```

[Senate Report 107-39]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                        Calendar No. 79
107th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                     107-39

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

 
         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATION BILL, 2002

                                _______
                                

                 July 13, 2001.--Ordered to be printed

  Filed under authority of the order of the Senate of January 3, 2001

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                         [To accompany S. 1171]

    The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1171) 
making appropriations for energy and water development for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, 
favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.

Amount in new budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2002

Budget estimates considered by Senate................... $23,008,002,000
Amount of bill as reported to the Senate................  25,450,485,000
The bill as reported to the Senate--
    Above the budget estimate, 2002.....................   2,442,483,000
    Over enacted bill, 2001.............................   1,404,173,000
                    ========================================================
                      __________________________________________________

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                                TITLE I

Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army:
    Corps of Engineers--Civil:
                                                                   Page
        General investigations...................................     8
        Construction, general....................................    29
        Flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries.........    49
        Operation and maintenance, general.......................    54
        Regulatory program.......................................    76
        Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program..........    76
        General expenses.........................................    77

                                TITLE II

Department of the Interior:
    Central Utah project completion account......................    79
    Bureau of Reclamation: Water and related resources...........    79
    Bureau of Reclamation loan program account...................    91
    Central Valley project restoration fund......................    91
    California bay-delta ecosystem restoration...................    92
    Policy and administrative expenses...........................    93

                               TITLE III

Department of Energy:
    Energy Supply................................................    95
        Renewable energy resources...............................    95
        Nuclear energy programs..................................    99
        Environment, safety, and health..........................   102
        Energy support activities................................   102
    Environmental management (nondefense)........................   102
    Uranium facilities maintenance and remediation...............   103
    Nuclear waste fund...........................................   104
    Science......................................................   107
        High energy physics......................................   107
        Nuclear physics..........................................   108
        Biological and environmental research....................   108
        Basic energy sciences....................................   108
        Other energy research programs...........................   109
        Fusion energy sciences...................................   110
    Departmental administration..................................   110
        Miscellaneous revenues...................................   110
    Inspector General............................................   110
    Atomic energy defense activities:
        National Nuclear Security Administration:
            Weapon activities....................................   111
            Defense nuclear nonproliferation.....................   119
            Naval reactors.......................................   122
            Office of the Administrator..........................   122
        Other defense related activities:
            Defense environmental restoration and waste 
              management.........................................   122
            Defense facilities closure projects..................   127
            Defense environmental management privatization.......   128
            Other defense activities.............................   128
            Defense nuclear waste disposal.......................   133
    Power marketing administrations:
        Operations and maintenance, Southeastern Power 
          Administration.........................................   135
        Operations and maintenance, Southwestern Power 
          Administration.........................................   135
        Construction, rehabilitation, operations and maintenance, 
          Western Area Power Administration......................   135
    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.........................   136
    General provisions...........................................   157

                                TITLE IV

Independent Agencies:
    Appalachian Regional Commission..............................   159
    Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board......................   159
    Delta Regional Authority.....................................   160
    Denali Commission............................................   160
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission................................   160
        Office of Inspector General..............................   162
    Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.........................   162

                                TITLE V

General provisions...............................................   163
Compliance with paragraph 7, rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of 
  the 
  Senate.........................................................   164
Compliance with paragraph 7(c), rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules 
  of the 
  Senate.........................................................   164
Compliance with paragraph 12, rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of 
  the 
  Senate.........................................................   165
Budgetary impact statement.......................................   167
Additional views of Senator Larry E. Craig.......................   168

                                Purpose

    The purpose of this bill is to provide appropriations for 
the fiscal year 2002 beginning October 1, 2001, and ending 
September 30, 2002, for energy and water development, and for 
other related purposes. It supplies funds for water resources 
development programs and related activities of the Department 
of the Army, Civil Functions--U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' 
Civil Works Program in title I; for the Department of the 
Interior's Bureau of Reclamation in title II; for the 
Department of Energy's energy research activities (except for 
fossil fuel programs and certain conservation and regulatory 
functions), including environmental restoration and waste 
management, and atomic energy defense activities of the 
National Nuclear Security Administration in title III; and for 
related independent agencies and commissions, including the 
Appalachian Regional Commission, Delta Regional Authority, 
Denali Commission, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 
title IV.

                Summary of Estimates and Recommendations

    The fiscal year 2002 budget estimates for the bill total 
$23,008,002,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The 
recommendation of the Committee totals $25,450,485,000. This is 
$2,442,483,000 above the budget estimates and $1,404,173,000 
over the enacted appropriation for the current fiscal year.
    The bill, as recommended, is in compliance with the 
subcommittee allocation under section 302(b)(1) of the Budget 
Act.

