333,000 for the W87; and $39,796,000 for the 
W88.
    Reliable Replacement Warhead [RRW].--The Committee 
recommendation provides $62,707,000 for the Reliable 
Replacement Warhead initiative, an increase of $35,000,000 from 
the budget request. The additional funding is realigned from 
savings realized by the Nuclear Weapons Council's decision to 
cancel W80 LEP. The Committee expects the laboratories and 
plants will utilize the unneeded resources in the Directed 
Stockpile, Campaigns, and Readiness in Technical Based and 
Facilities accounts where applicable to further the RRW design 
options to support a Nuclear Weapons Council decision. The 
Committee expects the initial RRW design approved by the 
Department to be selected based on a combination of 
considerations, including the ability to certify the warhead 
without underground nuclear testing, cost production and ease 
of maintenance and dismantlement. The Committee would oppose 
the use of workload leveling among the labs as a factor in any 
design selection decision. The design teams at both Lawrence 
Livermore National Laboratory and Los Alamos National 
Laboratory have worked extremely hard on their respective 
designs with the expectation that the best design would be 
selected. Any selection that isn't decided purely on merits 
would be a disservice to the Department of Defense, the RRW 
design teams and the NNSA. The Committee continues to have 
concerns regarding the slow pace of the Nuclear Weapons Complex 
consolidation efforts and how those efforts pertain to the 
future of the RRW. Rapid RRW development and deployment will 
reduce the further need for many complex manufacturing 
capabilities currently maintained by the NNSA. By utilizing a 
RRW design, the stockpile will also contain systems that are 
much easier to maintain and manufacture, apply enhanced surety 
applications and retain the same level of reliability as can be 
certified by the three laboratory directors. The Committee 
believes that in order to maintain RRW on going basis and to 
hedge against any unforeseen problems in any one particular 
design, the Secretary and the Administrator should expand the 
RRW program immediately to ensure that our strategic forces 
have at least two different certified RRW warheads. Having 
multiple strategic systems that continue to meet the existing 
military requirements maintains the current strategic doctrine 
of hedging against a single point failure in any one system. 
The Committee provides $10,000,000 to support a second RRW 
design competition. The Committee expects the NNSA to proceed 
with this design competition in the same manner in which the 
initial RRW was implemented. The funding shall be used to 
support the following: establish a Project Officers Group to 
undertake a feasibility evaluation for a first production goal 
of fiscal year 2014; identify the appropriate military 
characteristics in order to maintain existing military 
capability; support a conceptual design competition within the 
laboratory; establish a basis for selection, including support 
of a responsive infrastructure and appropriate workload 
balancing among the labs if necessary; and develop a 
comparative cost assessment comparing implementing the RRW with 
implementing the LEP program.
    Dismantlement.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$35,000,000 for the warhead dismantlement program. The 
Committee expects the NNSA to implement an aggressive warhead 
dismantlement program as part of a concerted effort to relieve 
the weapons complex of excess cold war era warheads and 
continue the development of a responsive infrastructure 
consistent with the President's Nuclear Posture Review. The 
Committee appreciates the efforts of the NNSA to implement a 
streamlined dismantlement program, which requires numerous 
changes within the complex to support this initiative. First, 
the NNSA has made dismantlement and materials consolidation a 
priority. Second, the NNSA plans incorporate a complex-wide 
approach to balancing surveillance activities, meeting life 
extension commitments and increasing the rate of dismantlement. 
The Committee supports the NNSA's efforts to dismantle 
unnecessary weapons, but reminds the NNSA that it must follow 
through with elimination of excess weapons-grade material that 
will be left over. Once disassembled, the material still poses 
a proliferation threat and must be secured at a significant 
cost to taxpayers. In order to fully address this problem, the 
Department must develop and implement a comprehensive 
dismantlement and consolidation program for the total 
elimination and destruction of excess weapons-grade material.
    The Committee supports the Department's efforts to 
construct and operate the pit disassembly facility and mixed 
oxide fabrication facility to turn weapons-usable pits into 
commercial spent nuclear fuel. Before the Committee provides 
full funding for the dismantlement program, the Committee would 
like to ensure the pit disassembly and MOX fabrication facility 
will be built. Therefore before the NNSA accelerates 
dismantlement activities, the Committee directs the Department 
to allocate only $35,000,000 for dismantlement work.
    Stockpile Services.--The Committee recommends $669,354,000, 
as provided in the budget. The Stockpile Services account 
supports the research and development and production activities 
for multiple weapon systems, but the costs are not allocated by 
tail number in the same manner as the Stockpile Systems or Life 
Extension Program. Therefore, despite a reduction in the LEP 
activities for the W80, there are no savings within this 
activity. The Committee recommends $236,115,000 for Production 
Support work. This account supports the personnel costs 
associated with weapons assembly, disassembly, and component 
productions. Research and Development Support activities are 
provided $63,948,000 to support R&D of component and surety 
research such as neutron generations and other weapons systems. 
The Committee recommendation for R&D Certification and Safety 
is $194,199,000. Activities funded within this account are very 
critical and support a broad range of stewardship activities 
including plutonium experiments, sub critical tests, safety and 
reliability analysis, and funding for the Nuclear Weapons Study 
Groups of the various military services. The Committee 
recommendation includes $9,000,000 above the budget request for 
BEEF. This additional funding, coupled with $3,000,000 in RTBF, 
will provide funding for critical high pressure experiments in 
the Phoenix Program.

                               CAMPAIGNS

    Campaigns focus on scientific, technical and engineering 
efforts to develop and maintain critical capabilities and tools 
needed to support the existing stockpile through continued 
assessment and annual certification in the absence of 
underground testing. The major elements of the campaign are: 
Science, Engineering, Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and 
High Yield Advanced Simulation and Computing, Pit 
Manufacturing, and Certification and Readiness Campaigns.

Science Campaign

    The Committee recommendation includes $268,762,000, as 
requested in the budget. The Science campaign is the principal 
program for supporting the science required to maintain the 
technical viability of the physics package. Developing a better 
understanding of the operating margins through the 
Quantification of Margins and Uncertainties, using 
experimentation and simulation, is critical to certification of 
the current stockpile and the basis for which a RRW design can 
be developed without underground testing. The focus of the 
scientific research is code development in support of the 
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign for primaries and 
secondaries associated with the RRW design and other 
experimental technical milestones.
    Primary Assessment Technologies.--The Committee recommends 
$50,527,000, as requested in the budget, to improve the 
understanding of boost physics, a complex challenge for weapons 
designers. Funding supports experiments associated with 
plutonium using hydrotests, proton radiography and subcritical 
tests in Nevada.
    Test Readiness.--The Committee recommends $14,757,000 for 
Test Readiness as requested and a reduction of $5,000,000 from 
current year levels.
    Dynamic Materials Properties.--The Committee recommends 
$85,727,000 for Dynamic Materials. Funding will be used to 
support a variety of experiments on JASPER, TA-55 gas guns, Z/
R, LANSCE and U1A to understand plutonium dynamics. 
Specifically, the Committee recommends an increase of 
$5,000,000 above the budget request of $11,500,000 to support a 
doubling of the shot rate for plutonium experiments at JASPER, 
greatly improving efficiency in operation of the JASPER test 
bed and DAF glove box for target assembly.
    Advanced Radiography.--The Committee recommends $36,745,000 
as requested in the budget to support hydrotest and 
radiographic activities. The budget supports completion and 
commissioning of the second axis cell refurbishment on DARHT. 
The Committee expects the NNSA to deliver on the promise of 
commissioning this facility in fiscal year 2008, when 
hydrotests are needed.
    Secondary Assessment Technologies.--The Committee 
recommends $81,006,000 for Secondary Assessment Technologies. 
Funding is provided in this subprogram to support high energy 
density physics experiments on inertial confinement fusion 
experimental facilities. The Committee recommends full funding 
for the Z machine activities at $14,700,000, as requested in 
the budget.

Engineering Campaign

    The Committee recommends $207,033,000, an increase of 
$46,114,000 above the requested level. This campaign provides 
validation of engineering science, modeling and simulation 
tools necessary to support design qualification and 
certification of the stockpile. Critical elements of this 
program are the Enhanced Surety and Surveillance activities 
that are critical in applying the highest level of use controls 
possible using engineered solutions developed at MESA at Sandia 
National Laboratories.
    Enhanced Surety.--The Committee recommends $41,200,000, an 
increase of $14,469,000 above the budget request. The surety 
systems are the means by which the safety, security and use 
control of nuclear weapons are achieved. These high-consequence 
systems require careful design and ultra-reliable components.
    Weapons Systems.--The Committee recommends $28,000,000, an 
increase of $6,800,000 above the budget request, to support 
advance computer simulation and related code development. This 
activity also supports manufacturing of critical design 
components and microsystems.
    Nuclear Survivability.--The Committee recommends 
$23,000,000 to support the budget request. Within the available 
funds, the Department is directed to use $6,000,000 to support 
research into radiation hardening capabilities and to prevent 
damage to critical electronics from electromagnetic pulse.
    Enhanced Surveillance.--The Committee recommends 
$103,200,000, an increase of $3,995,000 above the current year. 
This funding will be used to accelerate the deployment of 
advanced micro-engineering devices that can be used to adopt 
advance surveillance devices into the RRW design. Applying 
enhanced surveillance technology can provide a more accurate, 
cost-effective and real time means of tracking performance of 
existing stockpile systems.
    Project 01-D-108 Microsystem and Engineering Science 
Applications, SNL, Albuquerque, New Mexico.--The Committee 
recommends $6,920,000, to complete the MESA project in fiscal 
year 2007. The Committee recommends $4,613,000 for other MESA 
project costs.

Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield Campaign

    The Committee recommends $412,256,000, a reduction of 
$38,935,000 from the budget request. The NNSA has implemented 
the National Ignition Campaign and declared it an ``enhanced 
management'' activity, which appears to be nothing more than a 
NIF-at-all-costs-strategy. The NNSA has pursued this agenda as 
a means to justify an aggressive spending baseline at the 
expense of other compelling stewardship responsibilities in the 
ICF campaign. The NNSA has proven unable to maintain a balanced 
ICF and high yield research program. As such the Committee has 
reallocated funding out of NIF demonstration and Construction 
activities to ensure that there is adequate program balance.
    Ignition.--The Committee recommends $69,763,000, a 
reduction of $10,000,000, from the budget request. This 
reduction has been used to offset an imbalance in research 
priorities.
    Support of Other Stockpile Programs.--The Committee 
recommends $25,872,000. This account has also suffered as a 
result of the NIF program. The additional funding provides for 
the support of research into high energy density physics within 
other campaigns. The additional funding will be to increase the 
utilization of the Z machine and work to integrate the Z 
petawatt laser and support stockpile stewardship activities 
that are being delayed as a result of the NIF priorities. The 
JASONS recommended in their review of NIF that the NNSA develop 
an ``aggressive program of experiments on high energy density 
laser and Z pinch facilities'' in order to understand the 
physics challenges and understand computer models. The report 
also found that the ``the plans to use LIL and Z/ZR are not yet 
adequately developed.'' The Committee recognizes that the 
Department just completed a refurbishment of Z/ZR making a 
substantial investment of over $60,000,000 to improve the 
operational capabilities. The Committee directs the Department 
to fully utilize the Z machine. Funding is provided to support 
expanded operations and HED stockpile stewardship R&D that has 
been delayed until 2011.
    NIF Diagnostics, Cryogenics and Experimental Support.--
Unlike the funding provided in the Support of Other Stockpile 
Programs, the budget request provides a slight increase from 
the current year levels. However, the Committee recommends 
$42,578,000, the same level as current year, a reduction of 
$3,381,000. These funds will be applied toward the joint HEDP 
program.
    Pulsed Power Inertial Confinement Fusion.--The Committee 
recommends $10,603,000 to support experiments on the 
refurbished Z facility.
    University Grants.--The Committee believes these activities 
would be better supported in a broader program that would 
provide students and faculty broader research and experimental 
opportunities.
    Facility Operations and Target Production.--The Committee 
recommendation is $53,021,000, as requested in the budget. The 
Committee provides $10,000,000 above the budget request for 
advanced ICF target design, fabrication and testing on the 
OMEGA laser system at the LLE and the Z-machine at SNL.
    NIF Demonstration Program.--The remaining work under the 
Demonstration program activities includes assembly and 
installation of optics into the remaining roughly 180 of the 
192 beamlines. The Department is directed to work to find cost 
savings by increasing the efficiency and productivity for 
assembly activities. The Committee recommends $129,000,000 for 
demonstration activities.
    High-Energy Petawatt Laser Development.--The Committee 
recommendation no funding for this activity. The funds that 
were budgeted for this account have been shifted to the Office 
of Science High Energy Density Physics program, an increase of 
$27,693,000 above current year levels.
    Construction--Project 96-D-111.--The Committee recommends 
$81,419,000 and directs the NNSA to utilize available 
contingency funds of $30,000,000 to make up any funding 
shortfalls. Remaining contingency balances are sufficient to 
cover the remaining costs of the construction project. This 
funding will be used to support the NNSA's contribution to the 
joint High Energy Density Physics program office.

Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign

    The Committee recommends $695,995,000, an increase of 
$78,040,000 above the request. The Committee supports the 
program reforms made to improve budget clarity and program 
focus. Of the additional funds provided, $60,000,000 shall be 
used to support the purchase of a petaflop computing capability 
at Los Alamos National Laboratory. This builds on the 
additional funding provided by the Committee in fiscal year 
2006 to increase computing capacity at Los Alamos. With these 
resources, the United States will be in the best position to 
deploy the first petaflop computer in the world. If successful, 
this additional capacity will enable the Department of Energy 
to develop new computer architectures to facilitate a leap 
forward in high speed computing. The Department is directed to 
continue activities consistent with fiscal year 2006 funding 
under its renewed 5-year cooperative agreement with the 
University of Nevada Las Vegas and the University of Nevada 
Reno.

Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign

    The Committee provides a total of $237,598,000 for the Pit 
Manufacturing and Certification Campaign, consistent with the 
request. Using the existing capabilities at Los Alamos, the 
NNSA will demonstrate the ability to manufacture pits, to 
confirm the nuclear performance of a W88 warhead without 
nuclear testing, and establish a basis for certification of 
future pits. The Committee supports the NNSA's decision to 
commit out year funding for the Modern Pit Facility toward 
demonstrating the capability to manufacture other stockpile 
pits, including an RRW design at Los Alamos.

Readiness Campaign

    The Committee recommends $205,965,000, as provided in the 
budget.
    Stockpile Readiness Campaign.--The Committee recommends 
$17,576,000, as requested. The funding is intended to be used 
to restore or replace aging production infrastructure within 
the complex. The Committee is concerned with the decline in 
funding considering the need and age of the existing complex.
    High Explosives and Weapons Operations.--The Committee 
recommendation is $17,188,000, a slight increase over current 
funding and consistent the budget request.
    Tritium Readiness.--The Committee supports the request of 
$86,385,000. This funding will be used to maintain the national 
inventory of tritium by irradiating tritium producing rods in a 
commercial light-water reactor.
    Advanced Design and Production Technologies.--The Committee 
recommends $53,645,000 as requested in the budget.

               READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES

    For Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities, the 
Committee provides $1,780,772,000, and increase of $95,000,000 
above the budget request to restore funding cut in fiscal year 
2006. The activities funded in the RTBF account provide of the 
operational funding, including salaries of thousands of staff 
as well as the operating costs for the production complex. The 
NNSA is facing a challenge in attempting to address the 
consolidation of special nuclear material throughout the 
complex, a lasting and costly legacy from the cold war. The 
NNSA is also looking at consolidating and coordinating the 
production mission in order to cut costs to meet tight budgets 
and rising costs attributed to security needs and as well has 
the rising cost of medical and pension costs. At the 
Committee's insistence, the Department is pursuing a RRW 
program that is the embodiment of a responsive infrastructure 
desired by the Department of Defense. By demonstrating the 
capability to respond to a threat based deterrent, the 
Department will have the confidence to further reduce the 
overall number of weapons and weapons systems in the stockpile.
    Special Nuclear Materials Consolidation.--In fiscal year 
2007, the Committee directs the NNSA to initiate the removal of 
excess Special Nuclear Materials [SNM] from the Lawrence 
Livermore National Laboratory [LLNL] and develop a plan for 
removal of all Category I/II SNM from LLNL by fiscal year 2012. 
The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to support this activity 
and to support disposition of nuclear materials at LLNL, SNL, 
Y-12, and Pantex as well.
    Operations of Facilities.--The Committee includes 
$1,263,004,000, an increase of $59,218,000 above the budget 
request, for Operations of Facilities. The budget provides for 
modest growth in this account and supports both workforce 
funding and facilities operation, which are the backbone of the 
NNSA capability. The Department moved operational funding for 
the Z machine to this account, but failed to increase the 
budget to accommodate the additional responsibility. As such 
the Committee recommends $30,000,000 to support Z operational 
charges, as requested. The Committee recommendation includes 
$3,000,000 above the budget request of $17,900,000 for BEEF. 
This additional funding, coupled with $9,000,000 above the 
request in DSW, will provide funding for critical high pressure 
experiments in the Phoenix Program. The Committee also 
recommends an increase of $6,000,000 above the budget request 
of $34,300,000 for the Device Assembly Facility. This funding 
will allow a ``Mission Capable'' level of support which is the 
minimum required to reliably ensure compliance with Federal 
regulations and standards. In addition, the Committee 
recommends $13,500,000 to be divided evenly among the three 
NNSA laboratories to upgrade facilities as necessary and 
demonstrate the manufacturability of the new RRW designs.
    Special Projects.--The Committee provides $28,782,000 for 
the following activities. The Committee recommends $3,500,000 
for the Technologies Ventures Corporation to support technology 
transfer from each of the three weapons laboratories. These 
balances will be expended, and the Committee provides funding 
for the fourth year of a 5-year commitment. The Committee 
recommends that $5,832,000 be provided to the grant-funded 
University Research Program in Robotics [URPR], for research, 
development, and technology transfer to NNSA laboratories. The 
Committee provides $7,500,000 for the continued operation and 
experimental program on the Atlas Pulse Power Machine. Included 
within that amount, the Committee has provided $2,300,000 to 
the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, for research, 
experimentation, development, design and demonstration of 
technologies for containment and confinement related to the 
future employment of special nuclear materials on the Atlas 
Pulse Power machine. This funding is in addition to the funding 
provided in Science. Additionally, the Committee recommendation 
includes $2,000,000 in enhanced funding for subcritical 
experiments at NTS; $2,500,000 for the Consortium for Terrorism 
and Fire Science at UNR-Elko; $250,000 for the Atomic Testing 
History Institute; $1,000,000 to continue the on-going 
infrastructure support grant for the UNLV Research Foundation; 
$1,000,000 for the UNR/DRI Technology Transfer Initiative; 
$1,000,000 to the UNLV Research Foundation to continue support 
of the radioanalytical services laboratory; $400,000 for 
virtual reality technologies for command and control of 
security operations at the Nevada Test Site; and $1,500,000 for 
the UNLV Research Foundation to support the ongoing programs of 
the Institute for Security Studies. The Committee is concerned 
that the ISS has not adequately fulfilled its key mission 
objective of establishing an academic center of excellence on 
national security and terrorism-related issues. Therefore the 
Committee directs the ISS to allocate funding necessary to 
fully implement its undergraduate and graduate level academic 
program as well as its research and training mission. From 
within available funds, the Committee recommends $1,000,000 for 
the Arrowhead Center, New Mexico.
    Program Readiness.--The Committee includes $75,167,000, the 
same as the budget request, for Program Readiness.
    Material Recycle and Recovery.--The Committee recommends 
$69,982,000, consistent with the budget request, for Material 
Recycle and Recovery. These activities include reuse of 
plutonium, enriched uranium and tritium, limited life 
components and dismantlement operations.
    Construction Projects.--The Committee recommends $288,422, 
000 for various construction projects, an increase of 
$7,000,000. The Committee provides $112,442,000 for 04-D-125, 
Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility Replacement, as 
requested in the budget. This facility is critical to support 
the only plutonium work at Los Alamos, and will provide 
necessary laboratory support to the pit manufacturing mission. 
The Committee has reviewed the Department's Complex 2030 
proposal and notes several assumptions regarding mission scope 
of the CMR-R facility that don't seem to match current planned 
activities. The Committee directs the Administrator to deliver 
a report by June 1, 2007, clarifying the cost and mission 
requirements this facility will be expected to address. The 
Committee firmly believes this facility will continue to play a 
central role in the plutonium mission at Los Alamos and is 
needed to support the research and chemistry mission of 
plutonium activities. The Committee is skeptical the NNSA will 
be able to site new plutonium facilitie that include storage 
and manufacturing capabilities in the foreseeable future, let 
alone find sufficient funding within the constrained budgets to 
build a new facility. The Committee also reminds the Department 
that it has been unable to secure funding in the current year 
to support planning for a Modern Pit Facility. As such, the 
Committee directs the Department to consider alternatives to 
making changes to the CMR-R facility to accommodate an expanded 
mission scope. Design changes related to security enhancements 
and inadequate management controls during the construction of 
the Highly Enriched Uranium Manufacturing Facility [HEUMF] at 
the Y-12 National Security Complex (01-D-124) has resulted in a 
significant delay in the completion of this facility and a 
significant increase in the overall cost. The design of the 
related Uranium Process Facility [UPF] is stretched out pending 
resolution of the project management shortfalls and $35,000,000 
of $40,000,000 PED requested by the administration is to be 
applied against the HEUMF project. The Committee directs the 
Department to use prior year funding from the Y-12 Readiness 
Campaign and the down sized Security Improvement Program at Y-
12 for a total of $17,866,000 to support HEUMF construction. 
The Committee is aware that even with this additional funding 
the HEUMF project is still under funded in fiscal year 2007 and 
the NNSA will identify additional sources in the near future to 
support project completion in fiscal year 2008.
    The Committee recommends $14,828,000 for 07-D-220, 
Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility Upgrades. The 
Committee is concerned by what it views as wavering support by 
the Department for a major experimental science facility. The 
Los Alamos Neutron Science Center [LANSCE] is an important 
facility that supports the Laboratory's core weapons mission, 
as well as a broad range of science in virtually every 
technical division of the Laboratory. LANSCE also includes an 
Office of Science User Facility and annual operating funds from 
the Office of Science. LANSCE is in need of repair and 
refurbishment to continue as a scientific engine and recruiting 
tool for the Laboratory. The Committee urges the Department to 
approve Critical Decision Zero for LANSCE refurbishment so that 
the appropriate investment can be made. The Committee provides 
$7,000,000 for project engineering and design work for LANSCE-
R. Full funding is provided to 06-D-402, NTS Replacement Fire 
Stations. The Committee is concerned with the recent problems 
associated with 01-D-124, Highly Enriched Uranium Materials 
Facility. The Committee understands cost increases are a result 
of a combination of poor NNSA oversight and poor contractor 
execution. The Committee provides $21,267,000, as requested, 
but expects an explanation of the cost increases.

             FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE RECAPITALIZATION

    The Committee recommends $283,205,000 for the Facilities 
and Infrastructure Recapitalization, to restore, rebuild, and 
revitalize the physical infrastructure of the nuclear weapons 
complex.

                      SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET

    The Committee recommends $209,264,000 for Secure 
Transportation Asset, the same as the budget request. Funds are 
used for the safe, secure transport of nuclear weapons, weapons 
components, and Special Nuclear Materials for requirements set 
by the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, and 
other customers.

                   NUCLEAR WEAPONS INCIDENT RESPONSE

    The Nuclear Weapons Incident Response program responds to 
and mitigates worldwide nuclear and radiological incidents. The 
Committee recommends $135,354,000, the same as the budget 
request, for Nuclear Weapons Incident Response.

                        SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

    The Committee recommends $759,412,000, for Safeguards and 
Security activities at laboratories and facilities managed by 
the National Nuclear Security Administration.
    The Committee recommends $5,000,000 to be provided to 
Sandia National Laboratories to support research and 
development activities to support enhanced security measures 
that will provide improved early warning detection and use 
denial strategies in order to reduce the overall security costs 
for the Complex.
    The Committee remains concerned that, despite the 
expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars for information 
security needs, a large percentage of all Federal agencies 
received failing grades from both the GAO and OMB for their 
cyber security management. The Department of Energy has 
received an F as its computer security grade since 2001 by the 
House Government Reform Committee and no higher than a 59 (out 
of 100) for its FIMSA score over that same period of time.
    The Committee provides $1,250,000, within available funds, 
to allow the Department to develop a vulnerability and risk 
management solution that continuously discovers and prioritizes 
network exposures including integrated network topology risk 
analysis. The solution should be appliance-based technology, 
running a hardened operating system with an integrated database 
and reporting services and must be certified at Common Criteria 
EAL Level 3 (the NIST/NIAP standard). It must facilitate 
Certification and Accreditation under FIMSA by performing the 
Continuous Monitoring requirement as specified by NIST SP 800-
37 Section 2.7.
    The Committee directs the Department to begin to the 
necessary steps to protect personnel data at a level comparable 
to classified material to prevent the misuse and unauthorized 
access of such data. Within 60 days after enactment, the 
Department is directed to provide a report to Congress 
detailing activities and steps being taken to secure employee 
data and other personnel records and the costs associated with 
such security modifications.

                          FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

    The Committee recommends an offset of $33,000,000, the same 
as the request, for the Safeguards and Security charge for 
reimbursable work.

                    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

Appropriations, 2006....................................  $1,631,839,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................   1,726,213,000
House allowance.........................................   1,593,101,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,572,654,000

       NONPROLIFERATION AND VERIFICATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

    The Committee recommends $274,967,000 for Nonproliferation 
and Verification Research and Development activities, an 
increase of $14,000,000 above the request. The Committee 
recommends $10,000,000 to restore funding for Nuclear Detection 
R&D to be divided among Sandia and Los Alamos National 
Laboratories. The Committee recommends $166,446,000 for 
Proliferation Detection, $106,601,000 for Nuclear Explosion 
Monitoring; $7,920,000 for construction of the Pacific 
Northwest National Laboratory, Physical Sciences Facility; 
$2,500,000 for the UNLV Research Foundation to continue support 
of nonproliferation activities at the Institute for Security 
Studies; and $1,500,000 for the UNLV Research Foundation 
megacargo imaging development program at the NTS.

              NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

    For Nonproliferation and International Security, the 
Committee recommends $127,411,000, the same as the President's 
request. The Department has reorganized several activities 
under one program, including $38,967,000 for Dismantlement and 
Transparency activities that provide technical support of 
nonproliferation and arms control treaties. Of this amount, 
$17,531,000 is provided to support the Highly Enriched Uranium 
down blending under the HEU Purchase Agreement, and $14,814,000 
is available to support Warhead Dismantlement and Fissile 
Material Transparency activities. The Committee recommends 
$50,232,000 for Global Security Engagement and Cooperation, to 
engage former weapons scientists in non-weapons research and 
commercial activities to discourage the sale and black-market 
trade of nuclear technology. The Committee provides $31,787,000 
for International Regimes and Agreements. The Committee 
commends NNSA's support for the Northeast Asia Cooperation 
Dialogue [NEACD], which provides a (an unofficial) security 
forum for the United States in a region of great strategic and 
economic importance, and encourages NNSA to continue to support 
the program. Within available funds, the Committee recommends 
$2,000,000 for the Caucasus Seismic Network.

       INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS PROTECTION AND COOPERATION

    The primary function of this program is to prevent the 
diversion, sale or theft of nuclear material from Russia and 
other countries by eliminating this threat through increasing 
security at weapons facilities. The program also supports the 
installation of detection equipment at border crossings and 
ports to prevent illegal shipments. The Committee recommends 
$427,182,000 for International Nuclear Materials Protection and 
Cooperation, an increase of $14,000,000 above the request. The 
additional funding is to be used to install mobile points of 
need detector systems in overseas ports to demonstrate mobile, 
enhanced detection of port cargo as part of the Megaports 
program. The Committee recommends $17,330,000 for Navy Complex 
subprogram, $129,245,000 to support the implementation of 
securities measures at Russian Strategic Rocket Forces, 
$56,505,000 for Rosatom Weapons Complex, and $123,973,000 for 
Second Line of Defense Activities, including $55,118,000 for 
the Megaports program.

           ELIMINATION OF WEAPONS-GRADE PLUTONIUM PRODUCTION

    The Committee is disappointed with the lack of cooperation 
from the Russian Government in implementing the Fissile 
Materials Disposition program. The Russians have recently 
claimed that they will no longer commit to paying for the 
operations of the mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility the G-8 
partners have committed to build. This brand new facility would 
provide the Russians with a western fuel fabrication capability 
and the opportunity to sell MOX fuel worldwide in exchange for 
the Russians fulfilling their commitment to destroy 34 tons of 
weapons-grade plutonium. This Committee has run out of patience 
with the Russians and believes that maintaining the unilateral 
commitment by the U.S. Government to destroy 34 tons of weapons 
grade material is a worthy endeavor. In order to restore 
essential funding for construction of the U.S. MOX fuel 
fabrication facility caused by Russian delays, funding 
Plutonium Production Elimination has been eliminated. Using 
their windfall gains from oil and gas sales, the Russian 
Government can complete the remaining work on Sversk, which is 
nearly complete and Zheleznogorsk on their own. The Committee 
recommendation for the Elimination of Weapons-Grande Plutonium 
Production is no funding, a decrease of $206,654,000.

                     FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION

    The Committee recommends $618,356,000 for the Fissile 
Materials Disposition, an increase of $15,095,000 above the 
budget request. The Committee strongly supports the objective 
of the bilateral Plutonium Management and Disposition 
Agreement, which commits the United States and Russia to 
dispose of 34 tons of weapons-grade plutonium. Until, now, the 
United States and Russia have maintained parallel schedules as 
required by the September 2000 Agreement. Recently, right 
before the United States was to proceed with a new construction 
start, the Russian Government declared it will not contribute 
operational funding for the Russian facility, raising the 
stakes for the United States and G-7 partners, who have already 
committed over $800,000,000 toward construction of a new mixed 
oxide fuel fabrication facility. Failure for the United States 
to proceed with construction and long lead procurement will 
have a devastating effect on the project and jeopardize the 
largest nonproliferation project ever undertaken by the U.S. 
Government. Further delays in construction would increase the 
cost of the facility, threaten the Department's ability to meet 
commitments to South Carolina, as set forth in existing law, 
and significantly increase the likelihood that the Department 
would have to pay penalties or take other actions under 50 
U.S.C. 2566. In addition, proceeding with plutonium disposition 
will further demonstrate to our international partners that the 
United States is committed to nonproliferation. The planned 
facilities in South Carolina also play a crucial role in the 
Department's efforts to downsize the nuclear weapons complex, 
increase nuclear material safety and reduce safeguards and 
security costs. The Committee endorses the Department of Energy 
proceeding with construction of the U.S. facility and 
continuing its work with the Russians to find a mutually 
acceptable solution that will guarantee the destruction of 34 
tons of weapons grade plutonium from each of the United States 
and Russian stockpiles over the same period of time it will 
take the United States to destroy its own stockpile. The 
Committee is aware of the recent Russian proposal to burn 
plutonium using advanced reactor technology. The Committee 
understands that this proposal can only destroy a small portion 
of the material and does not provide a full solution. Likewise, 
the Committee does not believe that the development of new 
reactor technology is likely and does not support this 
initiative. The Committee does not support activities to resume 
the design of an immobilization facility under the Office of 
Fissile Materials Disposition. The Committee recognizes that in 
the past, Russia has indicated that it did not support 
immobilization as a disposition option and would be unlikely to 
go forward if the United States chooses to immobilize its 34 
metric tons of plutonium. Furthermore, MOX is a mature, 
accepted technology with fuel in use in over 30 reactors 
worldwide. The technology supporting the immobilization of 
weapon-grade plutonium is still in the research and development 
stage. Even in an optimistic scenario, the Department would not 
be able to begin construction of an immobilization facility for 
at least 10 years. Moreover, irradiating MOX fuel in commercial 
nuclear reactors would also serve as an important stepping-
stone for demonstrating this technology in the United States 
and utilizing the energy value of the plutonium. The Committee 
continues to view fissile materials disposition as an important 
nonproliferation priority.
    The Committee provides $235,051,000 for U.S. Plutonium 
Disposition. The Committee doesn't provide any funding for the 
Russian Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition program.
    Construction.--
    Project 99-D-141, Pit Disassembly and Conversion 
        Facility.--The Committee recommends $93,000,000, an 
        increase of $14,300,000 above the budget request. The 
        Pit Disassembly facility is critical not only to the 
        Fissile materials program, but it provides the only 
        means to convert weapons-grade plutonium metal into a 
        powder that can be turned into fuel.
    Project 99-D-143, MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility.--The 
        Committee recommends $325,000,000, an increase of 
        $35,490,000 above the budget request.

                   GLOBAL THREAT REDUCTION INITIATIVE

    The Committee recommends $116,818,000 for the Global Threat 
Reduction Initiative, an increase of $10,000,000 above the 
budget request. This program is charged with responsibility of 
identifying and removing high-risk nuclear material and other 
radioactive material around the world that pose a threat if 
released either by accident or done maliciously. The additional 
funding shall be used to support the International Radiological 
Threat Reduction program to secure radioactive material that 
might be used in medical or industrial applications or in a 
radiological dispersal device. The Committee directs the 
Department to use the funds to support work with other 
countries to secure high-risk radioactive materials.

                             Naval Reactors

Appropriations, 2006....................................    $781,605,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................     795,133,000
House allowance.........................................     795,133,000
Committee recommendation................................     795,133,000

    Through the Naval Reactors program, the National Nuclear 
Security Administration is working to provide the U.S. Navy 
with nuclear propulsion plants that are capable of responding 
to the challenges of 21st century security concerns. The 
Committee recommends $795,133,000 for the Naval Reactors 
program.

                      Office of the Administrator

Appropriations, 2006....................................    $388,450,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................     386,576,000
House allowance.........................................     399,576,000
Committee recommendation................................     386,576,000

    The Committee recommends $386,576,000 for the Office of the 
Administrator, the same as the President's request. The 
increase in funds is for expanding Federal staffing to support 
defense nuclear nonproliferation, as well as positions 
transferred to the NNSA from other organizations.

               ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

                     Defense Environmental Cleanup

    Reprogramming Authority.--The Committee understands and 
continues to support the need for project managers to maintain 
flexibility to meet the changing funding requirements at sites. 
In fiscal year 2007, the Department may transfer up to 
$5,000,000 between the accounts listed below to reduce health 
or safety risks or to gain cost savings, as long as a program 
or project is not increased or decreased by more than 
$5,000,000 in total during the fiscal year. This reprogramming 
authority may not be used to initiate new programs or to change 
funding levels for programs specifically denied, limited, or 
increased by Congress in the act or report. The Committee on 
Appropriations in the House and Senate must be notified within 
30 days after the use of this internal reprogramming authority.
    The following is a list of account control points for 
internal reprogramming purposes:
  --Closure sites;
  --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 Tank Farms Operations and 
        Management;
  --Office of River Protection [ORP] Waste Treatment and 
        Immobilization Plant;
  --Program Direction;
  --Program Support;
  --UE D&D Fund contribution;
  --Technology Development;
  --All Construction Line Items;
  --NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites; and
  --Safeguards and Security.

                     Defense Environmental Cleanup

Appropriations, 2006....................................  $6,130,448,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................   5,390,312,000
House allowance.........................................   5,551,812,000
Committee recommendation................................   5,479,070,000