                            Bill Highlights

                    atomic energy defense activities

    The amount recommended in the bill includes $15,088,547,000 
for atomic energy defense activities. Major programs and 
activities include:

Weapon activities.......................................  $6,062,891,000
Defense nuclear nonproliferation........................     880,500,000
Naval reactors..........................................     688,045,000
Other defense activities................................     564,168,000
Defense waste management and environmental restoration..   5,389,868,000
Defense facilities closure projects.....................   1,080,538,000
Defense environmental privatization.....................     157,537,000

                             energy supply

    The bill recommended by the Committee provides a total of 
$741,139,000 for energy research programs including:

Renewable energy resources..............................    $435,600,000
Nuclear energy..........................................     264,069,000

                  nondefense environmental management

    An appropriation of $228,553,000 is recommended for 
nondefense environmental management activities of the 
Department of Energy.

                                science

    The Committee recommendation also provides a net 
appropriation of $3,268,816,000 for general science and 
research activities in life sciences, high energy physics, and 
nuclear physics. Major programs are:

High energy physics research............................    $725,100,000
Nuclear physics.........................................     373,000,000
Basic energy sciences...................................   1,040,705,000
Biological and environmental R&D........................     490,000,000
Fusion energy sciences..................................     248,495,000
Other energy research...................................     391,516,000

               regulatory and other independent agencies

    Also recommended in the bill is $192,010,000 for various 
regulatory and independent agencies of the Federal Government. 
Major programs include:

Appalachian Regional Commission.........................     $66,290,000
Delta Regional Authority................................      20,000,000
Denali Commission.......................................      40,000,000
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission....................     181,155,000
Nuclear Regulatory Commission...........................     506,900,000

                      water resources development

Corps of Engineers:
    General Investigations..............................    $152,402,000
    Construction, General...............................   1,570,798,000
    Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries....     328,011,000
    Operation and Maintenance, General..................   1,833,263,000
    Regulatory Program..................................     128,000,000
    Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.....     140,000,000
    General Expenses....................................     153,000,000
Central Utah Project Completion Account.................      36,228,000
Bureau of Reclamation:
    Water and Related resources.........................     732,496,000
    Bureau of Reclamation Loan Program Account..........       7,495,000
    Central Valley Project Restoration Fund.............      55,039,000
    Policy and Administration...........................      52,968,000

    The Committee has recommended appropriations totaling 
approximately $5,050,000,000 for Federal water resource 
development programs. This includes projects and related 
activities of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--Civil and the 
Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of the Interior. The 
Federal water resource development program provides lasting 
benefits to the Nation in the area of flood control, municipal 
and industrial water supply, irrigation of agricultural lands, 
water conservation, commercial navigation, hydroelectric power, 
recreation, and fish and wildlife enhancement.
    Water is our Nation's most precious and valuable resource. 
It is evident that water supply in the near future will be as 
important, if not more so, than energy. There is only so much 
water available. Water cannot be manufactured. Our Nation 
cannot survive without water, and economic prosperity cannot 
occur without a plentiful supply.
    While many areas of the country suffer from severe 
shortages of water, others suffer from the other extreme--an 
excess of water which threatens both rural and urban areas with 
floods. Because water is a national asset, and because the 
availability and control of water affect and benefit all States 
and jurisdictions, the Federal Government has historically 
assumed much of the responsibility for financing of water 
resource development.
    The existing national water resource infrastructure in 
America is an impressive system of dams, locks, harbors, 
canals, irrigation systems, reservoirs, and recreation sites 
with a central purpose--to serve the public's needs.
    Our waterways and harbors are an essential part of our 
national transportation system--providing clean, efficient, and 
economical transportation of fuels for energy generation and 
agricultural production, and making possible residential and 
industrial development to provide homes and jobs for the 
American people.
    Reservoir projects provide hydroelectric power production 
and downstream flood protection, make available recreational 
opportunities for thousands of urban residents, enhance fish 
and wildlife habitat, and provide our communities and 
industries with abundant and clean water supplies which are 
essential not only to life itself, but also to help maintain a 
high standard of living for the American people.
    When projects are completed, they make enormous 
contributions to America. The benefits derived from completed 
projects, in many instances, vastly exceed those contemplated 
during project development. Flood control projects prevent an 
average $22,000,000,000 per year in damages, and U.S. ports and 
harbors annually handle about $600,000,000,000 in international 
cargo generating over $14,500,000,000 in tax revenues, nearly 
$515,000,000,000 in personal income, contributing 
$783,000,000,000 to the Nation's gross domestic product, and 
$1,600,000,000,000 in business sales.

                         subcommittee hearings

    The Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the 
Committee on Appropriations held four sessions in connection 
with the fiscal year 2002 appropriation bill. Witnesses 
included officials and representatives of the Federal agencies 
under the subcommittee's jurisdiction.
    In addition, the subcommittee received numerous statements 
and letters from Members of the U.S. Senate and House of 
Representatives, Governors, State and local officials and 
representatives, and hundreds of private citizens of all walks 
of life throughout the United States. Information, both for and 
against many items, was presented to the subcommittee. The 
recommendations for fiscal year 2002 therefore, have been 
developed after careful consideration of available data.

                         votes in the committee

    By a vote of 29 to 0 the Committee on July 12, 2001, 
recommended that the bill, as amended, be reported to the 
Senate.