    For Defense Environmental Cleanup, the Committee provides 
$5,479,070,000. The Committee is pleased with the program's 
success in completing the cleanup at Rocky Flats and Fernald in 
fiscal year 2006. The Department's effort to complete cleanups 
in the future will be challenged by the failure to request 
sufficient funding for future cleanups. The Department 
continues to be plagued by project management challenges that 
will require significant attention from senior management to 
better define cleanup costs and schedules. The Committee will 
continue to carefully monitor future high-risk cleanup 
strategies undertaken by the Department to ensure the 
Department is applying best business practices. Within 
available funds, $1,300,000 is provided to support historic 
preservation activities related to the Manhattan Project sites, 
including Los Alamos, New Mexico, Hanford, Washington and 
Eastern Tennessee Historical Park and $300,000 to support the 
Rocky Flats historic preservation activities. The Committee 
also recommends $1,000,000 for the Self Reliance Foundation/
Hispanic Communications Network. The Committee also provides 
$5,000,000 to support the Diagnostic Instrumentation and 
Analysis Laboratory, $2,500,000 to fund the WERC/Department of 
Energy Cooperative Agreement, and $5,000,000 for the Western 
Environmental Technology Office; and $10,000,000 for hazardous 
waste worker training.
    Closure Sites.--The Committee includes $320,937,000, the 
same as the request. This includes funding for Ashtabula, 
Columbus, Fernald, Miamisburg, and Rocky Flats all at the 
requested level.
    Savannah River Site.--The Committee includes 
$1,064,394,000, consistent with the request. The Committee 
recommends $216,468,000 consistent with the requested level for 
2012 cleanup activities, including $212,468,000 for SR-0011B 
Stabilization and Disposition activities. The Committee 
provides $277,338,000 for 2035 projects cleanup activities as 
provided in the budget. The Committee recommends the requested 
level of $570,924,000 for SR-00114C Tank Waste Stabilization 
and Disposition activities.
    H Canyon located at Savannah River is the last remaining 
large-scale chemical separations facility in this country and 
provides a one-of-a-kind capability to facilitate the down 
blend and disposal of the legacy nuclear fuel within the 
Department of Energy complex. The Committee is concerned that 
the Department, while maintaining the facility in a high state 
of readiness, is not maximizing its potential for the 
disposition of excess special nuclear material and spent 
nuclear fuel. Recently the Department of Energy Inspector 
General report found that the delays in developing a strategy 
to address spent nuclear fuel at Savannah River will require 
the Department to maintain the H Canyon facility in an idle 
capacity for an additional 2 years at a cost of $300,000,000. 
Based on a declining environmental cleanup budget, it is clear 
that the Department can ill-afford to waste such sums without a 
clear mission. However, the Committee recognizes that this 
facility can play an important role in permanently disposing 
tons of spent fuel as well as plutonium. Therefore, the 
Committee directs the Department to submit, consistent with the 
fiscal year 2008, an operations plan including costs and 
schedule for utilizing H Canyon to dispose of nuclear material 
and uranium alloy spent nuclear fuel stored throughout the 
complex, or a plan for immediate shutdown and deactivation of 
the H Canyon. Either path will ensure that the Department will 
not waste funding to maintain an unused capability.
    Waste Isolation Pilot Plant [WIPP].--The Committee 
recommendation includes $232,278,000, an increase of 
$17,000,000 above the requested amount. The Committee provides 
$5,000,000 to support the consolidation of all Department of 
Energy records in Carlsbad relevant to the operations of WIPP 
and TRU waste stored in the repository. The Committee also 
recommends $3,500,000 made available to the community of 
Carlsbad for educational support, infrastructure improvements 
and related initiatives to address the impacts of accelerated 
operations at WIPP. The Committee directs the Department to 
provide $2,000,000 from within available funds to support work 
of the Center for Excellence in Hazardous Materials. The 
Committee recommends $1,500,000 for work on neutrino research. 
An additional $7,000,000 shall be used to support remote-
handled operations once the permits have been approved.
    Idaho National Laboratory.--The Committee includes 
$512,604,000, the same as the requested amount to support 
cleanup of nuclear and hazardous waste from the Snake River 
Plain at the Idaho National Laboratory. The Committee 
recommends $193,910,000 for Solid Waste Stabilization (ID-
0013), and $120,510,000 for Soil and Water Remediation 2012 
(ID-0030B).
    NNSA Sites.--The Committee recommendation is $282,466,000. 
The additional $50,000,000 is provided to offset reductions in 
the Department's request for Los Alamos National Laboratory 
cleanup activities. The Committee is very concerned with the 
overall performance of the Legacy Waste Disposition project at 
the Los Alamos National Laboratory [LANL]. The transfer of 
transuranic [TRU] waste from LANL to the Waste Isolation Pilot 
Plant [WIPP] has been significantly below the Committee's 
expectations. Characterization costs from the facility are 
significantly higher than at other Department of Energy [DOE] 
sites, and the waste removal schedules are not meeting overall 
program goals. Although the project has demonstrated some 
recent improvement in the volume of shipments to WIPP, the 
Committee expects the Department and the new LANL management 
contractor to demonstrate significant progress in the near 
term. The Department is directed to provide a report within 120 
days of enactment of this legislation detailing the progress 
being made at LANL with a particular emphasis on steps the 
Department has taken to assist the new management team in 
streamlining the overall TRU waste handling process. The 
Committee is also concerned that joint reviews by DOE 
Headquarters and the National Nuclear Security Administration 
[NNSA] have revealed significant issues preventing the 
independent validation of cost estimates and schedules for 
LANL's Environmental Management [EM] Project Baseline Summaries 
[PBS] in recent years. LANL must address these issues and 
develop a compliant and independently validated baseline 
against which future performance can be measured. The Committee 
is disappointed with the deep cuts proposed by the Department 
with the assumption that the new contractor will be able to 
fund savings to make up the difference. This assumption by the 
Department has the potential to backfire and increase costs by 
extending the cost of cleanup and fines and penalties that can 
be imposed by the State of New Mexico, as provided in the 
Consent Order signed between the Department and the State of 
New Mexico. The Committee understands that the State could 
charge between $8,000,000 to $35,000,000 in penalties for 
noncompliance. The Committee expects the Department to take a 
more involved role in solving cleanup problem at the lab to 
reduce costs and increase cleanup. Consequently, the Committee 
allocates a total of $141,000,000 for environmental management 
activities at LANL, an increase of $50,000,000 above the budget 
request. However, since the Department has failed to make 
specific recommendations to accelerate cleanup and provide 
appropriate oversight, the Committee has required that any 
penalties paid at Los Alamos as a consequence of non-
compliance, shall be paid out of the Program Direction account. 
The Committee provides the requested level of funding for the 
following projects: California Sites ($545,000), Kansas City 
Plant ($4,481,000), Lawrence Livermore ($29,283,000), Nevada 
Off-Sites ($2,818,000), Nevada ($84,177,000), NNSA Service 
Center ($8,221,000), and Pantex ($23,726,000).
    Oak Ridge Reservation.--The Committee includes 
$179,222,000, an increase of $19,360,000 above the budget 
request. The additional funding will be used to support Nuclear 
Waste Facilities D&D activities at the Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory. The Committee provides $41,316,000 to support these 
activities.
    Hanford Site.--The Committee includes $804,716,000, the 
same as the President's request. The Committee recommendation 
includes $423,618,000 for 2012 Completion Projects, including 
$221,022,000 for River Corridor Closure projects. The Committee 
recommends $81,651,000 for Nuclear Material Stabilization and 
Disposition and $81,069,000 for SNF Stabilization and 
Disposition. Within available funds, the Committee recommends 
$6,000,000 for the HAMMER Facility. The Committee 
recommendation includes $381,098,000 for the 2035 Completion 
Projects, including $188,989,000 for the Solid Waste 
Stabilization and Disposition 200 Area. The Committee provides 
$75,973,000 for Vadose Zone cleanup and $94,270,000 for Nuclear 
Facility D&D activities.
    Office of River Protection.--The Committee includes 
$964,127,000, as requested. The Government Accountability 
Office identified three primary concerns with the Department's 
management of the Waste Treatment Facility. The GAO's three 
concerns include: (1) The Department has allowed the contractor 
to utilize a design-build approach that does not allow adequate 
time for Federal managers, independent oversight, or 
construction teams to validate the designs; (2) the contractor 
has failed to maintain oversight and adherence to cost and 
schedules; and (3) the contract fails to provide proper 
incentives and controls to encourage responsible management and 
cost containment. The Committee does recognize that the change 
in leadership within the Department of Energy has forced the 
Department to take the necessary corrective steps to manage 
this large, technically challenging construction project in a 
more responsible and active manner. The Department is taking 
corrective action in the following ways: First, the Department 
has delayed construction, permitting the design teams to take 
more time with the design and allowing for adequate review. 
Second, the Secretary has taken steps to identify cost issues 
and validate the data with several independent teams, including 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and an independent team of 
industry experts, as well as a new headquarters senior level 
management oversight team, all of whom will implement an Earned 
Value Management System [EVMS]. The EVMS is a key project 
management tool for assessing the cost and schedule performance 
of a project. The lack of an effective EVMS was highlighted by 
the dramatic increase in the cost of the WTP in 2005 within a 
matter of months. This Committee understands that if an 
effective EVMS had been in place, the Department would have had 
early warning signs that the project was headed toward dramatic 
increases in cost and delays in schedule. Therefore, the 
Committee expects the Department to have a certified system in 
place by the end of calendar year 2006, and this expectation 
will be satisfied when the Defense Contract Management Agency 
has certified that the earned value management system used to 
track and report costs of the Waste Treatment and 
Immobilization Plant is in place. Finally, the Committee is 
also troubled by the fact that the Department has not yet 
developed a contracting strategy to reward cost savings and 
shrewd project oversight. Based on the initial Army Corps 
evaluation, this project continues to carry massive contingency 
to protect the contractor, not the taxpayer, from risk. GAO 
found the contractor has added contingency to the project, 
which has added over $2,000,000,000 to the cost of the project. 
The Committee remains concerned that a large contingency 
request is a clear indication the contractor lacks confidence 
in their own cost estimates. If the Department expects the 
Committee to support future appropriations for this project, it 
must be more demanding and drive down costs and contingencies. 
The Committee would like to see an incentive-based contract 
that will encourage the contractor to reduce costs.
    Seismic Evaluation.--Of the amount appropriated to the 
Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant, none of the amount 
may be obligated or expended for construction or procurement of 
critical equipment affected by seismic criteria on the 
Pretreatment Facility and the High-Level Waste Facility of the 
Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant until the date on 
which the Department certifies to the Congress that the final 
seismic and ground motion criteria have been approved by the 
Department. Additionally, funds are not to be used until the 
contracting officer of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization 
Plant Project has formally directed the final criteria for the 
design of the Pretreatment Facility and the High-Level Waste 
Facility of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant. Due 
to expected delays as a result of seismic work and necessary 
evaluation, the Committee recommends a reduction in the 
allocation for these two facilities. The Committee recommends 
$690,000,000 for the major construction activities of the Waste 
Treatment Plant. The Committee is concerned that the WTP 
project still does not have a validated project baseline. The 
Committee does feel, however, that the Department is on track 
to completing this validation, but does not think it will be 
completed in time to be useful in current budget deliberations. 
Although this issue is significant, as are those raised by the 
Government Accountability Office and the Department's own 
chartered external reviews, the Committee recognizes and is 
encouraged by the recent activities the Department has 
initiated to improve project and contract management, to 
resolve the higher-priority technical issues, and to validate 
the project baseline that supports a funding level of 
$690,000,000, as requested. The Department must understand that 
funding beyond fiscal year 2007 is contingent on the successful 
execution of this validated baseline. The Committee recommends 
the following funding distribution for the Waste Treatment and 
Immobilization Plant: $120,000,000 for the low activity waste 
facility; $46,000,000 for the analytical laboratory; 
$53,000,000 for the balance of facilities; $191,000,000 for the 
high level waste facility; and $280,000,000 for the 
pretreatment facility. This Committee is troubled by the 
apparent failure of the Department to act in a timely manner on 
issues raised by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 
[DNFSB]. The Committee does not support the removal of the 
DNFSB from its congressionally mandated oversight 
responsibilities at the WTP, but it does recognize that changes 
do need to be made. Therefore, the Committee directs the 
Department to submit a quarterly report to the Committee on 
Appropriations describing all interactions between the 
Department and the DNFSB regarding the WTP. The report should 
include, but not be limited to, issues resolved, issues 
unresolved and corrective actions taken by the Department.
    Program Direction.--The Committee includes $291,216,000, 
the same as the requested amount.
    Program Support.--The Committee includes $37,881,000, 
consistent with the request.
    Technology Development and Deployment.--The Committee 
includes $21,389,000, the same as the President's request. The 
Committee recommends $5,000,000 to support the AEA Technology 
Program in Pennsylvania; $1,500,000 for the Nye County 
Groundwater Monitoring Program; $3,000,000 for the James E. 
Rogers and Louis Weiner Jr., Large Scale Structures Laboratory; 
$4,000,000 for the continuation of the remediation of low level 
nuclear waste using ceramic ionic transport membranes project; 
$1,000,000 for the Inland Northwest Research Alliance 
consortium of universities; $4,000,000 for the Nevada Water 
Resources Data, Modeling, and Visualization Center; $750,000 
for polymeric hydrogels for radiation decontamination; 
$1,000,000 for the UNR Center for Plasma Spectronomy; and 
$1,000,000 for the Nevada Statewide Intermediate Scale Research 
Facility.
    The Department is directed to both continue activities 
under its renewed NRAMP cooperative agreement at levels 
consistent with prior years funding and renew its other 
existing cooperative agreements with UNR and UNLV consistent 
with current year levels.
    Federal Contribution to Uranium Enrichment Decontamination 
and Decommissioning Fund.--The Committee includes $452,000,000, 
the same as the requested amount.
    Safeguards and Security.--The Committee recommends 
$295,840,000, the same as the budget request.

                        Other Defense Activities

Appropriations, 2006....................................    $635,577,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................     717,788,000
House allowance.........................................     720,788,000
Committee recommendation................................     734,791,000

    The Committee recommends $734,791,000 for Other Defense 
Activities, consistent with the budget request.

              OFFICE OF SECURITY AND PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE

    The Committee recommends $298,497,000 for the Office of 
Security and Performance Assurance.
    The Security Program consists of 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 the DOE to uphold its national security 
responsibilities and provide security clearances for Federal 
and contractor personnel.

               ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY, AND HEALTH (DEFENSE)

    The Committee provides $94,814,000 for defense-related 
Environment Safety and Health, of which $20,076,000 is provided 
for program direction. The Committee recommendation includes 
$5,000,000 for the DOE Worker Records Digitization project in 
Nevada.
    Former Medical Worker Screening.--The Committee allocates 
an additional $14,000,000 for the former worker medical 
screening program, which is equal to the appropriated levels in 
fiscal year 2006. The Committee recommends $500,000 to screen 
workers at Paducah, Portsmouth, and Oak Ridge, gaseous 
diffusion plants. The Committee directs $500,000 to continue 
medical screening and commence a 5-year Early Lung Cancer 
Detection Screening Program for current and former Nevada Test 
Site workers who worked during the nuclear weapons testing era. 
The Committee intends to build on the success of the use of 
ELCD for high risk workers in finding lung cancers when they 
are small and can be removed at an early stage leading to a 
normal life expectancy. The Committee urges DOE to request 
sufficient funding for this program in fiscal year 2008.

                           LEGACY MANAGEMENT

    For Legacy Management, the Committee recommends 
$167,851,000, consistent with the budget request. Funds are 
used to manage the long-term stewardship responsibilities at 
Department of Energy cleanup sites.

                FUNDING FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES IN IDAHO

    The Committee recommends $75,949,000, the same as the 
request, for defense-related activities at the Idaho National 
Laboratory and associated Idaho cleanup sites.

                 DEFENSE RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

    For Defense Related Administrative Support, the Committee 
recommends $93,258,000, the same as the request. These funds 
provide for departmental services which support the National 
Nuclear Security Administration. The Secretary, Deputy 
Secretary, Under Secretaries, and General Counsel are among the 
offices receiving funds.

                     OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

    The Committee provides $4,422,000 for the Office of 
Hearings and Appeals, the same as the President's request. The 
Office of Hearings and Appeals conducts hearings to issue 
decisions of the Department that the Secretary may delegate.

                     Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal

Appropriations, 2006....................................    $346,500,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................     388,080,000
House allowance.........................................     388,080,000
Committee recommendation................................     358,080,000

    The Committee recommends $358,080,000 for defense nuclear 
waste disposal; this is a reduction of $30,000,000 below the 
request. The Committee directs the Department to find 
reductions in the transportation activities.

                    Power Marketing Administrations

                    BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION

    The Bonneville Power Administration is the Department of 
Energy's marketing agency for electric power in the Pacific 
Northwest. Bonneville provides electricity to a 300,000 square 
mile service area in the Columbia River drainage basin. 
Bonneville markets the power from Federal hydropower projects 
in the Northwest, as well as power from non-Federal generating 
facilities in the region. Bonneville also exchanges and markets 
surplus power with Canada and California. The Committee 
recommends no new borrowing authority for BPA during fiscal 
year 2007.

      OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2006....................................      $5,544,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................       5,723,000
House allowance.........................................       5,723,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,723,000

    For the Southeastern Power Administration, the Committee 
recommends $5,723,000, the same as the budget request. The 
Committee provides $48,003,000 for purchase power and wheeling.
    The Southeastern Power Administration markets hydroelectric 
power produced at Corps of Engineers projects in 11 
Southeastern States. Southeastern does not own or operate any 
transmission facilities and carries out its marketing program 
by utilizing the existing transmission systems of the power 
utilities in the area. This is accomplished through 
transmission arrangements between Southeastern and each of the 
area utilities with transmission lines connected to the 
projects. The utility agrees to deliver specified amounts of 
Federal power to customers of the Government, and Southeastern 
agrees to compensate the utility for the wheeling service 
performed.

      OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2006....................................     $29,864,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................      31,539,000
House allowance.........................................      31,539,000
Committee recommendation................................      31,539,000

    For the Southwestern Power Administration, the Committee 
recommends $31,539,000, the same as the budget request. Within 
these funds, the Committee provides $13,600,000 for purchase 
power and wheeling.
    The Southwestern Power Administration is the marketing 
agent for the power generated at the Corps of Engineers' 
hydroelectric plants in the six State area of Kansas, Oklahoma, 
Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana, with a total 
installed capacity of 2,158 megawatts. It operates and 
maintains some 1,380 miles of transmission lines, 24 generating 
projects, and 24 substations, and sells its power at wholesale, 
primarily to publicly and cooperatively-owned electric 
distribution utilities.

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

Appropriations, 2006....................................    $231,652,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................     212,213,000
House allowance.........................................     212,213,000
Committee recommendation................................     212,213,000

    The Western Power Administration is responsible for 
marketing the electric power generated by the Bureau of 
Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers, and the International 
Boundary and Water Commission. Western also operates and 
maintains a system of transmission lines nearly 17,000 miles 
long, providing electricity to 15 Central and Western States 
over a service area of 1.3 million square miles.
    The Committee recommends $212,213,000 for the Western Area 
Power Administration, the same as the budget request. The total 
program level for Western in fiscal year 2007 is $688,511,000, 
which includes $60,205,000 for construction and rehabilitation, 
$45,734,000 for system power operation and maintenance, 
$427,931,000 for purchase power and wheeling, and $147,748,000 
for program direction. The Committee recommendation includes 
$6,893,000 for the Utah Mitigation and Conservation Fund. 
Additionally, the Administrator of the Western Area Power 
Administration is directed to participate in the construction 
of transmission lines and facilities in eastern Colorado and 
western Kansas.
    Offsetting collections total $472,593,000. With the use of 
$3,705,000 of offsetting collections from the Colorado River 
Dam Fund (as authorized in Public Law 98-381), this requires a 
net appropriation of $212,213,000.

           FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

Appropriations, 2006....................................      $2,665,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................       2,500,000
House allowance.........................................       2,500,000
Committee recommendation................................       2,500,000

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

                  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006....................................    $218,196,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................     230,800,000
House allowance.........................................     230,800,000
Committee recommendation................................................

                            REVENUES APPLIED

Appropriations, 2006....................................   -$218,196,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................    -230,800,000
House allowance.........................................    -230,800,000
Committee recommendation................................................

    As noted by the Committee in our 2004 report, the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission has the preemptive authority to 
approve and site liquefied natural gas terminals on-shore or in 
State waters. Congress reaffirmed this authority last year as 
part of the Energy Policy Act. While the FERC is often 
criticized by individual Members of Congress about specific 
local decisions it makes with respect to natural gas 
infrastructure, few express support for the overall success the 
Commission has achieved in ensuring the timely development of 
these critical energy facilities. We therefore want to state 
our support for the thoughtful and balanced manner in which the 
FERC has exercised its authority to approve natural gas 
pipelines and LNG terminals, and encourage all relevant Federal 
and State permitting agencies to fully cooperate with the 
Commission in reviewing proposed natural gas infrastructure 
projects.

                                                                  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:
    1Hydrogen technology.........          80,288          195,801          195,801          189,860         +109,572           -5,941           -5,941
    Fuel cell technologies.......          75,339   ...............  ...............  ...............         -75,339   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, hydrogen                  155,627          195,801          195,801          189,860          +34,233           -5,941           -5,941
       technology................

Biomass and Biorefinery Systems            90,718          149,687          149,687          213,000         +122,282          +63,313          +63,313
 R&D.............................
Solar energy.....................          83,113          148,372          148,372          148,372          +65,259   ...............  ...............
Wind energy......................          38,857           43,819           43,819           39,428             +571           -4,391           -4,391
Geothermal technology............          23,066   ...............  ...............          22,500             -566          +22,500          +22,500
Hydropower.......................             495   ...............  ...............           4,000           +3,505           +4,000           +4,000
Vehicle technologies.............         182,104          166,024          177,538          180,024           -2,080          +14,000           +2,486
Building technologies............          69,266           77,329           93,029           95,329          +26,063          +18,000           +2,300
Industrial technologies..........          56,855           45,563           51,563           47,563           -9,292           +2,000           -4,000

Federal Energy Management
 Program:
    Departmental energy                     1,999   ...............  ...............  ...............          -1,999   ...............  ...............
     management program..........
    Federal energy management              16,976           16,906           18,906           16,906              -70   ...............          -2,000
     program.....................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Federal Energy             18,975           16,906           18,906           16,906           -2,069   ...............          -2,000
       Management Program........

Facilities and infrastructure:
    National Renewable Energy               5,742            5,935           10,935            5,935             +193   ...............          -5,000
     Laboratory..................
    Research Support Buildings...           9,900   ...............           5,000   ...............          -9,900   ...............          -5,000
    Construction: 02-E-001                 10,410   ...............  ...............  ...............         -10,410   ...............  ...............
     Science and technology
     facility, NREL..............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Facilities and                26,052            5,935           15,935            5,935          -20,117   ...............         -10,000
       infrastructure............

Weatherization programs:
    Weatherization assistance....         237,996          159,648          250,000          200,000          -37,996          +40,352          -50,000
    Training and technical                  4,554            4,550            4,554            4,550               -4   ...............              -4
     assistance..................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Weatherization            242,550          164,198          254,554          204,550          -38,000          +40,352          -50,004
       programs..................

Other:
    State energy program grants..          35,640           49,457           25,000           49,457          +13,817   ...............         +24,457
    State energy activities......             495   ...............  ...............  ...............            -495   ...............  ...............
    Gateway deployment...........          25,400   ...............  ...............  ...............         -25,400   ...............  ...............
    International renewable                 3,871            2,473            4,473            2,473           -1,398   ...............          -2,000
     energy program..............
    Tribal energy activities.....           3,960            3,957            3,957            4,957             +997           +1,000           +1,000
    Renewable energy production             4,950            4,946            4,946            4,946               -4   ...............  ...............
     incentive...................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Other............          74,316           60,833           38,376           61,833          -12,483           +1,000          +23,457

Program Direction................          98,529           91,024           91,024           91,024           -7,505   ...............  ...............
Program Support..................          13,321           10,930           10,930           10,930           -2,391   ...............  ...............
Congressionally directed           ...............  ...............          54,900           54,250          +54,250          +54,250             -650
 technology deployments..........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, ENERGY EFFICENCY AND       1,173,844        1,176,421        1,344,434        1,385,504         +211,660         +209,083          +41,070
       RENEWABLE ENERGY..........
                                  ======================================================================================================================
 ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY
           RELIABILITY

High temperature                           49,995           45,468           45,468           45,468           -4,527   ...............  ...............
 superconductivity R&D...........
Transmission reliability R&D.....          12,870   ...............  ...............  ...............         -12,870   ...............  ...............
Electricity distribution                   60,059   ...............  ...............  ...............         -60,059   ...............  ...............
 transformation R&D..............
Energy storage R&D...............           2,970   ...............  ...............  ...............          -2,970   ...............  ...............
Gridwise.........................           5,445   ...............  ...............  ...............          -5,445   ...............  ...............
Gridworks........................           4,950   ...............  ...............  ...............          -4,950   ...............  ...............
Visiualization and controls......  ...............          17,551           17,551           27,551          +27,551          +10,000          +10,000
Energy storage and power           ...............           2,965            4,965            2,965           +2,965   ...............          -2,000
 electonics......................
Distributed energy resources.....  ...............          29,652           29,652           24,737          +24,737           -4,915           -4,915
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Research and                 136,289           95,636           97,636          100,721          -35,568           +5,085           +3,085
       development...............

Electricity restructuring........          12,276   ...............  ...............  ...............         -12,276   ...............  ...............
Operations and analysis..........  ...............          12,009           12,009           17,000          +17,000           +4,991           +4,991
Program direction................          13,313           17,283           17,283           17,283           +3,970   ...............  ...............
Congressionally directed           ...............  ...............          17,100   ...............  ...............  ...............         -17,100
 technology deployments..........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, ELECTRICITY DELIVERY         161,878          124,928          144,028          135,004          -26,874          +10,076           -9,024
       AND ENERGY RELIABILITY....

          NUCLEAR ENERGY

University reactor infrastructure          26,730   ...............          27,000           27,000             +270          +27,000   ...............
 and education assist............

Research and development:
    Nuclear power 2010...........          65,340           54,031           54,031           88,000          +22,660          +33,969          +33,969
    Generation IV nuclear energy           54,450           31,436           31,436           48,000           -6,450          +16,564          +16,564
     systems initiative..........
    Nuclear hydrogen initiative..          24,750           18,665           18,665           31,665           +6,915          +13,000          +13,000
    Advanced fuel cycle                    79,200          243,000          120,000          279,000         +199,800          +36,000         +159,000
     initiative..................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Research and                 223,740          347,132          224,132          446,665         +222,925          +99,533         +222,533
       development...............

Infrastructure:
    Radiological facilities
     management:
        Space and defense                  39,303           30,650           44,650           35,650           -3,653           +5,000           -9,000
         infrastructure..........

        Medical isotopes                   14,251           15,634           15,634           15,634           +1,383   ...............  ...............
         infrastructure..........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Medical                14,251           15,634           15,634           15,634           +1,383   ...............  ...............
           isotopes
           infrastructure........

        Enrichment facility and               495              491              491              491               -4   ...............  ...............
         uranium management......
        Research reactor           ...............           2,947   ...............           2,947           +2,947   ...............          +2,947
         infrastructure..........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Radiological           54,049           49,722           60,775           54,722             +673           +5,000           -6,053
           facilities management.

Idaho facilities management:
    INL Operations and                    101,878           89,260           97,260          104,260           +2,382          +15,000           +7,000
     infrastructure..............
    INL infrastructure:
        Construction:
            06-E-200 Project                7,791            6,030            6,030            6,030           -1,761   ...............  ...............
             engineering and
             design (PED), INL,
             ID..................
            Research support       ...............  ...............          20,000            5,000           +5,000           +5,000          -15,000
             buildings...........
            06-E-201 Gas test               3,054   ...............  ...............  ...............          -3,054   ...............  ...............
             loop in the ATR,
             INL, ID.............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal,                    10,845            6,030           26,030           11,030             +185           +5,000          -15,000
               Construction......
                                  ======================================================================================================================
              Subtotal, Idaho             112,723           95,290          123,290          115,290           +2,567          +20,000           -8,000
               facilities
               management........

Idaho sitewide safeguards and              74,258           72,946           72,946           72,946           -1,312   ...............  ...............
 security........................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Infrastructure......         241,030          217,958          257,011          242,958           +1,928          +25,000          -14,053

Program direction................          60,498           67,608           64,608           67,608           +7,110   ...............          +3,000
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Nuclear Energy...         551,998          632,698          572,751          784,231         +232,233         +151,533         +211,480
                                  ======================================================================================================================
Funding from other defense               -122,634          -72,946          -72,946          -72,946          +49,688   ...............  ...............
 activities......................
Funding from Naval Reactors......         -13,365   ...............  ...............  ...............         +13,365   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY......         415,999          559,752          499,805          711,285         +295,286         +151,533         +211,480
                                  ======================================================================================================================
  ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

Office of Environment, Safety and           7,029            9,128            9,128            9,128           +2,099   ...............  ...............
 Health (non-defense)............
Program direction................          20,691           19,993           19,993           19,993             -698   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY           27,720           29,121           29,121           29,121           +1,401   ...............  ...............
       AND HEALTH................

   OFFICE OF LEGACY MANAGEMENT

Legacy management................          33,187           33,139           33,139           33,139              -48   ...............  ...............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPLY AND          1,812,628        1,923,361        2,050,527        2,294,053         +481,425         +370,692         +243,526
       CONSERVATION..............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

Deferral of unobligated balances,         257,000   ...............  ...............         257,000   ...............        +257,000         +257,000
 fiscal year 2005................
Deferral of unobligated balances,        -257,000          257,000          257,000         -203,000          +54,000         -460,000         -460,000
 fiscal year 2007................
Rescission Request...............  ...............        -203,000         -257,000   ...............  ...............        +203,000         +257,000
Rescission, uncommitted balances.         -20,000   ...............  ...............         -50,000          -30,000          -50,000          -50,000
Transfer to Fossil Energy R&D      ...............         -54,000   ...............         -54,000          -54,000   ...............         -54,000
 (FutureGen).....................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Clean Coal                   -20,000   ...............  ...............         -50,000          -30,000          -50,000          -50,000
       Technology................

    FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND
           DEVELOPMENT

Clean coal power initiative......          49,500            4,957           36,400           70,000          +20,500          +65,043          +33,600
FutureGen........................          17,820           54,000           54,000           54,000          +36,180   ...............  ...............

Fuels and Power Systems:
    Innovations for existing               25,146           16,015           25,000           25,000             -146           +8,985   ...............
     plants......................
    Advanced integrated                    55,886           53,982           56,000           54,000           -1,886              +18           -2,000
     gasification combined cycle.
    Advanced turbines............          17,820           12,801           20,000           20,000           +2,180           +7,199   ...............
    Carbon sequestration.........          66,330           73,971           73,971           90,000          +23,670          +16,029          +16,029
    Fuels........................          28,710           22,127           29,000           29,000             +290           +6,873   ...............
    Fuel cells...................          61,380           63,352           63,352           63,000           +1,620             -352             -352
    Advanced research............          52,622           28,914           28,914           30,000          -22,622           +1,086           +1,086
    U.S./China Energy and                     984   ...............  ...............  ...............            -984   ...............  ...............
     environmental center........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Fuels and power           308,878          271,162          296,237          311,000           +2,122          +39,838          +14,763
       systems...................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Coal.............         376,198          330,119          386,637          435,000          +58,802         +104,881          +48,363

Natural Gas Technologies.........          32,670   ...............  ...............          17,000          -15,670          +17,000          +17,000
Petroleum--Oil Technologies......          31,680   ...............           2,700           10,000          -21,680          +10,000           +7,300
Methane hydrates R&D.............  ...............  ...............          12,000   ...............  ...............  ...............         -12,000
Program direction................         105,872          129,196          126,496          142,396          +36,524          +13,200          +15,900
Plant and Capital Equipment......          19,800   ...............  ...............          12,000           -7,800          +12,000          +12,000
Fossil energy environmental                 9,504            9,715            9,715           11,715           +2,211           +2,000           +2,000
 restoration.....................
Import/export authorization......           1,781   ...............  ...............  ...............          -1,781   ...............  ...............
Advanced metallurgical research..           7,920   ...............  ...............  ...............          -7,920   ...............  ...............
Special recruitment programs.....             649              656              656              656               +7   ...............  ...............
Cooperative research and                    5,940   ...............  ...............  ...............          -5,940   ...............  ...............
 development.....................
Congressionally directed           ...............  ...............          20,000           15,500          +15,500          +15,500           -4,500
 technology deployments..........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, FOSSIL ENERGY                592,014          469,686          558,204          644,267          +52,253         +174,581          +86,063
       RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT..
                                  ======================================================================================================================
NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE              21,285           18,810           18,810           39,810          +18,525          +21,000          +21,000
 RESERVES........................
ELK HILLS SCHOOL LANDS FUNDS.....          83,160   ...............  ...............  ...............         -83,160   ...............  ...............
STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE......         164,340          155,430          155,430          155,430           -8,910   ...............  ...............
NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL         ...............           4,950            4,950            4,950           +4,950   ...............  ...............
 RESERVE.........................

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION          85,314           89,769           89,769           93,032           +7,718           +3,263           +3,263

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

West Valley Demonstration Project          76,329           73,400           73,400           73,400           -2,929   ...............  ...............
Gaseous Diffusion Plants.........          48,325           74,860           74,860           74,860          +26,535   ...............  ...............
Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride              84,945           32,556           32,556           32,556          -52,389   ...............  ...............
 Conversion, 02-U-101............
Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility            45,652           34,843           34,843           34,843          -10,809   ...............  ...............
 (WA)............................
Small Sites:
    Argonne National Lab.........          10,382           10,726           11,726           10,726             +344   ...............          -1,000
    Brookhaven National Lab......          33,985           28,272           28,860           28,272           -5,713   ...............            -588
    Idaho National Lab...........           5,221            7,000            7,000            7,000           +1,779   ...............  ...............
    Consolidated Business Center:
        California Site support..              99              160              160              160              +61   ...............  ...............
        Inhalation Toxicology Lab             302            2,931            3,431            2,931           +2,629   ...............            -500
        Lawrence Berkeley                   3,861   ...............  ...............  ...............          -3,861   ...............  ...............
         National Lab............
        Stanford Linear                     3,465            5,720            5,720            5,720           +2,255   ...............  ...............
         Accelerator Center......
        Energy Technology                   8,910           16,000           16,000           16,000           +7,090   ...............  ...............
         Engineering Center......
        Los Alamos National Lab..             485            1,025            1,025            1,025             +540   ...............  ...............
        Moab.....................          27,726           22,865           19,865           22,865           -4,861   ...............          +3,000
        UMTRA site litigation....  ...............  ...............             500   ...............  ...............  ...............            -500
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, small sites..          94,436           94,699           94,287           94,699             +263   ...............            +412
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL, NON-DEFENSE              349,687          310,358          309,946          310,358          -39,329   ...............            +412
           ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP.
                                  ======================================================================================================================
        URANIUM ENRICHMENT
       DECONTAMINATION AND
       DECOMMISSIONING FUND

Decontamination and                       536,806          559,368          559,368          573,368          +36,562          +14,000          +14,000
 decommissioning.................
Uranium/thorium reimbursement....          19,800           20,000           20,000   ...............         -19,800          -20,000          -20,000
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, URANIUM                   556,606          579,368          579,368          573,368          +16,762           -6,000           -6,000
       ENRICHMENT D&D FUND.......

Uranium sales and barter                   (3,000)  ...............  ...............  ...............         (-3,000)  ...............  ...............
 (scorekeeping adjustment).......
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, UED&D FUND/URANIUM          (556,606)        (579,368)        (579,368)        (573,368)        (+16,762)         (-6,000)         (-6,000)
       INVENTORY CLEANUP.........

             SCIENCE

High energy physics:
    Proton accelerator-based              388,172          376,536          376,536          376,536          -11,636   ...............  ...............
     physics.....................
    Electron accelerator-based            131,494          117,460          117,460          117,460          -14,034   ...............  ...............
     physics.....................
    Non-accelerator physics......          38,203           59,271           59,271           59,271          +21,068   ...............  ...............
    Theoretical physics..........          48,612           52,056           52,056           43,746           -4,866           -8,310           -8,310
    Advanced technology R&D......         110,213          159,476          159,476          159,476          +49,263   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................         716,694          764,799          764,799          756,489          +39,795           -8,310           -8,310

Construction: 07-SC-07 Project     ...............          10,300           10,300           10,300          +10,300   ...............  ...............
 engineering and design (PED)
 lectron neutrino appearance
 (EvA)...........................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, High energy physics.         716,694          775,099          775,099          766,789          +50,095           -8,310           -8,310

Nuclear physics..................         365,054          439,540          439,540          419,540          +54,486          -20,000          -20,000
    Construction:
        07-SC-001 Project          ...............           7,000            7,000            7,000           +7,000   ...............  ...............
         engineering and design
         (PED) 12 GeV continuous
         electron beam
         accelerator facility
         upgrade, Thomas
         Jefferson National
         Accelerator facility,
         Newport News, VA........
        07-SC-002 Electron beam    ...............           7,400            7,400            7,400           +7,400   ...............  ...............
         ion source Brookhaven
         National Laboratory, NY.
        06-SC-02 Project                    1,980              120              120              120           -1,860   ...............  ...............
         engineering and design
         (PED), Electron beam ion
         source, Brookhaven
         National Laboratory,
         Upton, NY...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Total, Nuclear                367,034          454,060          454,060          434,060          +67,026          -20,000          -20,000
             physics.............

Biological and environmental              579,831          510,263          540,263          560,000          -19,831          +49,737          +19,737
 research........................

Basic energy sciences:
    Research:
        Materials sciences and            738,682        1,004,212        1,004,212        1,004,212         +265,530   ...............  ...............
         engineering research....
        Chemical sciences,                219,583          268,499          268,499          293,449          +73,866          +24,950          +24,950
         geosciences and energy
         biosciences.............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Research.....         958,265        1,272,711        1,272,711        1,297,661         +339,396          +24,950          +24,950

    Construction:
        07-SC-06 Project           ...............          20,000           20,000           20,000          +20,000   ...............  ...............
         engineering and design
         (PED) National
         Synchrotron light source
         II (NSLS-II)............
        07-SC-12 Project           ...............           3,000            3,000            3,000           +3,000   ...............  ...............
         engineering and design
         (PED) Advanced light
         source user building,
         LBNL....................
        05-R-320 LINAC coherent            82,170          105,740          105,740          105,740          +23,570   ...............  ...............
         light source (LCLS).....
        05-R-321 Center for                36,187           18,864           18,864           18,864          -17,323   ...............  ...............
         functional nanomaterials
         (BNL)...................
        04-R-313 The molecular              9,510              257              257              257           -9,253   ...............  ...............
         foundry (LBNL)..........
        03-SC-002 Project                   2,519              161              161              161           -2,358   ...............  ...............
         engineering & design
         (PED) SLAC..............
        03-R-313 Center for                 4,580              247              247              247           -4,333   ...............  ...............
         Integrated
         Nanotechnology..........
        99-E-334 Spallation                41,327   ...............  ...............  ...............         -41,327   ...............  ...............
         neutron source (ORNL)...
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Construction.         176,293          148,269          148,269          148,269          -28,024   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Basic energy           1,134,558        1,420,980        1,420,980        1,445,930         +311,372          +24,950          +24,950
           sciences..............

High Energy Density Physics......  ...............  ...............  ...............          79,924          +79,924          +79,924          +79,924
Advanced scientific computing             234,684          318,654          318,654          318,654          +83,970   ...............  ...............
 research........................
Fusion energy sciences program...         287,645          318,950          318,950          307,001          +19,356          -11,949          -11,949

Science laboratories
 infrastructure:
    Laboratories facilities
     support:
        Infrastructure support...           1,505            1,520            1,520            1,520              +15   ...............  ...............
        General plant projects...           2,970   ...............  ...............  ...............          -2,970   ...............  ...............

        Construction:
            07-SC-04 Science       ...............           8,908            8,908            8,908           +8,908   ...............  ...............
             laboratories
             infrastructure
             project engineering
             and design (PED)....
            04-SC-001 Project               2,970   ...............  ...............  ...............          -2,970   ...............  ...............
             engineering and
             design (PED),
             various locations...
            03-SC-001 Science              14,720           19,033           19,033           19,033           +4,313   ...............  ...............
             laboratories
             infrastructure MEL-
             001 Multiprogram
             energy laboratory
             infrastructure
             projects, various
             locations...........
            07-SC-05 Physical      ...............  ...............           7,000   ...............  ...............  ...............          -7,000
             sciences facility at
             PNNL................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal,                    17,690           27,941           34,941           27,941          +10,251   ...............          -7,000
               Construction......
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal,                    22,165           29,461           36,461           29,461           +7,296   ...............          -7,000
               Laboratories
               facilities support

    Oak Ridge landlord...........           5,028            5,079            5,079            5,079              +51   ...............  ...............
    Excess facilities disposal...          14,491           16,348            9,348           16,348           +1,857   ...............          +7,000
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Science laboratories          41,684           50,888           50,888           50,888           +9,204   ...............  ...............
       infrastructure............