                 TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

                              introduction

    In the past year, the Corps has received a considerable 
amount of criticism over the conduct of its studies. 
Whistleblower allegations and the findings of the Army's 
Inspector General, regarding the Corps' conduct of an ongoing 
study of the need to expand the navigation capacity of the 
upper Mississippi River and the Illinois Waterway, have been 
widely cited in the press. The Committee notes that the 
Inspector General found no criminal violations by any member of 
the Corps.
    The Committee is satisfied that the Corps has responded 
professionally to the issues raised and is taking the concerns 
with all due seriousness. The Committee believes that the Corps 
is a unique national resource for managing the competing 
concerns involved in the development and protection of national 
water resources and infrastructure and has faith in the 
ultimate Corps findings and recommendations arising from the 
various studies that the Corps is authorized and directed to 
undertake. The Committee commends the Corps for its 
responsiveness to the American people in developing needed 
flood control and navigation infrastructure while keeping a 
delicate balance with the concerns of the environment.
    The Committee remains concerned about the huge and 
increasing backlog of infrastructure development, maintenance, 
and repair over which the Corps has jurisdiction. The proposed 
budget causes the backlog of unconstructed projects to increase 
from $38,000,000,000 to $40,000,000,000 and ignores an 
accelerating critical maintenance backlog which nearly doubles 
from $450,000,000 to $864,000,000. This maintenance backlog 
will soon become entirely unmanageable under the weight of an 
aging and crumbling inventory.
    Even though the Administration has mounted an initiative to 
reduce the recreation infrastructure backlog for the Department 
of the Interior, the Corps' water recreation program, the 
Nation's largest, is left to deteriorate. Proposing no new 
study or construction starts, underfunding on-going projects, 
and providing minimal O&M funding for completed projects leads 
the Committee to believe that the budget preparation may have 
been influenced by those seeking to capitalize on the recent 
controversy surrounding the Corps. The situation that the 
proposed budget poses to the Nation's economy and quality of 
life leave the Committee no option but to step forward in 
support of these vital projects.
    The Committee recommendation for the Corps of Engineers 
totals $4,305,474,000. This is $405,474,000 above the budget 
request for fiscal year 2002, but is $235,591,000 below the 
appropriation for the current year.

                           budget constraints

    The budget allocation for non-Defense discretionary 
programs contained in the Energy and Water Development bill for 
fiscal year 2002 are constrained below what is necessary for a 
robust, balanced national water resources program. Faced with 
these budget realities, the Committee has had to make tough 
decisions and choices in the development of the Corps of 
Engineers' budget request for fiscal year 2002. However, while 
the budget resources for non-Defense discretionary programs 
have remained flat or have declined, the number of requests of 
the Committee continue to increase. This year the Committee 
received nearly 1,000 requests for funding for water projects 
within the Corps' Civil Works program. Many supported the 
funding level in the budget request, but a majority of the 
requests made of the Committee sought increases over the 
budgeted amounts or new items not contained in the President's 
budget for fiscal year 2002.
    To compound pressures on the budget this year, the 
Committee was faced with the recently enacted Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999 and 2000. Both acts authorized the 
construction of many new projects, extended credit and 
reimbursement authorities, and significantly expanded new 
missions and responsibilities of the Corps of Engineers into 
areas which historically have been a State and local 
responsibility. The best example of this is the environmental 
and other infrastructure authorities which the Committee 
estimates will cost over $1,200,000,000. It should also be 
pointed out that the backlog of authorized but unfunded 
projects is in excess of $40,000,000,000.

                   basis of committee recommendation

    Specifically, in development of the fiscal year 2002 
funding recommendation for the Corps of Engineers, the 
Committee is not able to include any new construction starts, 
and has recommended only a limited number of new study starts 
in an effort to restore balance to the water resource program 
of the Corps, and to address high priority requests made to the 
Committee. The limited resources available have been focused on 
on-going projects where the Corps has contractual commitments. 
While the Committee has not been able to fund all projects at 
the optimum level, it has endeavored to provide sufficient 
funding on each project to mitigate delays and increased costs, 
to the greatest extent possible, across the entire Corps' Civil 
Works program.
    Finally, the Committee received numerous requests to 
include project authorizations in the energy and water 
development appropriations bill. In an effort to support and 
honor congressional authorizing committees jurisdiction, the 
Committee has not included new project authorizations.

                         general investigations

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $160,584,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     130,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     152,402,000

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

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

                                 ALABAMA

    (N)ALABAMA RIVER BELOW CLAIBORNE LOCK AND DAM, AL                     2,617          890            300   ...........            300   ...........
   (SP)BALDWIN COUNTY SHORE PROTECTION, AL                                1,100          100            100   ...........            100   ...........
  (FDP)BALDWIN COUNTY WATERSHEDS, AL                                        750          234             50   ...........             50   ...........
    (N)BAYOU LA BATRE, AL                                                   600          100             50   ...........             50   ...........
    (N)BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL                            15,030          642            300   ...........  ..............  ...........
  (FDP)BREWTON AND EAST BREWTON, AL                                         750          100             50   ...........             50   ...........