Safeguards and security..........          73,574           76,592           76,592           76,592           +3,018   ...............  ...............
Workforce development for                   7,120           10,952           10,952           35,952          +28,832          +25,000          +25,000
 teachers and scientists.........

Science program direction:
    Field offices................          90,677           95,832           95,832           95,832           +5,155   ...............  ...............
    Headquarters.................          68,441           75,045           75,045           75,045           +6,604   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Science program              159,118          170,877          170,877          170,877          +11,759   ...............  ...............
       direction.................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Science..........       3,601,942        4,107,315        4,137,315        4,246,667         +644,725         +139,352         +109,352
                                  ======================================================================================================================
Less security charge for                   -5,549           -5,605           -5,605           -5,605              -56   ...............  ...............
 reimbursable work...............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      TOTAL, SCIENCE.............       3,596,393        4,101,710        4,131,710        4,241,062         +644,669         +139,352         +109,352
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Repository program...............          19,800           80,986           80,986           50,986          +31,186          -30,000          -30,000
Interim storage..................  ...............  ...............          30,000           10,000          +10,000          +10,000          -20,000
Program direction................          79,200           75,434           75,434           75,434           -3,766   ...............  ...............
Integrated spent fuel recycling..          49,500   ...............  ...............  ...............         -49,500   ...............  ...............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      TOTAL, NUCLEAR WASTE                148,500          156,420          186,420          136,420          -12,080          -20,000          -50,000
       DISPOSAL..................
                                  ======================================================================================================================
   DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

Administrative operations:
    Salaries and expenses:
        Office of the Secretary..           5,345            5,539            4,752            5,539             +194   ...............            +787
        Board of Contract Appeals             642              147              126              147             -495   ...............             +21
        Chief financial officer..  ...............          36,790           31,562           39,970          +39,970           +3,180           +8,408
        Management...............  ...............          55,237           47,391           55,237          +55,237   ...............          +7,846
        Human capital management.  ...............          22,029           18,892           22,029          +22,029   ...............          +3,137
        Chief information officer          38,991           47,722           40,942           47,722           +8,731   ...............          +6,780
        Congressional and                   4,778            4,866            4,174            4,866              +88   ...............            +692
         intergovernmental
         affairs.................
        Economic impact and                 5,298            5,144            4,415            5,144             -154   ...............            +729
         diversity...............
        General counsel..........          22,985           24,725           21,214           24,725           +1,740   ...............          +3,511
        Office of Management,             108,207   ...............  ...............  ...............        -108,207   ...............  ...............
         Budget and Evaluation...
        Policy and international           14,843           18,744           16,083           18,744           +3,901   ...............          +2,661
         affairs.................
        Public affairs...........           4,459            4,419            3,790            4,419              -40   ...............            +629
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Salaries and          205,548          225,362          193,341          228,542          +22,994           +3,180          +35,201
           expenses..............

    Program support:
        Minority economic impact.             815              825              709              825              +10   ...............            +116
        Policy analysis and                   388              612              527              612             +224   ...............             +85
         system studies..........
        Environmental policy                  556              520              446              520              -36   ...............             +74
         studies.................
        Cybersecurity and secure           24,486           38,183           32,760           38,183          +13,697   ...............          +5,423
         communications..........
        Corporate management               22,824           22,917           19,659           22,917              +93   ...............          +3,258
         information program.....
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Program                49,069           63,057           54,101           63,057          +13,988   ...............          +8,956
           support...............

    Competitive sourcing                    2,455            2,982            2,559            2,982             +527   ...............            +423
     initiative (A-76)...........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Administrative               257,072          291,401          250,001          294,581          +37,509           +3,180          +44,580
       operations................

Cost of work for others..........          79,916           80,239           68,839           80,239             +323   ...............         +11,400
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Departmental              336,988          371,640          318,840          374,820          +37,832           +3,180          +55,980
       Administration............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
Funding from other defense                -86,699          -93,258          -93,258          -93,258           -6,559   ...............  ...............
 activities......................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Departmental                 250,289          278,382          225,582          281,562          +31,273           +3,180          +55,980
       administration (gross)....
                                  ======================================================================================================================
Miscellaneous revenues...........        -121,770         -123,000         -123,000         -123,000           -1,230   ...............  ...............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      TOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL                 128,519          155,382          102,582          158,562          +30,043           +3,180          +55,980
       ADMINISTRATION (net)......
                                  ======================================================================================================================
Office of Inspector General......          41,580           45,507           45,507           45,507           +3,927   ...............  ...............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
 ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

    NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY
          ADMINISTRATION

        WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Life extension program:
    B61 Life extension program...          50,302           58,934           58,934           58,934           +8,632   ...............  ...............
    W76 Life extension program...         148,270          151,684          151,684          151,684           +3,414   ...............  ...............
    W80 Life extension program...          99,238          102,044           22,044           20,000          -79,238          -82,044           -2,044
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Life extension            297,810          312,662          232,662          230,618          -67,192          -82,044           -2,044
       program...................

Stockpile systems:
    B61 Stockpile systems........          65,390           63,782           63,782           63,782           -1,608   ...............  ...............
    W62 Stockpile systems........           8,877            3,738            3,738            3,738           -5,139   ...............  ...............
    W76 Stockpile systems........          62,903           56,174           56,174           56,174           -6,729   ...............  ...............
    W78 Stockpile systems........          32,306           50,662           50,662           50,662          +18,356   ...............  ...............
    W80 Stockpile systems........          26,052           27,230           27,230           27,230           +1,178   ...............  ...............
    B83 Stockpile systems........          26,127           23,365           23,365           23,365           -2,762   ...............  ...............
    W84 Stockpile systems........           4,358            1,465            1,465            1,465           -2,893   ...............  ...............
    W87 Stockpile systems........          50,171           59,333           59,333           59,333           +9,162   ...............  ...............
    W88 Stockpile systems........          32,503           39,796           39,796           39,796           +7,293   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Stockpile systems         308,687          325,545          325,545          325,545          +16,858   ...............  ...............

Reliable replacement warhead.....          24,750           27,707           52,707           62,707          +37,957          +35,000          +10,000
Warheads Dismantlement...........          59,400           75,000          105,000           35,000          -24,400          -40,000          -70,000
Stockpile services:
    Production support...........         227,700          236,115          200,698          236,115           +8,415   ...............         +35,417
    Research and development               60,640           63,948           54,356           63,948           +3,308   ...............          +9,592
     support.....................
    Research and development              225,450          194,199          165,069          194,199          -31,251   ...............         +29,130
     certification and safety....
    Management, technology, and           167,891          159,662          135,713          159,662           -8,229   ...............         +23,949
     production..................
    Responsive infrastructure....  ...............          15,430           40,430           15,430          +15,430   ...............         -25,000
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Stockpile                 681,681          669,354          596,266          669,354          -12,327   ...............         +73,088
       services..................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Directed stockpile         1,372,328        1,410,268        1,312,180        1,323,224          -49,104          -87,044          +11,044
       work......................

Campaigns:
    Science campaign:
        Primary assessment                 49,221           50,527           50,527           50,527           +1,306   ...............  ...............
         technologies............
        Test readiness...........          19,800           14,757           14,757           14,757           -5,043   ...............  ...............
        Dynamic materials                  83,055           80,727           80,727           85,727           +2,672           +5,000           +5,000
         properties..............
        Advanced radiography.....          49,025           36,745           36,745           36,745          -12,280   ...............  ...............
        Secondary assessment               75,569           81,006           81,006           81,006           +5,437   ...............  ...............
         technologies............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Science               276,670          263,762          263,762          268,762           -7,908           +5,000           +5,000
           campaigns.............

    Engineering campaign:
        Enhanced surety..........          39,600           26,731           26,731           41,200           +1,600          +14,469          +14,469
        Weapons system                     17,365           21,156           21,156           28,000          +10,635           +6,844           +6,844
         engineering assessment
         technology..............
        Nuclear survivability....          22,162           14,973           14,973           23,100             +938           +8,127           +8,127
        Enhanced surveillance....          99,205           86,526           86,526          103,200           +3,995          +16,674          +16,674

        Microsystem and                     4,667            4,613            4,613            4,613              -54   ...............  ...............
         engineering science
         applications (MESA),
         other project costs.....

        Construction: 01-D-108             64,908            6,920            6,920            6,920          -57,988   ...............  ...............
         Microsystem and
         engineering science
         applications (MESA),
         SNL, Albuquerque, NM....
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, MESA.......          69,575           11,533           11,533           11,533          -58,042   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, Engineering         247,907          160,919          160,919          207,033          -40,874          +46,114          +46,114
             campaign............

Inertial confinement fusion
 ignition and high yield
 campaign:
    Ignition.....................          74,859           79,763           79,763           69,763           -5,096          -10,000          -10,000
    Support of stockpile programs          19,673            5,872            5,872           25,872           +6,199          +20,000          +20,000
    NIF diagnostics, cryogenics            42,578           45,959           55,959           42,578   ...............          -3,381          -13,381
     and experiment support......
    Pulsed power inertial                  10,902           10,603           10,603           10,603             -299   ...............  ...............
     confinement fusion..........
    University grants/other                 7,623            8,903            8,903   ...............          -7,623           -8,903           -8,903
     support.....................
    Facility operations and                63,977           43,021           58,021           53,021          -10,956          +10,000           -5,000
     target production...........
    Inertial fusion technology...          47,520   ...............          40,000   ...............         -47,520   ...............         -40,000
    NIF demonstration program....         101,307          143,438          143,438          129,000          +27,693          -14,438          -14,438
    High-energy petawatt laser             34,650            2,213           14,213   ...............         -34,650           -2,213          -14,213
     development.................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................         403,089          339,772          416,772          330,837          -72,252           -8,935          -85,935

    Construction: 96-D-111                140,494          111,419          111,419           81,419          -59,075          -30,000          -30,000
     National ignition facility,
     LLNL........................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Inertial                  543,583          451,191          528,191          412,256         -131,327          -38,935         -115,935
       confinement fusion........

Advanced simulation and computing         599,772          617,955          635,155          695,995          +96,223          +78,040          +60,840
Pit manufacturing and
 certification:
    W88 pit manufacturing........         119,717          147,658          147,658          147,658          +27,941   ...............  ...............
    W88 pit certification........          61,276           56,605           56,605           56,605           -4,671   ...............  ...............
    Pit manufacturing capability.          22,840           33,335           33,335           33,335          +10,495   ...............  ...............
    Pit campaign support                   34,830   ...............  ...............  ...............         -34,830   ...............  ...............
     activities at NTS...........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Pit manufacturing         238,663          237,598          237,598          237,598           -1,065   ...............  ...............
       and certification.........

Readiness campaign:
    Stockpile readiness..........          31,086           17,576           17,576           17,576          -13,510   ...............  ...............
    High explosives and weapons            16,926           17,188           17,188           17,188             +262   ...............  ...............
     operations..................
    Non-nuclear readiness........          28,344           31,171           31,171           31,171           +2,827   ...............  ...............
    Advanced design and                    53,500           53,645           55,645           53,645             +145   ...............          -2,000
     production technologies.....

    Tritium readiness............          62,067           86,385           86,385           86,385          +24,318   ...............  ...............
        Construction: 98-D-125             24,645   ...............  ...............  ...............         -24,645   ...............  ...............
         Tritium extraction
         facility, SR............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Tritium                86,712           86,385           86,385           86,385             -327   ...............  ...............
           readiness.............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Readiness             216,568          205,965          207,965          205,965          -10,603   ...............          -2,000
           campaign..............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Campaigns.......       2,123,163        1,937,390        2,033,590        2,027,609          -95,554          +90,219           -5,981

Consolidated Production Center     ...............  ...............         100,000   ...............  ...............  ...............        -100,000
 (CPC)...........................

Readiness in technical base and
 facilities (RTBF):
    Operations of facilities.....  ...............  ...............  ...............       1,263,004       +1,263,004       +1,263,004       +1,263,004
        Kansas City Plant........  ...............          98,057           98,057   ...............  ...............         -98,057          -98,057
        Lawrence Livermore         ...............          96,906          106,906   ...............  ...............         -96,906         -106,906
         National Laboratory.....
        Los Alamos National        ...............         306,258          306,258   ...............  ...............        -306,258         -306,258
         Laboratory..............
        Nevada Test Site.........  ...............          67,687           67,687   ...............  ...............         -67,687          -67,687
        Pantex...................  ...............          96,124          116,124   ...............  ...............         -96,124         -116,124
        Sandia National            ...............         163,627          163,627   ...............  ...............        -163,627         -163,627
         Laboratory..............
        Savannah River Site......  ...............         100,013          100,013   ...............  ...............        -100,013         -100,013
        Y-12 Production Plant....  ...............         191,092          234,092   ...............  ...............        -191,092         -234,092
        Institutional Site         ...............          84,022           84,022   ...............  ...............         -84,022          -84,022
         Support.................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Operations and         1,159,192        1,203,786        1,276,786        1,263,004         +103,812          +59,218          -13,782
           facilities............

Program readiness................         104,681           75,167           75,167           75,167          -29,514   ...............  ...............
Material recycle and recovery....          72,003           69,982           69,982           69,982           -2,021   ...............  ...............
Containers.......................          17,075           20,130           20,130           20,130           +3,055   ...............  ...............
Storage..........................          24,970           35,285           35,285           35,285          +10,315   ...............  ...............
Special Projects.................  ...............  ...............  ...............          28,782          +28,782          +28,782          +28,782
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Readiness in            1,377,921        1,404,350        1,477,350        1,492,350         +114,429          +88,000          +15,000
       technical base and fac....

Construction:
    07-D-140-03 Project            ...............  ...............  ...............           7,000           +7,000           +7,000           +7,000
     engineering and design (PED)
     LANSCE-R....................
    07-D-140 Project engineering   ...............           4,977            4,977            4,977           +4,977   ...............  ...............
     and design (PED), various
     locations...................
    07-D-220 Radioactive liquid    ...............          14,828           14,828           14,828          +14,828   ...............  ...............
     waste treatment facility
     upgrade project, LANL.......
    06-D-140 Project engineering           13,972           51,577           51,577           16,577           +2,605          -35,000          -35,000
     and design (PED), various
     locations...................
    06-D-402 NTS replace fire               8,201           13,919           13,919           13,919           +5,718   ...............  ...............
     stations 1&2 Nevada Test
     Site, NV....................
    06-D-403 Tritium facility               2,574            7,810            7,810            7,810           +5,236   ...............  ...............
     modernization Lawrence
     Livermore National
     Laboratory, Livermore, CA...
    06-D-404 Building                      15,840   ...............  ...............  ...............         -15,840   ...............  ...............
     remediation, restoration,
     and upgrade, Nevada Test
     Site, NV....................
    05-D-140 Project engineering            6,930            9,615            9,615            9,615           +2,685   ...............  ...............
     and design (PED), various
     locations...................
    05-D-401 Building 12-64                10,890   ...............  ...............  ...............         -10,890   ...............  ...............
     production bays upgrades,
     Pantex plant, Amarillo, TX..
    05-D-402 Berylium capability            7,623            5,084            5,084            5,084           -2,539   ...............  ...............
     (BEC) project, Y-12 National
     security complex, Oak Ridge,
     TN..........................
    04-D-103 Project engineering            1,980   ...............  ...............  ...............          -1,980   ...............  ...............
     and design (PED), various
     locations...................
    04-D-125 Chemistry and                 54,450          112,422           12,422          112,422          +57,972   ...............        +100,000
     metallurgy facility
     replacement project, Los
     Alamos National Laboratory,
     Los Alamos, NM..............
    04-D-128 TA-18 mission                 12,870           24,197           24,197           24,197          +11,327   ...............  ...............
     relocation project, Los
     Alamos Laboratory, Los
     Alamos, NM..................
    03-D-103 Project engineering           28,710           14,161           14,161           14,161          -14,549   ...............  ...............
     and design (PED), various
     locations...................
    01-D-103 Project engineering            8,910            1,565            1,565            1,565           -7,345   ...............  ...............
     and design (PED), various
     locations...................
    01-D-124 HEU materials                 80,537           21,267           21,267           56,267          -24,270          +35,000          +35,000
     facility, Y-12 plant, Oak
     Ridge, TN...................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Construction.....         253,487          281,422          181,422          288,422          +34,935           +7,000         +107,000
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      Total, Readiness in               1,631,408        1,685,772        1,658,772        1,780,772         +149,364          +95,000         +122,000
       technical base and
       facilities................

Facilities and infrastructure              99,840          245,283          100,283          237,270         +137,430           -8,013         +136,987
 recapitalization program........
    Construction:
        07-D-253 TA 1 heating      ...............          14,500           14,500           14,500          +14,500   ...............  ...............
         systems modernization
         (HSM) Sandia National
         Laboratory..............
        06-D-160 Project                    5,753            2,700            2,700            2,700           -3,053   ...............  ...............
         engioneering and design
         (PED), various loca-
         tions...................
        06-D-601 Electrical                 3,960            6,429            6,429            6,429           +2,469   ...............  ...............
         distribution system
         upgrade, Pantex Plant,
         Amarillo, TX............
        06-D-602 Gas main and               3,663            3,145            3,145            3,145             -518   ...............  ...............
         distribution system
         upgrade, Pantex Plant,
         Amarillo, TX............
        06-D-603 Steam plant life             722           17,811           17,811           17,811          +17,089   ...............  ...............
         extension project
         (SLEP), Y-12 National
         Security Complex, Oak
         Ridge, TN...............
        05-D-160 Facilities and            10,538              648              648              648           -9,890   ...............  ...............
         infrastructure
         recapitalization program
         project engineering
         design (PED), various
         locations...............
        05-D-601 Compressed air             9,644              702              702              702           -8,942   ...............  ...............
         upgrades project (CAUP),
         Y-12, National security
         complex, Oak Ridge, TN..
        05-D-602 Power grid                 8,415   ...............  ...............  ...............          -8,415   ...............  ...............
         infrastructure upgrade
         (PGIU), Los Alamos
         National Laboratory, Los
         Alamos, NM..............
        05-D-603 New master                 6,831   ...............  ...............  ...............          -6,831   ...............  ...............
         substation (NMSU), SNL..
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Construction.          49,526           45,935           45,935           45,935           -3,591   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Facilities and           149,366          291,218          146,218          283,205         +133,839           -8,013         +136,987
           infrastructure
           recapitalization
           program...............

Secure transportation asset:
    Operations and equipment.....         142,328          130,484          130,484          130,484          -11,844   ...............  ...............
    Program direction............          67,651           78,780           78,780           78,780          +11,129   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Secure                       209,979          209,264          209,264          209,264             -715   ...............  ...............
       transportation asset......

Nuclear weapons incident response         117,608          135,354          135,354          135,354          +17,746   ...............  ...............

Environmental projects and         ...............          17,211           17,211           17,211          +17,211   ...............  ...............
 operations: Long term response
 actions.........................
Safeguards and security..........         756,841          665,701          702,701          670,701          -86,140           +5,000          -32,000

    Cybersecurity................  ...............          88,711           89,711           88,711          +88,711   ...............          -1,000
    Construction: 05-D-170                 40,590   ...............  ...............  ...............         -40,590   ...............  ...............
     Project engineering and
     design (PED), various
     locations...................
    Material security and          ...............  ...............          40,000   ...............  ...............  ...............         -40,000
     consolidation project, Idaho
     National Lab, ID............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Safeguards and               797,431          754,412          832,412          759,412          -38,019           +5,000          -73,000
       security..................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Weapons                 6,401,283        6,440,889        6,445,001        6,536,051         +134,768          +95,162          +91,050
       activities................

Less security charge for                  -31,680          -33,000          -33,000          -33,000           -1,320   ...............  ...............
 reimbursable work...............
                                  ======================================================================================================================

      TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES..       6,369,603        6,407,889        6,412,001        6,503,051         +133,448          +95,162          +91,050
                                  ======================================================================================================================
 DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Nonproliferation and                      305,910          260,967          290,160          274,967          -30,943          +14,000          -15,193
 verification, R&D...............
Construction: 06-D-180 06-01               12,870            7,920           17,920            7,920           -4,950   ...............         -10,000
 Project engineering and design
 (PED) National Security
 Laboratory, PNNL................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Nonproliferation          318,780          268,887          308,080          282,887          -35,893          +14,000          -25,193
       & verification R & D......

Nonproliferation and                       74,250          127,411          127,411          127,411          +53,161   ...............  ...............
 international security..........
    International nuclear                 422,730          413,182          583,182          427,182           +4,452          +14,000         -156,000
     materials protection and
     cooperation.................
    Global initiatives for                 39,600   ...............  ...............  ...............         -39,600   ...............  ...............
     proliferation prevention....
    HEU transparency                       19,288   ...............  ...............  ...............         -19,288   ...............  ...............
     implementation..............
    Elimination of weapons-grade          174,423          206,654          206,654   ...............        -174,423         -206,654         -206,654
     plutonium production program

Fissile materials disposition:
    U.S. surplus materials                193,050          235,051          171,651          235,051          +42,001   ...............         +63,400
     disposition.................
    Russian surplus materials              34,163           34,695   ...............  ...............         -34,163          -34,695   ...............
     disposition.................

    Construction:
        99-D-141 Pit disassembly           23,760           78,700   ...............          93,000          +69,240          +14,300          +93,000
         and conversion facility,
         Savannah River, SC......
        99-D-143 Mixed oxide fuel         217,800          289,510   ...............         325,000         +107,200          +35,490         +325,000
         fabrication facility,
         Savannah River,  SC.....
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal,                     241,560          368,210   ...............         418,000         +176,440          +49,790         +418,000
             Construction........

    Plutonium Immobilization,      ...............  ...............         111,000   ...............  ...............  ...............        -111,000
     Savannah River Site, SC.....
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Fissile materials         468,773          637,956          282,651          653,051         +184,278          +15,095         +370,400
       disposition...............

    Use of prior year balances...  ...............         -34,695          -34,695          -34,695          -34,695   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Fissile materials            468,773          603,261          247,956          618,356         +149,583          +15,095         +370,400
       disposition...............

Global threat reduction                    96,995          106,818          147,618          116,818          +19,823          +10,000          -30,800
 initiative......................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Defense Nuclear         1,614,839        1,726,213        1,620,901        1,572,654          -42,185         -153,559          -48,247
       Nonproliferation..........
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR            1,614,839        1,726,213        1,620,901        1,572,654          -42,185         -153,559          -48,247
       NONPROLIFERATION..........
                                  ======================================================================================================================
          NAVAL REACTORS

Naval reactors development.......         721,512          761,176          761,176          761,176          +39,664   ...............  ...............
    Construction:
        07-D-190 Materials         ...............           1,485            1,485            1,485           +1,485   ...............  ...............
         research technology
         complex (MRTC)..........
        06-D-901 Central office             6,930   ...............  ...............  ...............          -6,930   ...............  ...............
         building II.............
        Transfer to Nuclear                13,365   ...............  ...............  ...............         -13,365   ...............  ...............
         Energy..................
        05-N-900 Materials                  9,801            1,287            1,287            1,287           -8,514   ...............  ...............
         development facility
         building, Schenectady,
         NY......................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal,                      30,096            2,772            2,772            2,772          -27,324   ...............  ...............
             Construction........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Total, Naval reactors         751,608          763,948          763,948          763,948          +12,340   ...............  ...............
             development.........

Program direction................          29,997           31,185           31,185           31,185           +1,188   ...............  ...............
                                  ======================================================================================================================

      TOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS......         781,605          795,133          795,133          795,133          +13,528   ...............  ...............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
   OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

Office of the Administrator......         345,277          386,576          399,576          386,576          +41,299   ...............         -13,000
Use of prior year balances.......          -6,827   ...............  ...............  ...............          +6,827   ...............  ...............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE                338,450          386,576          399,576          386,576          +48,126   ...............         -13,000
       ADMINISTRATOR.............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      TOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR           9,104,497        9,315,811        9,227,611        9,257,414         +152,917          -58,397          +29,803
       SECURITY ADMINISTRATION...
                                  ======================================================================================================================
  DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Closure Sites:
    Ashtabula....................          15,840              295            1,295              295          -15,545   ...............          -1,000
    Columbus.....................           9,405   ...............  ...............  ...............          -9,405   ...............  ...............
    Closure sites administration.  ...............          25,896           25,896           25,896          +25,896   ...............  ...............
    Fernald......................         324,333          258,877          258,877          258,877          -65,456   ...............  ...............
    Miamisburg...................         104,475           34,869           34,869           34,869          -69,606   ...............  ...............
    Rocky Flats..................         564,251            1,000            1,000            1,000         -563,251   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, closure sites.......       1,018,304          320,937          321,937          320,937         -697,367   ...............          -1,000

Hanford Site:
    Nuclear material                      196,681           81,651           81,651           81,651         -115,030   ...............  ...............
     stabilization & disposition
     PFP.........................
    SNF stabilization and                  57,894           81,069           78,937           81,069          +23,175   ...............          +2,132
     disposition.................
    Nuclear facility D&D, river           176,716          221,022          221,022          221,022          +44,306   ...............  ...............
     corridor closure project....
    Solid waste stablilzation and  ...............          39,876           39,876           39,876          +39,876   ...............  ...............
     disposition.................
    HAMMER facility..............           7,425   ...............           7,500   ...............          -7,425   ...............          -7,500
    B-reactor museum.............           1,980   ...............             500   ...............          -1,980   ...............            -500
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, 2012 accelerated          440,696          423,618          429,486          423,618          -17,078   ...............          -5,868
       completions...............

    Solid waste stabilization &           165,442          188,989          191,121          188,989          +23,547   ...............          -2,132
     disposition--2035...........
    Soil & water remediation--             73,750           75,973           75,973           75,973           +2,223   ...............  ...............
     groundwater/vadose zone.....
    Nuclear facility D&D--                 70,104           94,270           94,270           94,270          +24,166   ...............  ...............
     remainder of Hanford........
    Operate waste disposal                  5,802            3,534            3,534            3,534           -2,268   ...............  ...............
     facility....................
    SNF stabilization and                   1,795   ...............  ...............  ...............          -1,795   ...............  ...............
     disposition/storage.........
    Richland community and                 15,257           18,332           18,332           18,332           +3,075   ...............  ...............
     regulatory support..........
    Columbia River Cleanup         ...............  ...............          20,000   ...............  ...............  ...............         -20,000
     Technologies................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, 2035 accelerated          332,150          381,098          403,230          381,098          +48,948   ...............         -22,132
       completions...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Hanford Site........         772,846          804,716          832,716          804,716          +31,870   ...............         -28,000

Office of River Protection:
    01-D-16A Low activity waste           161,370           77,800          112,200          120,000          -41,370          +42,200           +7,800
     facility....................
    Analytical laboratory........          44,550           21,800           45,200           46,000           +1,450          +24,200             +800
    Balance of facilities........          64,350           48,900           52,400           53,000          -11,350           +4,100             +600
    High-level waste facility....         102,960          253,700          171,700          191,000          +88,040          -62,700          +19,300
    Pretreatment facility........         147,510          287,800          218,500          280,000         +132,490           -7,800          +61,500
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Waste treatment &         520,740          690,000          600,000          690,000         +169,260   ...............         +90,000
       immobilization plant......

Tank Farm activities:
    Rad liquid tank waste stabil.         325,710          273,656          293,656          273,656          -52,054   ...............         -20,000
     and disposition.............
    River protection community                466              471              471              471               +5   ...............  ...............
     and regulatory support......
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Tank Farm                 326,176          274,127          294,127          274,127          -52,049   ...............         -20,000
       activities................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Office of River              846,916          964,127          894,127          964,127         +117,211   ...............         +70,000
       Protection................

Idaho National Laboratory:
    SNF stabilization and                  12,539   ...............  ...............  ...............         -12,539   ...............  ...............
     disposition/storage.........
    Nuclear material                        1,539            1,000            1,000            1,000             -539   ...............  ...............
     stabilization and
     disposition.................
    SNF stabilization and                  18,966           18,415           18,415           18,415             -551   ...............  ...............
     disposition--2012...........
    Solid waste stabilization and         138,615          193,910          193,910          193,910          +55,295   ...............  ...............
     disposition.................
    Radioactive liquid tank waste          91,273           73,514           73,514           73,514          -17,759   ...............  ...............
     stabilization and
     disposition.................
    06-D-401, Sodium bearing               53,727           31,000           31,000           31,000          -22,727   ...............  ...............
     waste treatment project, ID.
    04-D-414, Sodium bearing                9,108   ...............          32,000   ...............          -9,108   ...............         -32,000
     waste treatment facility,
     PED ID......................
    Soil and water remediation--          159,874          120,510          120,510          120,510          -39,364   ...............  ...............
     2012........................
    Nuclear facility D&D.........           4,976           67,562           67,562           67,562          +62,586   ...............  ...............
    Non-nuclear facility D&D.....          38,714            3,010            3,010            3,010          -35,704   ...............  ...............
    Idaho community and                     3,511            3,683            3,683            3,683             +172   ...............  ...............
     regulatory support..........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Idaho National               532,842          512,604          544,604          512,604          -20,238   ...............         -32,000
       Laboratory................

NNSA:
    Lawrence Livermore National            29,282           11,580           11,580           11,580          -17,702   ...............  ...............
     Laboratory..................
    NNSA Service Center..........           8,221           26,122           26,122           26,122          +17,901   ...............  ...............
    Nevada.......................          84,174           79,668           79,668           79,668           -4,506   ...............  ...............
    Kansas City Plant............           4,481   ...............  ...............  ...............          -4,481   ...............  ...............
    California site support......             545              370              370              370             -175   ...............  ...............
    Pantex.......................          19,457           23,726           23,726           23,726           +4,269   ...............  ...............
    Sandia National Laboratories.           9,671   ...............  ...............  ...............          -9,671   ...............  ...............
    Nevada off-sites.............           2,818   ...............  ...............  ...............          -2,818   ...............
    Los Alamos National                   140,787           90,602           90,602          141,000             +213          +50,398          +50,398
     Laboratory..................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, NNSA sites and               299,436          232,068          232,068          282,466          -16,970          +50,398          +50,398
       Nevada off-sites..........

Oak Ridge Reservation:
    Solid waste stabilization and           4,584   ...............  ...............  ...............          -4,584   ...............  ...............
     completion--2006............
    Soil and water remediation--           46,308   ...............  ...............  ...............         -46,308   ...............  ...............
     Melton Valley...............
    Solid waste stabilization and          67,676           48,888           68,809           48,888          -18,788   ...............         -19,921
     disposition--2012...........
    Soil and water remediation--           16,318           15,381            7,033           15,381             -937   ...............          +8,348
     offsites....................
    Nuclear facility D&D, E.                5,974           10,094           11,056           10,094           +4,120   ...............            -962
     Tenn. Technology Park.......
    Nuclear facility D&D Y-12....          40,152           40,000           19,817           40,000             -152   ...............         +20,183
    Nuclear facility D&D ORNL....          15,874           21,956           41,316           41,316          +25,442          +19,360   ...............
    Solid waste stabilization &            18,084           18,544           21,332           18,544             +460   ...............          -2,788
     disp.--science current gen..
    OR reservation community &              5,613            4,999            4,999            4,999             -614   ...............  ...............
     regulatory support..........
    Building 3019................          17,820   ...............          25,000   ...............         -17,820   ...............         -25,000
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Oak Ridge                    238,403          159,862          199,362          179,222          -59,181          +19,360          -20,140
       Reservation...............

Savannah River site:
    Nuclear facility D&D.........  ...............           3,664            3,664            3,664           +3,664   ...............  ...............
    Nuclear material                      247,800          208,233          208,233          208,233          -39,567   ...............  ...............
     stabilization and
     disposition 2012............
    04-D-423 Container             ...............          21,300           21,300           21,300          +21,300   ...............  ...............
     surveillance capability in
     235F........................
    04-D-414 Project Engineering           18,414            2,935            2,935            2,935          -15,479   ...............  ...............
     and Design, 105-K...........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, 2012 accelerated          266,214          236,132          236,132          236,132          -30,082   ...............  ...............
       completions...............

    SNF stabilization,                     13,750   ...............  ...............  ...............         -13,750   ...............  ...............
     disposition/storage.........
    SR community and regulatory            12,916           12,542           12,542           12,542             -374   ...............  ...............
     support.....................
    Nuclear material                       74,354           41,160           41,160           41,160          -33,194   ...............  ...............
     stabilization and
     disposition.................
    Spent nuclear fuel                     11,160           22,668           22,668           22,668          +11,508   ...............  ...............
     stabilization and
     disposition.................
    Solid waste stabilization and         111,863           85,276           85,276           85,276          -26,587   ...............  ...............
     disposition.................
    Soil and water remediation...          93,421          103,150          103,150          103,150           +9,729   ...............  ...............
    Nuclear facility D&D.........          56,644           12,542           12,542           12,542          -44,102   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, 2035 accelerated          374,108          277,338          277,338          277,338          -96,770   ...............  ...............
       completions...............

    Radioactive liquid tank waste         495,965          507,724          618,724          507,724          +11,759   ...............        -111,000
     stabil. & disposition.......
    05-D-405, Salt waste                      495           25,700           25,700           25,700          +25,205   ...............  ...............
     processing facility.........
    04-D-408, Glass waste storage           6,905   ...............  ...............  ...............          -6,905   ...............  ...............
     building....................
    03-D-414, Salt waste                   34,989           37,500           37,500           37,500           +2,511   ...............  ...............
     processing facility PED SR..
    SWPF fiscal year 2005                 -19,800   ...............  ...............  ...............         +19,800   ...............  ...............
     uncosted balances...........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Tank farm                 518,554          570,924          681,924          570,924          +52,370   ...............        -111,000
       activities................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Savannah River site.       1,158,876        1,084,394        1,195,394        1,084,394          -74,482   ...............        -111,000

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant:
    Operate WIPP.................         116,769          132,026          132,026          139,026          +22,257           +7,000           +7,000
    Central Characterization               38,117           23,190           23,190           23,190          -14,927   ...............  ...............
     Project.....................
    Transportation...............          37,255           32,940           32,940           32,940           -4,315   ...............  ...............
    Community and regulatory               36,183           25,122           25,122           37,122             +939          +12,000          +12,000
     support.....................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Waste Isolation              228,324          213,278          213,278          232,278           +3,954          +19,000          +19,000
       Pilot Plant...............

Program direction................         241,378          291,216          301,216          291,216          +49,838   ...............         -10,000
Program support..................          32,518           37,881           37,881           37,881           +5,363   ...............  ...............
Safeguards and Security:
    Waste Isolation Pilot Project           4,181            4,324            4,324            4,324             +143   ...............  ...............
    Oak Ridge Reservation........          28,566           22,889           22,889           22,889           -5,677   ...............  ...............
    Fernald......................           1,377            1,216            1,216            1,216             -161   ...............  ...............
    West Valley..................           1,782            1,600            1,600            1,600             -182   ...............  ...............
    Paducah......................          10,904            8,707            8,707            8,707           -2,197   ...............  ...............
    Portsmouth...................          17,664           15,642           15,642           15,642           -2,022   ...............  ...............
    Richland/Hanford Site........          81,333           77,836           77,836           77,836           -3,497   ...............  ...............
    Rocky Flats..................           3,168   ...............  ...............  ...............          -3,168   ...............  ...............
    Savannah River Site..........         135,376          163,626          163,626          163,626          +28,250   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Safeguards and               284,351          295,840          295,840          295,840          +11,489   ...............  ...............
       Security..................

Technology development...........          29,764           21,389           31,389           21,389           -8,375   ...............         -10,000
Uranium enrichment D&D fund               446,490          452,000          452,000          452,000           +5,510   ...............  ...............
 contribution....................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, DEFENSE                    6,130,448        5,390,312        5,551,812        5,479,070         -651,378          +88,758          -72,742
       ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN UP....
                                  ======================================================================================================================
     OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Office of Security and Safety
 Performance Assurance:
    Nuclear safeguards and                185,009          182,548          185,548          182,548           -2,461   ...............          -3,000
     security....................
    Security investigations......          46,258           40,000           40,000           40,000           -6,258   ...............  ...............
    Program direction............          72,757           75,949           75,949           75,949           +3,192   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Office of                 304,024          298,497          301,497          298,497           -5,527   ...............          -3,000
       Security and Safety
       Performance Assurance.....

Environment, safety and health             56,908           60,738           60,738           74,738          +17,830          +14,000          +14,000
 (Defense).......................
    Program direction--EH........          19,351           20,076           20,076           20,076             +725   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Environment,               76,259           80,814           80,814           94,814          +18,555          +14,000          +14,000
       safety & health (Defense).

Office of Legacy Management:
    Legacy management............          31,107          156,790          156,790          156,790         +125,683   ...............  ...............
    Program direction............          13,518           11,061           11,061           11,061           -2,457   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Office of Legacy           44,625          167,851          167,851          167,851         +123,226   ...............  ...............
       Management................

Nuclear energy:
    Infrastructure:
        Idaho facilities                   17,584   ...............  ...............  ...............         -17,584   ...............  ...............
         management..............
        Idaho sitewide safeguards          74,258           75,949           75,949           75,949           +1,691   ...............  ...............
         and security............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Infrastruture          91,842           75,949           75,949           75,949          -15,893   ...............  ...............

    Program direction............          30,792   ...............  ...............  ...............         -30,792   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Nuclear energy...         122,634           75,949           75,949           75,949          -46,685   ...............  ...............