  (SPE)CAHABA RIVER WATERSHED, AL                                         1,373          310            160   ...........            160   ...........
    (N)DOG RIVER, AL                                                      1,651        1,106            250   ...........            250   ...........
  (SPE)VILLAGE CREEK, JEFFERSON COUNTY (BIRMINGHAM WATERSHED)             1,463          680            250   ...........            250   ...........

                                  ALASKA

    (N)AKUTAN HARBOR, AK                                                  9,600  ...........  ..............          100  ..............          100
       ANIAK HARBOR, AK                                             ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
    (N)ANCHOR POINT HARBOR, AK                                              870          270             50   ...........             50   ...........
    (N)ANCHORAGE HARBOR DEEPENING, AK                                     1,188          290            100   ...........            500   ...........
  (FDP)BARROW COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION, AK                          1,140          212            100   ...........            250   ...........
    (E)CHANDALAR RIVER WATERSHED, VENETIE INDIAN, AK                        550          137             50   ...........             50   ...........
    (E)CHENA RIVER WATERSHED, AK                                            786          486            100   ...........            100           100
    (N)CRAIG HARBOR, AK                                                     600           75             50   ...........             50   ...........
    (N)DELONG MOUNTAIN HARBOR, AK                                         3,000        2,115            200   ...........            500   ...........
    (N)DOUGLAS HARBOR EXPANSION, AK                                       4,000           37  ..............          100  ..............          100
    (N)FALSE PASS HARBOR, AK                                              4,800          187  ..............          100  ..............          313
       FIRE ISLAND CAUSEWAY, AK                                     ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
    (N)HAINES HARBOR, AK                                                    315          150            150   ...........            165   ...........
    (E)HARDING LAKE WATERSHED, AK                                           350           50             50   ...........            100   ...........
       KENAI RIVER BLUFF EROSION, AK                                ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            500   ...........
    (N)KETCHIKAN HARBOR, AK                                                 560          150             50   ...........            100   ...........
    (N)KOTZEBUE SMALL BOAT HARBOR, AK                                       512          112             50   ...........            100   ...........
    (N)LITTLE DIOMEDE HARBOR, AK                                            900           56             50   ...........            150   ...........
    (N)MEKORYUK HARBOR, AK                                                  600           75             50   ...........            100   ...........
       MATANUSKA EROSION CONTROL, AK                                ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
    (N)PERRYVILLE HARBOR, AK                                                800           60             40   ...........            150   ...........
    (N)PORT LIONS HARBOR, AK                                                435          215             96   ...........            150   ...........
    (N)QUINHAGAK HARBOR, AK                                                 290           17             50   ...........             50   ...........
    (N)SAINT GEORGE NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, AK                             650          150             50   ...........            150   ...........
    (E)SHIP CREEK WATERSHED, AK                                             504          190             50   ...........             50           100
    (N)SITKA HARBOR, AK                                                     900           75             50   ...........            200   ...........
    (N)SKAGWAY HARBOR MODIFICATION, AK                                      500          161            138   ...........            138   ...........
       SKAGWAY RIVER FLOOD CONTROL, AK                              ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
    (N)UNALAKLEET HARBOR, AK                                                400           55             50   ...........             50   ...........
    (N)UNALASKA HARBOR, AK                                                9,000  ...........  ..............          226  ..............          226
    (N)VALDEZ HARBOR EXPANSION, AK                                       17,550  ...........  ..............          150  ..............          150
    (N)WHITTIER BREAKWATER, AK                                              527          127            150   ...........            150   ...........

                              AMERICAN SAMOA

    (N)TUTUILA HARBOR, AS                                                   430          206            124   ...........            124   ...........

                                 ARIZONA

       COLONIAS ALONG THE US-MEXICO BORDER, AZ                      ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........
  (FDP)GILA RIVER, NORTHEAST PHOENIX DRAINAGE AREA, AZ                    1,985        1,842            143   ...........            143   ...........
  (SPE)LITTLE COLORADO RIVER, AZ                                          1,724          249            100   ...........            100   ...........
    (E)PIMA COUNTY, AZ                                                    1,125          246            400   ...........            400   ...........
    (E)RILLITO RIVER, PIMA COUNTY, AZ                                       950          150            200   ...........            200   ...........
   (FC)RIO DE FLAG, FLAGSTAFF, AZ                                        18,200          281  ..............          230  ..............          230
    (E)RIO SALADO ESTE, AZ                                                  800          110            100   ...........            100   ...........
    (E)RIO SALADO OESTE, SALT RIVER, AZ                                     800          375            300   ...........            300   ...........
  (FDP)SANTA CRUZ RIVER, GRANT RD TO FT LOWELL RD, AZ                     1,350          390            100   ...........            100   ...........
    (E)SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, AZ                        1,115          516            300   ...........            300   ...........
    (E)TRES RIOS, AZ                                                     62,800          543  ..............          270  ..............          270
   (FC)TUCSON DRAINAGE AREA, AZ                                          19,400        1,199  ..............          208  ..............          208
    (E)VA SHLY-AY AKIMEL SALT RIVER RESTORATION PROJECT, AZ               2,100           75            100   ...........            100   ...........

                                 ARKANSAS

   (FC)ARKANSAS RIVER LEVEES, AR                                         10,000        1,135  ..............          187  ..............          187
    (N)ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION STUDY, AR AND OK                         5,830        1,841          1,200   ...........          1,200   ...........
   (FC)MAY BRANCH, FORT SMITH, AR                                        19,500  ...........  ..............          200  ..............          200
   (FC)NORTH LITTLE ROCK, DARK HOLLOW, AR                                19,500          625  ..............          400  ..............          500
       PINE MOUNTAIN DAM, AR                                        ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............          200
       RED RIVER WATERWAY, AR, LA, OK, TX                           ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
    (N)RED RIVER NAVIGATION STUDY, SOUTHWEST ARKANSAS, AR                 3,355        2,457            450   ...........            500   ...........
  (COM)WHITE RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, AR AND MO                         2,000          375            581   ...........            581   ...........
    (E)WHITE RIVER MINIMUM FLOWS, AR                                        850          637            213   ...........            363   ...........
       WHITE RIVER NAVIGATION, AR                                   ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            169   ...........

                                CALIFORNIA

    (E)ALISO CREEK MAINSTEM, CA                                           1,100          200             50   ...........            200   ...........
   (FC)AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CA                                     329,300       21,650  ..............        2,000  ..............        2,600
   (FC)ARROYO PASAJERO, CA                                              159,600  ...........  ..............           20  ..............           20
  (FDP)ARROYO PASAJERO, CA                                                5,565        5,247            318   ...........            480   ...........
       ARROYO SECO WATERSHED, CA                                    ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........
    (E)BOLINAS LAGOON ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA                          11,250           50  ..............          300  ..............          750
       COYOTE DAM, CA                                               ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
       CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CA                                   ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
       CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CA                                    ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........
  (FDP)CITY OF WESTMINSTER FLOOD CONTROL DRAINAGE STUDY, CA               1,100           75            100   ...........  ..............  ...........
       COAST OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA                  ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            400   ...........
       GRAYSON AND MURDERER'S CREEK, WALNUT CREEK, CA               ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
       HUNTINGTON BEACH COASTAL BLUFF EROSION, CA                   ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............          400
    (E)LAGUNA DE SANTA ROSA, CA                                           1,975          350            200   ...........            200   ...........
   (FC)LLAGAS CREEK, CA                                                  19,000          990  ..............          250  ..............          250
  (SPE)LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA                                             1,100          200            200   ...........            350   ...........
    (N)LOS ANGELES HARBOR MAIN CHANNEL DEEPENING, CA                     60,000          750  ..............          600  ..............        2,600
  (SPE)LOS ANGELES RIVER WATERCOURSE IMPROVEMENT, CA                        950          850            100   ...........            100   ...........
   (FC)LOWER MISSION CREEK, CA                                           10,000           68  ..............          150  ..............          150
    (E)MALIBU CREEK WATERSHED, CA                                         1,150          304            200   ...........            200   ...........
  (FDP)MARIN COUNTY SHORELINE, SAN CLEMENTE CREEK, CA                     1,350        1,275             50   ...........            250   ...........
    (N)MARINA DEL REY AND BALLONA CREEK, CA                               3,075        2,045            169   ...........            400   ...........
  (SPE)MATILIJA DAM, CA                                                   2,000          200            400   ...........            523   ...........
    (E)MIDDLE CREEK, CA                                                  16,250  ...........  ..............          300  ..............          300
  (SPE)MOJAVE RIVER FORKS DAM, CA                                         1,135          285            200   ...........            200   ...........
    (E)MORRO BAY ESTUARY, CA                                                900          300            150   ...........            300   ...........
    (E)MUGU LAGOON, CA                                                      700          450            250   ...........            250   ...........
   (FC)MURRIETA CREEK, CA                                                25,600          748  ..............          250  ..............          500
  (FDP)N CA STREAMS, DRY CREEK, MIDDLETOWN, CA                              410          157            150   ...........            150   ...........
  (FDP)N CA STREAMS, LOWER CACHE CRK, YOLO CNTY, WOODLAND AND V           1,961        1,393            568   ...........            568           100
    (E)N CA STREAMS, LOWER SACRAMENTO RVR RIPARIAN REVEGETATI             1,970        1,022            100   ...........            100   ...........
    (E)NAPA RIVER, SALT MARSH RESTORATION, CA                             1,777        1,202            300   ...........            300   ...........
    (E)NAPA VALLEY WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, CA                               2,850          200            250   ...........            250   ...........
    (E)NEWPORT BAY HARBOR, CA                                            21,109          257  ..............          280  ..............          500
       NEWPORT BAY (LA--3 SITE DESIGNATION STUDY), CA               ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            300   ...........
    (E)NEWPORT BAY/SAN DIEGO CREEK WATERSHED, CA                          1,220          618            300   ...........            300   ...........
    (E)ORANGE COUNTY, SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA                           1,200          184            200   ...........            200   ...........