Defense related administrative             86,699           93,258           93,258           93,258           +6,559   ...............  ...............
 support.........................
Office of Hearings and Appeals...           4,309            4,422            4,422            4,422             +113   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Other Defense             638,550          720,791          723,791          734,791          +96,241          +14,000          +11,000
       Activities................
                                  ======================================================================================================================
Less security charge for                   -2,973           -3,003           -3,003           -3,003              -30   ...............  ...............
 reimbursable work...............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE                635,577          717,788          720,788          731,788          +96,211          +14,000          +11,000
       ACTIVITIES................
                                  ======================================================================================================================
  DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Defense nuclear waste disposal...         346,500          388,080          388,080          358,080          +11,580          -30,000          -30,000
                                  ======================================================================================================================

      TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY             16,217,022       15,811,991       15,888,291       15,826,352         -390,670          +14,361          -61,939
       DEFENSE ACTIVITIES........
                                  ======================================================================================================================
 POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance:
    Purchase power and wheeling..          32,386           48,003           48,003           48,003          +15,617   ...............  ...............
    Program direction............           5,544            5,723            5,723            5,723             +179   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Operation and              37,930           53,726           53,726           53,726          +15,796   ...............  ...............
       maintenance...............

Less alternative financing (PPW).  ...............         -13,611   ...............         -13,611          -13,611   ...............         -13,611
Offsetting collections...........         -32,386   ...............         -48,003   ...............         +32,386   ...............         +48,003
Offsetting collections (Public     ...............         -34,392   ...............         -34,392          -34,392   ...............         -34,392
 Law 106-377)....................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, SOUTHEASTERN POWER             5,544            5,723            5,723            5,723             +179   ...............  ...............
       ADMINISTRATION............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance:
    Operating expenses...........           6,972            7,145            7,145            7,145             +173   ...............  ...............
    Purchase power and wheeling..           2,970           13,600           13,600           40,600          +37,630          +27,000          +27,000
    Program direction............          19,758           20,782           20,782           20,782           +1,024   ...............  ...............
    Construction.................           3,134            3,612            3,612            3,612             +478   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Operation and              32,834           45,139           45,139           72,139          +39,305          +27,000          +27,000
       maintenance...............

    Less alternative financing     ...............         -10,600   ...............         -10,600          -10,600   ...............         -10,600
     (PPW).......................
    Offsetting collections.......          -2,970   ...............         -13,600   ...............          +2,970   ...............         +13,600
    Offsetting collections         ...............          -3,000   ...............         -30,000          -30,000          -27,000          -30,000
     (Public Law 106-377)........
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      TOTAL, SOUTHWESTERN POWER            29,864           31,539           31,539           31,539           +1,675   ...............  ...............
       ADMINISTRATION............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance:
    Construction and                       53,417           60,205           60,205           60,205           +6,788   ...............  ...............
     rehabilitation..............
    Operation and maintenance....          46,822           45,734           45,734           45,734           -1,088   ...............  ...............
    Purchase power and wheeling..         276,210          427,931          427,931          427,931         +151,721   ...............  ...............
    Program direction............         128,900          147,748          147,748          147,748          +18,848   ...............  ...............
    Utah mitigation and                     6,633            6,893            6,893            6,893             +260   ...............  ...............
     conservation................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Operation and             511,982          688,511          688,511          688,511         +176,529   ...............  ...............
       maintenance...............

Less alternative financing (for    ...............          -1,091   ...............          -1,091           -1,091   ...............          -1,091
 O&M)............................
Less alternative financing (for    ...............         -33,928   ...............         -33,928          -33,928   ...............         -33,928
 O&M)............................
Less alternative financing (for    ...............          -9,643   ...............          -9,643           -9,643   ...............          -9,643
 O&M)............................
Less alternative financing (for    ...............        -153,079   ...............        -153,079         -153,079   ...............        -153,079
 O&M)............................
Offsetting collections...........        -276,210   ...............        -472,593   ...............        +276,210   ...............        +472,593
Offsetting collections (Public             -4,120           -3,705           -3,705           -3,705             +415   ...............  ...............
 Law 98-381).....................
Offsetting collections (Public     ...............        -274,852   ...............        -274,852         -274,852   ...............        -274,852
 Law 106-377)....................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, WESTERN AREA POWER           231,652          212,213          212,213          212,213          -19,439   ...............  ...............
       ADMINISTRATION............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
 FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND
         MAINTENANCE FUND

Operation and maintenance........           2,665            2,500            2,500            2,500             -165   ...............  ...............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      TOTAL, POWER MARKETING              269,725          251,975          251,975          251,975          -17,750   ...............  ...............
       ADMINISTRATIONS...........
                                  ======================================================================================================================
    FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY
            COMMISSION

Federal Energy Regulatory                 218,196          230,800          230,800          230,800          +12,604   ...............  ...............
 Commission......................
FERC revenues....................        -218,196         -230,800         -230,800         -230,800          -12,604   ...............  ...............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      GRAND TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF       24,046,773       24,074,717       24,373,489       24,725,146         +678,373         +650,429         +351,657
       ENERGY....................
          (Total amount               (24,031,133)     (24,277,717)     (24,630,489)     (24,775,146)       (+744,013)       (+497,429)       (+144,657)
           appropriated).........
          (Advance appropriations         (35,640)  ...............  ...............  ...............        (-35,640)  ...............  ...............
           from previous years)..
          (Rescissions)..........        (-20,000)       (-203,000)       (-257,000)        (-50,000)        (-30,000)       (+153,000)       (+207,000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    The following list of general provisions is recommended by 
the Committee. The recommendation includes several provisions 
which have been included in previous Energy and Water 
Appropriations Acts and new provisions as follows:
    Section 301. Language is included under section 301 to 
prohibit the use of funds to make payments for a noncompetitive 
management and operating contract unless certain conditions 
have been met.
    Section 302. Language is included under section 302 which 
prohibits the use of funds for severance payments under the 
worker and community transition program under section 3161 of 
Public Law 102-484.
    Section 303. Language is included under section 303 to 
prohibit the augmentation of several payments under section 
3161 of Public Law 102-484 unless a reprogramming request is 
submitted to Congress.
    Section 304. Language is included under section 304, which 
prohibits the use of funds in this act to initiate a request 
for proposal of expression of interest for new programs which 
have not yet been presented to Congress in the annual budget 
submission and which have not yet been approved and funded by 
Congress.
    Section 305. Language is included in section 305, which 
permits the transfer and merger of unexpended balances of prior 
appropriations with appropriation accounts established in this 
bill.
    Section 306. Language is included that prohibits the use of 
funds by the Bonneville Power Administration to enter into 
energy efficiency contracts outside its service area.
    Section 307. This section establishes certain notice and 
competition requirements for Department of Energy user 
facilities.
    Section 308. Language is included specifically authorizing 
intelligence activities pending enactment of the fiscal year 
2007 Intelligence Authorization Act.
    Section 309. Language is included in section 309 regarding 
laboratory directed research and development activities.
    Section 310. Language is included in section 310 regarding 
the terms and conditions of loan guarantees provided under 
section 1702(b)(2) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
    Section 311. Language is included regarding the terms and 
conditions by which the Secretary of Energy is directed to 
manage spent nuclear fuel with regard to demonstration of 
advanced recycling technologies.
    Section 312. Language is included in section 312 
prohibiting the Department of Energy to modify a ratemaking 
policy by changing the interest rate on future obligation for 
the Southeastern, Southwest, and Western Area Power 
Administrations. The Committee rejects a pending proposal to 
require Southeastern Power Administration, Southwestern Power 
Administration, and the Western Area Power Administration to 
apply the interest rate charged Government corporations for new 
investment and instead instructs the Secretary to apply the 
yield rate for all new investment in hydroelectric plant. The 
average yield shall be computed as the average during the 
fiscal year of the daily bid prices. The Committee has 
consistently opposed the use of budget gimmicks carried in the 
budget request that will increase rates paid by power 
customers. The Committee recommends the Department of Energy 
heed this direction and refrain from requesting new regulations 
to modify ratemaking procedures for Southeastern Power 
Administration, Southwestern Power Administration, and the 
Western Area Power Administration.
    Section 313. Language is included regarding the 
establishment of consolidation and preparation facilities 
intended to store spent nuclear fuel for up to 25 years. 
Language is also included regarding waste confidence standards.

                                TITLE IV

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                    Appalachian Regional Commission

Appropriations, 2006....................................     $64,817,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................      65,472,000
House allowance.........................................      35,472,000
Committee recommendation................................      65,472,000

    Established in 1965, the Appalachian Regional Commission is 
an economic development agency composed of 13 Appalachian 
States and a Federal co-chair appointed by the President. For 
fiscal year 2007, the Committee recommends the budget request 
of $65,472,000 for the ARC, of which $6,000,000 is for salaries 
and expenses and $58,472,000 is for programs development and 
$1,000,000 is for the Appalachian Highway System.
    The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users authorized $470,000,000 
annually, from 2005-2009, from the Highway Trust Fund for 
construction projects on the Appalachian Development Highway 
System. The ARC exercises policy and programmatic control over 
these funds.
    Area Development and Technical Assistant Program funds are 
used to increase job opportunities and income, improve 
education and health, strengthen infrastructure, and for the 
Appalachian Highway System. Such funds are allocated by 
formula, with assistance targeted to the most distressed and 
underdeveloped areas.
    Local Development Districts Program funds assist local 
governments in promoting sustainable community and economic 
development in the Appalachian region.
    The Committee recognizes the importance of trade and 
investment opportunities to the Appalachian Region and is 
encouraged by the findings in a report that Appalachian firms 
could find significant trade and investment opportunities, 
particularly in the energy, high technology, and transportation 
sectors in the Republic of Turkey and the surrounding region. 
In this regard, the Committee supports the Appalachian-Turkish 
Trade Project [ATTP], a project to promote opportunities to 
expand trade, encourage business interests, stimulate foreign 
studies, and to build a lasting and mutually meaningful 
relationship between Appalachian States and the Republic of 
Turkey, as well as the neighboring regions, such as Greece. The 
Committee commends the ARC for its leadership role in helping 
to implement the mission of the ATTP. The Committee expects the 
ARC to continue to be a prominent ATTP sponsor.
    The Committee has included no earmarks in ARC funds. The 
Commission allocates its funds by formula to its member States, 
based primarily on need. Under the Commission's formula system, 
earmarks out of ARC's base funding could come at the expense of 
those States that have no earmarks. Accordingly, the Committee 
directs that any future earmarks in any State be taken from 
within that State's regular ARC allocation.

                Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006....................................     $21,812,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................      22,260,000
House allowance.........................................      22,260,000
Committee recommendation................................      22,260,000

    For fiscal year 2007, the Committee recommends $22,260,000, 
the same as the President's request, for the Defense Nuclear 
Facilities Safety Board. This Board is responsible for 
evaluating the implementation of standards for design, 
construction, operation, and decommissioning of the Department 
of Energy's defense nuclear facilities. Based on these 
evaluations, the Board makes specific recommendations to the 
Secretary of Energy to ensure that both public and employee 
heath and safety are protected.

                        Delta Regional Authority

Appropriations, 2006....................................     $11,880,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................       5,940,000
House allowance.........................................       5,940,000
Committee recommendation................................      12,000,000

    For the Delta Regional Authority, the Committee recommends 
$12,000,000, an increase of $6,060,000 from the budget request. 
The Delta Regional Authority was established to assist the 
eight State Mississippi Delta Region in obtaining basic 
infrastructure, transportation, skills training, and 
opportunities for economic development. The Government 
Accountability Office recently reported that the DRA has a 
commendable record in the percentage of funds spent in rural 
America, and the Committee recognizes the DRA's role in 
bettering this underserved area of the Nation.

                           Denali Commission

Appropriations, 2006....................................     $49,500,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................       2,536,000
House allowance.........................................       7,536,000
Committee recommendation................................      50,000,000

    The Denali Commission is a Federal-State partnership 
responsible for promoting infrastructure development, job 
training, and other economic development services in rural 
areas throughout Alaska. For fiscal year 2007, the Committee 
recommends $50,000,000, an increase of $47,464,000 above the 
requested level.

                     Nuclear Regulatory Commission

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006....................................    $727,032,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................     768,410,000
House allowance.........................................     808,410,000
Committee recommendation................................     808,410,000

                                REVENUES

Appropriations, 2006....................................   -$611,010,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................    -628,328,000
House allowance.........................................    -656,328,000
Committee recommendation................................     656,328,000

                           NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2006....................................    $116,022,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................     148,896,000
House allowance.........................................     152,082,000
Committee recommendation................................     152,082,000

    The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission for fiscal year 2007 is $808,410,000, an increase of 
$40,000,000 over the budget request. This amount is offset by 
estimated revenues of $656,328,000, resulting in a net 
appropriation of $152,082,000.
    The Committee provides an additional $38,000,000 to prepare 
for the anticipated growth in new reactor licensing. The 
additional funds are available to hire, relocate, and train 
additional staff, support pre-application activities not 
chargeable to a specific licensee, and build out, equip, and 
rent additional office space.
    The Committee also provides an additional $2,000,000 from 
the General Fund for the Commission to update its regulatory 
infrastructure for spent fuel recycling and keep pace with the 
Department of Energy's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership [GNEP] 
initiative. These funds are excluded from the Commission's fee 
recovery requirements.
    The Committee directs the Commission to continue to provide 
quarterly reports on the status of its licensing and other 
regulatory activities. The Committee further directs the 
Commission to include in these quarterly reports the status of 
actions and tasks that must be completed prior to and during 
the new reactor licensing application process.
    Within available funds provided new reactor licensing, the 
Committee directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to 
implement the Multinational Design Approval Process [MDAP]. The 
objective of the MDAP is to improve the effectiveness and 
efficiency of the regulatory design reviews of new nuclear 
power reactors and enhance surety, clarity, predictability and 
transparency by converging regulations, codes, and standards. 
The Committee believes that MDAP will help to enhance both 
national and international reactor safety.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                          GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2006....................................      $8,233,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................       8,144,000
House allowance.........................................       8,144,000
Committee recommendation................................       8,144,000

                                REVENUES

Appropriations, 2006....................................     -$7,410,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................      -7,330,000
House allowance.........................................      -7,330,000
Committee recommendation................................      -7,330,000

                           NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2006....................................        $823,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................         814,000
House allowance.........................................         814,000
Committee recommendation................................         814,000

                  Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

Appropriations, 2006....................................      $3,572,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................       3,670,000
House allowance.........................................       3,670,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,670,000
    The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board was established to 
evaluate the scientific and technical validity of the 
Department of Energy's nuclear waste disposal program. The 
Board reports its findings no fewer than two times a year to 
Congress and to the Secretary of Energy. For fiscal year 2007, 
the Committee recommends $3,670,000.

                       Tennessee Valley Authority

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                          GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2006....................................................
Budget estimate, 2007...................................     $15,100,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

              OFFSET FROM TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY FUND

Appropriations, 2006....................................................
Budget estimate, 2007...................................    -$15,100,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

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

                                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.
    Section 502. The provision addresses part 750 of title 23.
    Section 503. The provision addresses transfer authority 
under this act.
    Section 504. The provision addresses the submittal of 
budget justifications.
    Section 505. The bill includes a provision regarding the 
North and Middle Forks of the American River.

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

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

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

    Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on June 29, 2006, 
the Committee ordered reported, en bloc: H.R. 5427, making 
appropriations for Energy and Water for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, with an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute and an amendment to the title; 
H.R. 5522, making appropriations for the Department of State, 
foreign operations, and related programs for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, with an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute and an amendment to the 
title; H.R. 5386, making appropriations for the Department of 
the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, with an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute; and H.R. 5441, making 
appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, 
with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, with each bill 
subject to further amendment and each subject to the budget 
allocation, 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.

TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 19B--WATER RESOURCES PLANNING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SUBCHAPTER IV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 1962d-5a. Reimbursement to States

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

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SAN LUIS REY INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT, PUBLIC LAW 100-675

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

TITLE II--ALL AMERICAN CANAL LINING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 210. * * *

SEC. 211. ALL AMERICAN CANAL PROJECTS.

    (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon 
enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall without delay 
implement the All American Canal Lining Project identified as 
the preferred alternative in the Record of Decision dated July 
29, 1994, and as defined in the Allocation Agreement allocating 
water from the All American Canal Lining Project entered into 
as of October 10, 2003. If a State conducts a review or study 
of the implications of the All American Canal Lining Project as 
implemented, then upon request from the Governor of said State, 
the Commissioner of Reclamation shall cooperate, to the extent 
practicable, in such review or study: Provided, That in no 
event shall the review or study delay implementation of the All 
American Canal Lining Project.
    (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon 
enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall, pursuant to 
authority granted by the Act of January 21, 1927 (44 Stat. 1010 
et seq.), as amended by the Act of July 1, 1940 (54 Stat. 708), 
the Act of June 28, 1946 (60 Stat. 338), and the Act of May 1, 
1958 (72 Stat. 101), without delay proceed to design and 
provide for the construction, operation and maintenance of a 
regulated water storage facility, including all incidental 
works that are reasonably necessary to operate the storage 
facility, to provide additional storage capacity to reduce non-
storable flows on the Colorado River below Parker Dam. The 
storage facility shall be located near or on the All American 
Canal, including all incidental works.
    (c) The Treaty between the United States of America and the 
Republic of Mexico relating to Utilization of the Waters of the 
Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande, Treaty 
Series 994 (59 Stat. 1219), is the exclusive authority for 
identifying, considering, analyzing, or addressing impacts 
occurring outside the boundary of the United States of works 
constructed, acquired or used within the territorial limits of 
the United States.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

               TITLE II--GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS

SEC. 219. ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (f) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (71) * * *
            (72) Clark county, nevada.--$50,000,000 for 
        wastewater infrastructure, Clark County, Nevada.
            (73) Henderson, nevada.--$15,000,000 for wastewater 
        infrastructure, Henderson, Nevada.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 227. SHORE PROTECTION.

    (a) * * *

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

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    ``(e) Funding.--
            ``(1) Responsibility.--The cost of and 
        responsibility for operation and maintenance (excluding 
        monitoring) of a demonstration project under the 
        erosion control program shall be borne by non-Federal 
        interests on completion of construction of the 
        demonstration project.
            ``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is 
        authorized to be appropriated [$25,000,000] $40,000,000 
        to carry out this section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  OMNIBUS CONSOLIDATED AND EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
1999, PUBLIC LAW 105-277

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                       DIVISION C--OTHER MATTERS

TITLE I--OTHER MATTERS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

TITLE III--DENALI COMMISSION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 306. COMMISSION PERSONNEL MATTERS.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) Staff.--
            (1) In general.--The Federal Cochairperson of the 
        Commission may, without regard to the civil service 
        laws and regulations, appoint and terminate such 
        personnel as may be necessary to enable the Commission 
        to perform its duties.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 309. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
the Commission to carry out the duties of the Commission 
consistent with the purposes of this title and pursuant to the 
work plan approved under section 4 under this Act, $20,000,000 
for fiscal year 1999, and such sums as may be necessary for 
fiscal years [2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003] 2007, 2008, 2009, 
2010, and 2011.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 597. NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) Effect on Environmental Law.--Nothing in this section 
abrogates any requirement of any environmental law.

SEC. 598. DEVILS LAKE, NORTH DAKOTA.