       ORANGE COUNTY COAST BEACH EROSION, CA                        ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            400   ...........
       ORANGE COUNTY SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN, CA               ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            139   ...........
   (FC)PAJARO RIVER AT WATSONVILLE, CA                                    9,300        3,469  ..............          750  ..............          750
    (E)PAJARO RIVER BASIN STUDY, CA                                       1,100          100             50   ...........             50   ...........
       PENINSULA BEACH CITY OF LONG BEACH), CA                      ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
    (E)PINE FLAT DAM, FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION,             22,000  ...........  ..............          400  ..............          400
       PORT OF STOCKTON, CA                                         ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            200   ...........
  (FDP)POSO CREEK, CA                                                     1,450          250            200   ...........            200   ...........
   (FC)RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA                                           17,836  ...........  ..............          100  ..............          100
       REGIONAL CONSERVATION/CONJUNCTIVE USE PROJECT, CA            ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........
       RIVERSIDE COUNTY SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN, CA            ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........          1,000   ...........
       ROCK CREEK-KEEFER SLOUGH, CA                                 ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............          200
    (E)RUSSIAN RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA                            3,677          662            300   ...........            300   ...........
  (SPE)SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA, CA                                   5,940        5,354            300   ...........            300   ...........
    (E)SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN COMPREHENSIVE BASIN STUDY,             19,500       13,396          4,479   ...........          5,000   ...........
  (FDP)SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA                                          1,125          175            200   ...........            200   ...........
   (SP)SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE, CA                                           950          250            100   ...........            100   ...........
       SAN DIEGO COUNTY SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN, CA            ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            500   ...........
       SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHORELINE, CA                               ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........          1,000   ...........
    (N)SAN FRANCISCO BAY, CA                                              1,990          821            300   ...........            300   ...........
       SAN GABRIEL RIVER TO NEWPORT BAY, CA                         ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........
  (FDP)SAN JACINTO RIVER, CA                                              1,000          110            300   ...........            300   ...........
   (FC)SAN JOAQUIN R BASIN, STOCKTON METRO AREA, FARMINGTON D             9,750  ...........  ..............          200  ..............          200
    (E)SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, CONSUMNES AND MOKELUMNE RIVERS,           1,175          150            350   ...........            350   ...........
  (FDP)SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, FRAZIER CREEK, CA                         1,600          100             25   ...........            100   ...........
   (FC)SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, STOCKTON METROPOLITAN AREA, C       ...........  ...........  ..............          100  ..............          100
  (FDP)SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, STOCKTON METROPOLITAN AREA, C             1,611        1,561             50   ...........             50   ...........
  (FDP)SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, TUOLUMNE RIVER, CA                        1,600          125            200   ...........            350   ...........
  (FDP)SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, WEST STANISLAUS COUNTY, CA                  847          687            160   ...........            300   ...........
  (FDP)SAN JUAN CREEK, SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY, CA                            1,100           50            100   ...........            100   ...........
  (FDP)SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA                                                  875          150            100   ...........            100   ...........
    (E)SAN PABLO BAY WATERSHED, CA                                        2,800          938            300   ...........            300   ...........
       SANTA ANA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, BIG BEAR LAKE, CA           ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........
       SANTA BARBARA AND VENTURA COUNTY SHORELINE, CA               ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
    (E)SANTA ROSA CREEK WATERSHED, CA                                     1,216          656            300   ...........            300   ...........
    (E)SANTA YNEZ RIVER, CA                                                 600           75            100   ...........            100   ...........
       SOLONO BEACH-ENCINITAS, CA                                   ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            500   ...........
    (E)SONOMA CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, CA                                   2,350          300            300   ...........  ..............  ...........
   (FC)SOUTH SACRAMENTO COUNTY STREAMS, CA                               46,100        2,813  ..............          100  ..............          100
  (FDP)STRONG AND CHICKEN RANCH SLOUGHS, CA                                 467          392             75   ...........             75   ...........
  (FDP)SUTTER COUNTY, CA                                                  1,308          307            300   ...........            300   ...........
  (SPE)TIJUANA RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, CA                        1,250          250            200   ...........            200   ...........
   (FC)TULE RIVER, CA                                                    14,000          355  ..............          400  ..............          400
   (FC)UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER, CA                                         55,000        1,666  ..............          300  ..............          300
  (FDP)UPPER PENITENCIA CREEK, CA                                         1,845          986            300   ...........            400   ...........
    (E)UPPER SANTA ANA RIVER WATERSHED, CA                                3,400          160            200   ...........            200   ...........
    (N)VENTURA HARBOR SAND BYPASS, CA                                     1,300          497            250   ...........            400   ...........
       WESTMINSTER, CA                                              ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            300   ...........
   (FC)WESTSIDE TRIBUTARIES TO YOLO BYPASS, CA                      ...........  ...........  ..............           50  ..............           50
  (FDP)WHITE RIVER AND DEER CREEK, CA                                       650           50             25   ...........             25   ...........
       WHITEWATER RIVER BASIN, CA                                   ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............          500
   (FC)YUBA RIVER BASIN, CA                                              19,500          570  ..............          780  ..............          780

                                 COLORADO

  (RCP)CHATFIELD, CHERRY CREEK AND BEAR CREEK RESERVOIRS, CO              1,350          773            250   ...........            250   ...........
       FOUNTAIN CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, CO                                 2,100          100  ..............  ...........            175   ...........
    (E)ZUNI AND SUN VALLEY REACHES, SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, CO                  719          162            200   ...........            400   ...........
       COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS
    (N)ROTA HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, CNMI                                      800  ...........             25   ...........             25   ...........
    (N)TINIAN HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, CNMI                                    800  ...........             25   ...........             25   ...........

                                 DELAWARE

       CHRISTINA RIVER WATERSHEAD, DE                               ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........

                                 DELAWARE

       COAST FROM CAPE HENLOPEN TO FENWICK ISLAND                   ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............          200

                                 FLORIDA

  (FDP)BISCAYNE BAY, FL                                                   3,420        1,360            240   ...........            240   ...........
       EGMONT KEY SHORELINE, FL                                     ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........
       ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FL                                         ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
  (FDP)HILLSBOROUGH RIVER, FL                                             1,443          185            300   ...........            375   ...........
    (N)LAKE WORTH INLET, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL                              600          146            100   ...........            100   ...........
    (N)PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL                                         6,500  ...........  ..............          300  ..............          300
  (FDP)WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER, FL                                            1,565          185            300   ...........            300   ...........

                                 GEORGIA

    (E)ALLATOONA LAKE, GA                                                   926          358            300   ...........            300   ...........
    (E)ARABIA MOUNTAIN, GA                                                1,100           75             60   ...........             60   ...........
  (FDP)AUGUSTA, GA                                                        1,700          793            252   ...........            252   ...........
    (E)INDIAN, SUGAR, ENTRENCHMENT AND FEDERAL PRISON CREEKS,             1,130          130            100   ...........            100   ...........
    (E)LONG ISLAND, MARSH AND JOHNS CREEKS, GA                            1,100          100            100   ...........            100   ...........
  (FDP)LUBBUB CREEK, GA                                                     600          100             50   ...........             50   ...........
    (E)METRO ATLANTA WATERSHED, GA                                        2,230        2,005            175   ...........            175   ...........
       NEW SAVANNAH BLUFF LOCK AND DAM, GA                          ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............          200
    (E)SAVANNAH HARBOR ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, GA                          1,690          855            350   ...........            350   ...........
    (N)SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA                                    144,302          415  ..............          400  ..............          540
  (COM)SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, GA AND SC                      2,548          925            230   ...........            230   ...........
    (E)UTOY, SANDY AND PROCTOR CREEKS, GA                                 1,100          100            150   ...........            150   ...........

                                  HAWAII

    (E)ALA WAI CANAL, OAHU, HI                                              925          230            350   ...........            350   ...........
    (N)BARBERS POINT HARBOR MODIFICATION, OAHU, HI                       23,200          130  ..............          100  ..............          100
    (N)HONOLULU HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, OAHU, HI                              750          568            101   ...........            101   ...........
    (E)KAHUKU, HI                                                           500          100             50   ...........             50   ...........
    (N)KAWAIHAE DEEP DRAFT HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, HAWAII, HI                 900          130            225   ...........            225   ...........
   (SP)KIHEI AREA EROSION, HI                                               600          100             50   ...........            160   ...........
       NAWILIWILI HARBOR, KAUAI, HI                                 ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
   (SP)WAIKIKI EROSION CONTROL, HI                                  ...........  ...........  ..............           50  ..............          350
       WAILUPE STREAM FLOOD CONTROL, OAHU, HI                       ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............          100

                                  IDAHO

  (FDP)BOISE RIVER, BOISE, ID                                               800          100             50   ...........             50   ...........
  (FDP)GOOSE CREEK, OAKLEY, ID                                              800           75            150   ...........            150   ...........
  (FDP)KOOTENAI RIVER AT BONNERS FERRY, ID                                  759          259             50   ...........             50   ...........
  (FDP)LITTLE WOOD RIVER, GOODING, ID                                       473          217            256   ...........            256   ...........
  (FDP)PAYETTE AND SNAKE RIVER, ID                                          800           75            150   ...........            150   ...........

                                 ILLINOIS

  (FDP)ALEXANDER AND PULASKI COUNTIES, IL                                 1,712        1,534            130   ...........            130   ...........
  (FDP)DES PLAINES RIVER, IL (PHASE II)                                   3,000          562            400   ...........            400   ...........
       ILLINOIS BEACH STATE PARK (INTERIM 1), IL                    ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........
       ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION, IL                         ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........
    (E)ILLINOIS RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, IL                           2,725          652            825   ...........            825   ...........
  (FDP)KANKAKEE RIVER BASIN, IL AND IN                                    1,770        1,593            177   ...........            177   ...........
  (SPE)PEORIA RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, IL                                  1,090          779            311   ...........            311   ...........