    (a) Definition of Project.--In this section, the term 
``project'' means a project to provide a continued safe and 
reliable municipal water supply system for Devils Lake, North 
Dakota.
    (b) Project Cooperation Agreement.--
            (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the 
        Secretary shall enter into a project cooperation 
        agreement with the non-Federal interest to provide 
        assistance in designing and constructing the project.
            (2) Responsibility for design work.--At the option 
        of the non-Federal interest, the non-Federal interest 
        may complete the design work for the project.
            (3) NEPA.--The Secretary shall comply with all 
        applicable requirements under the National 
        Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
        seq.) before beginning construction on the project.
            (4) Requirements.--The project cooperation 
        agreement entered into under this subsection shall 
        provide for--
                    (A) the development by local officials of a 
                water supply project and related facilities, 
                and if the non-Federal interest elects to 
                complete the design work for the project, 
                appropriate engineering plans and 
                specifications; and
                    (B) the establishment of such legal and 
                institutional structures as are necessary to 
                ensure the effective long-term operation of the 
                project by the non-Federal interest.
            (5) Cost sharing.--
                    (A) In general.--The project cooperation 
                agreement shall provide that the Federal share 
                of the cost of the project--
                            (i) shall be 75 percent; and
                            (ii) may be in the form of grants 
                        or reimbursements of project costs.
                    (B) Credit for design and engineering 
                work.--The non-Federal interest shall receive 
                credit, not to exceed 6 percent of the total 
                construction costs of design and engineering 
                work completed by the non-Federal interest 
                before entering into a project cooperation 
                agreement with the Secretary under this 
                subsection for the project.
                    (C) Credit for land, easements, and rights-
                of-way.--The non-Federal interest shall receive 
                credit, not to exceed 25 percent of the total 
                cost of the project, for lands, easements, 
                rights-of-way, and relocations toward the non-
                Federal share of project costs (including all 
                reasonable costs associated with obtaining 
                permits necessary for the construction, 
                operation, and maintenance of the project on 
                publicly owned or controlled land).
                    (D) Operation and maintenance.--The non-
                Federal share of operation and maintenance 
                costs for the project shall be 100 percent.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

TITLE II

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

General Provisions

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [Sec. 209. Endangered Species Collaborative Program. (a) 
Using funds previously appropriated, the Secretary of the 
Interior, acting through the Commissioner of the Bureau of 
Reclamation and the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, 
for purposes of improving the efficiency and expediting the 
efforts of the Endangered Species Act Collaborative Program 
Workgroup, is directed to establish an executive committee of 
seven members consisting of--
            [(1) one member from the Bureau of Reclamation;
            [(2) one member from the Fish and Wildlife Service; 
        and
            [(3) one member at large representing each of the 
        following seven entities (selected at the discretion of 
        the entity in consultation with the Bureau of 
        Reclamation and the Fish and Wildlife Service) 
        currently participating as signatories to the existing 
        Memorandum of Understanding:
                    [(A) other Federal agencies;
                    [(B) State agencies;
                    [(C) municipalities;
                    [(D) universities and environmental groups;
                    [(E) agricultural communities;
                    [(F) Middle Rio Grande Pueblos (Sandia, 
                Isleta, San Felipe, Cochiti, Santa Ana, and 
                Santo Domingo); and
                    [(G) Middle Rio Grande Conservancy 
                District.
    [(b) Formation of this Committee shall not occur later than 
45 days after enactment of this Act.
    [(c) Fiscal year 2004 appropriations shall not be obligated 
or expended prior to approval of a detailed spending plan by 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
    [(d) The above section shall come into effect within 180 
days of enactment of this Act, unless the Bureau of 
Reclamation, in consultation with the above listed parties, has 
provided an alternative workgroup structure which has been 
approved by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                                TITLE I

                       CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Corps of Engineers--Civil

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

GENERAL PROVISIONS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [Sec. 106. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
requirements regarding the use of continuing contracts under 
the authority of section 206 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1999 (33 U.S.C. 2331) shall apply only to projects 
funded under the Operation and Maintenance account and the 
Operation and Maintenance subaccount of the Flood Control, 
Mississippi River and Tributaries account.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    Sec. 121. [(a) The Secretary of the Army may carry out and 
fund projects to comply with the 2003 Biological Opinion 
described in section 205(b) of the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447; 118 Stat. 2949) 
as amended by subsection (b) and may award grants and enter 
into contracts, cooperative agreements, or interagency 
agreements with participants in the Endangered Species Act 
Collaborative Program Workgroup referenced in section 209(a) of 
the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2004 
(Public Law 108- 137; 117 Stat. 1850) in order to carry out 
such projects. Any project undertaken under this subsection 
shall require a non-Federal cost share of 25 percent, which may 
be provided through in-kind services or direct cash 
contributions and which shall be credited on a programmatic 
basis instead of on a project-by-project basis, with 
reconciliation of total project costs and total non-Federal 
cost share calculated on a three year incremental basis. Non-
Federal cost share that exceeds that which is required in any 
calculated three year increment shall be credited to subsequent 
three year increments.] (a) The Secretary of the Army may carry 
out and fund planning studies, watershed surveys and 
assessments, or technical studies at 100 percent Federal 
expense to accomplish the purposes of the 2003 Biological 
Opinion described in section 205(b) of the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447; 118 
Stat. 2949) as amended by subsection (b). In carrying out a 
study, survey, or assessment under this subsection the 
Secretary shall consult with Federal, State, tribal and local 
governmental entities, as well as entities participating in the 
Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program 
referred to in section 205 of the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act, 2007. The Secretary may also provide 
planning and administrative assistance to the Middle Rio Grande 
Endangered Species Collaborative Program, which assistance 
shall not be subject to cost sharing requirements with non-
Federal interests.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

                                            BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
  PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
                                                     AMENDED
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Budget authority                 Outlays
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Committee     Amount  of     Committee     Amount  of
                                                        allocation \1\      bill     allocation \1\      bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee
 allocations to its subcommittees of budget totals for
 2007: Subcommittee on Energy and Water:
    Mandatory.........................................  ..............  ...........             NA         \1\ 5
    Discretionary.....................................         30,731        30,731             NA    \1\ 31,756
Projections of outlays associated with the
 recommendation:
    2007..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............   \2\ 19,132
    2008..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............        9,277
    2009..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............        2,117
    2010..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............          179
    2011 and future years.............................  ..............  ...........  ..............           81
Financial assistance to State and local governments                NA           120             NA            25
 for  2007............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 2006 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
                                                                        YEAR 2007
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Senate Committee recommendation compared with  (+
                                                                                                                             or -)
               Item                      2006       Budget estimate  House allowance     Committee    --------------------------------------------------
                                    appropriation                                      recommendation        2006
                                                                                                        appropriation   Budget estimate  House allowance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--

      DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

    Corps of Engineers--Civil

Investigations...................         162,360           94,000          128,000          168,517           +6,157          +74,517          +40,517
    Emergency appropriations               37,300   ...............  ...............  ...............         -37,300   ...............  ...............
     (Public Law 109-148)........
    Emergency appropriations                3,300   ...............  ...............  ...............          -3,300   ...............  ...............
     (Public Law 109-234)........
Construction.....................       2,348,280        1,555,000        1,947,171        2,042,429         -305,851         +487,429          +95,258
    Emergency appropriations              101,417   ...............  ...............  ...............        -101,417   ...............  ...............
     (Public Law 109-148)........
    Emergency appropriations              549,400   ...............  ...............  ...............        -549,400   ...............  ...............
     (Public Law 109-234)........
    Rescission...................  ...............  ...............         -56,046          -56,046          -56,046          -56,046   ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Sutbtotal, Construction....       2,999,097        1,555,000        1,891,125        1,986,383       -1,012,714         +431,383          +95,258

Flood control, Mississippi River          396,000          278,000          290,607          450,530          +54,530         +172,530         +159,923
 and tributaries, Arkansas,
 Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana,
 Mississippi, Missouri, and
 Tennessee.......................
    Emergency appropriations              153,750   ...............  ...............  ...............        -153,750   ...............  ...............
     (Public Law 109-148)........
Operations and Maintenance.......       1,969,110        2,258,000        2,195,471        2,030,000          +60,890         -228,000         -165,471
    Emergency appropriations              327,517   ...............  ...............  ...............        -327,517   ...............  ...............
     (Public Law 109-148)........
    Emergency appropriations                3,200   ...............  ...............  ...............          -3,200   ...............  ...............
     (Public Law 109-234)........
Regulatory program...............         158,400          173,000          173,000          168,000           +9,600           -5,000           -5,000
FUSRAP...........................         138,600          130,000          130,000          140,000           +1,400          +10,000          +10,000
Flood control and coastal          ...............          81,000           32,000           32,000          +32,000          -49,000   ...............
 emergencies.....................
    Emergency appropriations            2,277,965   ...............  ...............  ...............      -2,277,965   ...............  ...............
     (Public Law 109-148)........
    Emergency appropriations            3,145,024   ...............  ...............  ...............      -3,145,024   ...............  ...............
     (Public Law 109-234)........
General expenses.................         152,460          164,000          142,100          164,000          +11,540   ...............         +21,900
    Emergency appropriations                1,600   ...............  ...............  ...............          -1,600   ...............  ...............
     (Public Law 109-148)........
Office of Assistant Secretary of            3,960   ...............           1,500   ...............          -3,960   ...............          -1,500
 the Army (Civil Works)..........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, title I, Department       11,929,643        4,733,000        4,983,803        5,139,430       -6,790,213         +406,430         +155,627
       of Defense--Civil.........
          Appropriations.........      (5,329,170)      (4,733,000)      (4,983,803)      (5,139,430)       (-189,740)       (+406,430)       (+155,627)
          Emergency                    (6,600,473)  ...............  ...............  ...............     (-6,600,473)  ...............  ...............
           appropriations........
                                  ======================================================================================================================
   TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE
             INTERIOR

 Central Utah Project Completion
             Account

Central Utah project construction          31,351           37,587           37,587           37,587           +6,236   ...............  ...............
Fish, wildlife, and recreation                937              965              965              965              +28   ...............  ...............
 mitigation and conservation.....
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................          32,288           38,552           38,552           38,552           +6,264   ...............  ...............

Program oversight and                       1,719            1,603            1,603            1,603             -116   ...............  ...............
 administration..................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Central Utah project          34,007           40,155           40,155           40,155           +6,148   ...............  ...............
       completion account........

      Bureau of Reclamation

Water and related resources......         874,679          833,424          849,122          888,994          +14,315          +55,570          +39,872
    Rescission...................  ...............         -88,000          -88,000   ...............  ...............         +88,000          +88,000
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, water and related         874,679          745,424          761,122          888,994          +14,315         +143,570         +127,872
       resources.................

Central Valley project                     52,219           41,478           41,478           41,478          -10,741   ...............  ...............
 restoration fund................
California Bay-Delta restoration.          36,630           38,610           40,110           38,610           +1,980   ...............          -1,500
Policy and administration........          57,338           58,069           58,069           58,069             +731   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Bureau of                  1,020,866          883,581          900,779        1,027,151           +6,285         +143,570         +126,372
       Reclamation...............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      Total, title II, Department       1,054,873          923,736          940,934        1,067,306          +12,433         +143,570         +126,372
       of the Interior...........
                                  ======================================================================================================================
 TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Energy supply and conservation...       1,812,627        1,923,361        2,050,527        2,294,053         +481,426         +370,692         +243,526

Clean coal technology:
    Deferral of unobligated               257,000   ...............  ...............         257,000   ...............        +257,000         +257,000
     balances, fiscal year 2005..
    Deferral of unobligated              -257,000          257,000          257,000         -203,000          +54,000         -460,000         -460,000
     balances, fiscal year 2007..
    Rescission, uncommitted               -20,000         -203,000         -257,000          -50,000          -30,000         +153,000         +207,000
     balances....................
    Transfer to Fossil Energy R&D  ...............         -54,000   ...............         -54,000          -54,000   ...............         -54,000
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Clean coal                   -20,000   ...............  ...............         -50,000          -30,000          -50,000          -50,000
       technology................

Fossil Energy Research and                592,014          469,686          558,204          644,267          +52,253         +174,581          +86,063
 Development.....................
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale              21,285           18,810           18,810           39,810          +18,525          +21,000          +21,000
 Reserves........................
Elk Hills School Lands Fund......          83,160   ...............  ...............  ...............         -83,160   ...............  ...............
Strategic petroleum reserve......         164,340          155,430          155,430          155,430           -8,910   ...............  ...............
Northeast home heating oil         ...............           4,950            4,950            4,950           +4,950   ...............  ...............
 reserve.........................
Energy Information Administration          85,314           89,769           89,769           93,032           +7,718           +3,263           +3,263
Non-defense environmental clean           349,687          310,358          309,946          310,358          -39,329   ...............            +412
 up..............................
Uranium enrichment                        556,606          579,368          579,368          573,368          +16,762           -6,000           -6,000
 decontamination and
 decommissioning fund............
Science..........................       3,596,393        4,101,710        4,131,710        4,241,062         +644,669         +139,352         +109,352
Nuclear Waste Disposal...........         148,500          156,420          186,420          136,420          -12,080          -20,000          -50,000
Departmental administration......         250,289          278,382          225,582          281,382          +31,093           +3,000          +55,800
    Miscellaneous revenues.......        -121,770         -123,000         -123,000         -123,000           -1,230   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Net appropriation..........         128,519          155,382          102,582          158,382          +29,863           +3,000          +55,800

Office of the Inspector General..          41,580           45,507           45,507           45,507           +3,927   ...............  ...............

 Atomic Energy Defense Activities

National Nuclear Security
 Administration:
    Weapons activities...........       6,369,603        6,407,889        6,412,001        6,503,051         +133,448          +95,162          +91,050
    Defense nuclear                     1,614,839        1,726,213        1,620,901        1,572,654          -42,185         -153,559          -48,247
     nonproliferation............
    Naval reactors...............         781,605          795,133          795,133          795,133          +13,528   ...............  ...............
    Office of the Administrator..         338,450          386,576          399,576          386,576          +48,126   ...............         -13,000
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, National Nuclear        9,104,497        9,315,811        9,227,611        9,257,414         +152,917          -58,397          +29,803
       Security Administration...

Defense environmental cleanup....       6,130,448        5,390,312        5,551,812        5,479,070         -651,378          +88,758          -72,742
Other defense activities.........         635,577          717,788          720,788          731,788          +96,211          +14,000          +11,000
Defense nuclear waste disposal...         346,500          388,080          388,080          358,080          +11,580          -30,000          -30,000
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Atomic Energy             16,217,022       15,811,991       15,888,291       15,826,352         -390,670          +14,361          -61,939
       Defense Activities........
                                  ======================================================================================================================
 Power Marketing Administrations

Operation and maintenance,                 37,930           40,115           53,726           40,115           +2,185   ...............         -13,611
 Southeastern Power
 Administration..................
    Offsetting collection........         -32,386          -34,392          -48,003          -34,392           -2,006   ...............         +13,611
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, O&M, Southeastern           5,544            5,723            5,723            5,723             +179   ...............  ...............
       Power Administration......

Operation and maintenance,                 32,834           34,539           45,139           34,539           +1,705   ...............         -10,600
 Southwestern Power
 Administration..................
    Offsetting collection........          -2,970   ...............         -13,600   ...............          +2,970   ...............         +13,600
    Offsetting collection (Public  ...............          -3,000   ...............          -3,000           -3,000   ...............          -3,000
     Law106-377).................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, O&M, Southwestern          29,864           31,539           31,539           31,539           +1,675   ...............  ...............
       Power Administration......

Construction, rehabilitation,             511,982          490,770          688,511          490,770          -21,212   ...............        -197,741
 operation and maintenance,
 Western Area Power
 Administration..................
    Offsetting collection........        -276,210   ...............        -472,593   ...............        +276,210   ...............        +472,593
    Offsetting collection (Public          -4,120           -3,705           -3,705           -3,705             +415   ...............  ...............
     Law 98-381).................
    Offsetting collection (Public  ...............        -274,852   ...............        -274,852         -274,852   ...............        -274,852
     Law 106-377)................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, O&M, Western Area         231,652          212,213          212,213          212,213          -19,439   ...............  ...............
       Power Administration......

Falcon and Amistad operating and            2,665            2,500            2,500            2,500             -165   ...............  ...............
 maintenance fund................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Power Marketing              269,725          251,975          251,975          251,975          -17,750   ...............  ...............
       Administrations...........
                                  ======================================================================================================================
    Federal Energy Regulatory
            Commission

Salaries and expenses............         218,196          230,800          230,800          230,800          +12,604   ...............  ...............
Revenues applied.................        -218,196         -230,800         -230,800         -230,800          -12,604   ...............  ...............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      Total, title III,                24,046,772       24,074,717       24,373,489       24,724,966         +678,194         +650,249         +351,477
       Department of Energy......
          Appropriations.........     (24,031,132)     (24,277,717)     (24,630,489)     (24,774,966)       (+743,834)       (+497,249)       (+144,477)
          Advance appropriations          (35,640)  ...............  ...............  ...............        (-35,640)  ...............  ...............
           from previous years...
          Rescissions............        (-20,000)       (-203,000)       (-257,000)        (-50,000)        (-30,000)       (+153,000)       (+207,000)
                                  ======================================================================================================================
  TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Appalachian Regional Commission..          64,817           65,472           35,472           65,472             +655   ...............         +30,000
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety          21,812           22,260           22,260           22,260             +448   ...............  ...............
 Board...........................
Delta Regional Authority.........          11,880            5,940            5,940           12,000             +120           +6,060           +6,060
Denali Commission................          49,500            2,536            7,536           50,000             +500          +47,464          +42,464

Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
    Salaries and expenses........         727,032          768,410          808,410          808,410          +81,378          +40,000   ...............
    Revenues.....................        -611,010         -620,328         -656,328         -656,328          -45,318          -36,000   ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................         116,022          148,082          152,082          152,082          +36,060           +4,000   ...............

    Office of Inspector General..           8,233            8,144            8,144            8,144              -89   ...............  ...............
    Revenues.....................          -7,410           -7,330           -7,330           -7,330              +80   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................             823              814              814              814               -9   ...............  ...............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      Total, Nuclear Regulatory           116,845          148,896          152,896          152,896          +36,051           +4,000   ...............
       Commission................

Nuclear Waste Technical Review              3,572            3,670            3,670            3,670              +98   ...............  ...............
 Board...........................
Tennessee Valley Authority:        ...............          15,100   ...............          15,100          +15,100   ...............         +15,100
 Office of Inspector General.....
    Offset.......................  ...............         -15,100   ...............         -15,100          -15,100   ...............         -15,100
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      Total, title IV,                    268,426          248,774          227,774          306,298          +37,872          +57,524          +78,524
       Independent agencies......
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      Grand total................      37,299,714       29,980,227       30,526,000       31,238,000       -6,061,714       +1,257,773         +712,000
          Appropriations.........     (30,683,601)     (30,271,227)     (30,871,000)     (31,288,000)       (+604,399)     (+1,016,773)       (+417,000)
          Emergency                    (6,600,473)  ...............  ...............  ...............     (-6,600,473)  ...............  ...............
           appropriations........
          Rescission.............        (-20,000)       (-291,000)       (-345,000)        (-50,000)        (-30,000)       (+241,000)       (+295,000)
          Advance appropriations          (35,640)  ...............  ...............  ...............        (-35,640)  ...............  ...............
           from previous years...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


```