    (E)PEORIA RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, IL                            ...........  ...........  ..............          415  ..............          415
    (E)ROCK RIVER, IL AND WI                                              1,555          683            300   ...........            300   ...........
  (RCP)UPPER MISS AND ILLINOIS NAV STUDY, IL, IA, MN, MO AND WI          62,767       59,043          3,724   ...........          3,724   ...........
       UPPER MISS RIVER COMPREHENSIVE STUDY, IL                     ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            500   ...........
  (SPE)UPPER MISS RVR SYS FLOW FREQUENCY STUDY, IL, IA, MN, M             8,191        6,419          1,200   ...........          1,200   ...........
    (N)WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL                                               12,302          215  ..............          160  ..............          160
   (FC)WOOD RIVER LEVEE, IL                                              18,750          405  ..............          341  ..............          341

                                 INDIANA

  (SPE)INDIANA HARBOR, IN                                                 3,100          475            250   ...........            500   ...........
    (N)JOHN T MYERS LOCKS AND DAM, IN AND KY                            225,000        2,312  ..............        2,100  ..............        2,100
       LONG LAKE, IN                                                ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
    (E)WOLF LAKE, IN AND IL                                                 550          100            100   ...........  ..............  ...........

                                   IOWA

  (FDP)DES MOINES AND RACCOON RIVERS, IA                                  1,620          889            450   ...........            450   ...........
       FORT DODGE, IA                                               ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........
       LOWER DES MOINES RIVER, IA AND MO                            ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........

                                  KANSAS

  (RCP)TOPEKA, KS                                                         1,287        1,020            133   ...........            133   ...........
   (FC)TURKEY CREEK BASIN, KS AND MO                                     25,600        1,163  ..............          122  ..............          400
  (FDP)UPPER TURKEY CREEK, KS                                               650           75            150   ...........            250   ...........
    (E)WALNUT AND WHITEWATER RIVER WATERSHEDS, KS                           545          186            200   ...........            200   ...........

                                 KENTUCKY

    (N)GREENUP LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, KY AND OH                     241,300        1,322  ..............        2,372  ..............        2,372
  (FDP)LICKING RIVER, CYNTHIANA, KY                                         850          598            252   ...........            252   ...........
    (E)METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, JEFFERSON COUNTY, KY                        850          175            325   ...........            325   ...........
  (FDP)METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, MILL CREEK BASIN, KY                        850          326            264   ...........            264   ...........
  (FDP)METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, SOUTHWEST, KY                             1,784        1,474            200   ...........            200   ...........
       NORTH FORK LICKING RIVER, KY                                 ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........
    (N)OHIO RIVER MAIN STEM SYSTEMS STUDY, KY, IL, IN, PA, WV            45,300       43,356          1,500   ...........          1,500   ...........

                                LOUISIANA

    (E)AMITE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA              2,100          300            300   ...........            300   ...........
  (FDP)ASCENSION PARISH, LA                                               2,275          200            100   ...........            300   ...........
    (N)ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF AND BLACK, L             1,750          250            100   ...........            300   ...........
    (N)BAYOU SORREL LOCK, LA                                             82,400  ...........  ..............          300  ..............          300
    (N)CALCASIEU LOCK, LA                                                 3,190          532            400   ...........            500   ...........
  (FDP)CALCASIEU RIVER BASIN, LA                                          2,100          400            200   ...........            300   ...........
       GULF INTERCOASTAL WATERWAY, BANK STABILIZATION AND           ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
        ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA
  (FDP)HURRICANE PROTECTION, LA                                           4,500          100            100   ...........            300   ...........
   (FC)JEFFERSON PARISH, LA                                              39,000           68  ..............           50  ..............           50
   (FC)LAFAYETTE PARISH, LA                                              52,000  ...........  ..............          400  ..............          400
    (E)LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA                  17,500        3,174          1,072   ...........          1,072   ...........
   (FC)ORLEANS PARISH, LA                                                61,800  ...........  ..............           50  ..............           50
       OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, LA AND AR                         ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
  (FDP)PLAQUEMINES PARISH URBAN FLOOD CONTROL, LA                         2,100          100            100   ...........            300   ...........
       PORT OF IBERIA, LA                                           ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
  (FDP)ST BERNARD PARISH URBAN FLOOD CONTROL, LA                          1,710          475            300   ...........            400   ...........
  (FDP)ST CHARLES PARISH URBAN FLOOD CONTROL, LA                          2,200          100            100   ...........            300   ...........
       ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH, LA                              ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
       WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LA                                  ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........
  (FDP)WEST SHORE, LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN, LA                                 1,850        1,653            197   ...........            197   ...........

                                 MARYLAND

    (E)ANACOSTIA RIVER FEDERAL WATERSHED IMPACT ASSESSMENT, M             3,000        2,542            458   ...........            458   ...........
  (FDP)ANACOSTIA RIVER, PG COUNTY LEVEE, MD AND DC                        1,453        1,134            240   ...........            240   ...........
    (E)BALTIMORE METRO, GWYNNS FALLS, MD                                  4,953  ...........  ..............           50  ..............           50
   (FC)CUMBERLAND, MD                                                     9,750          525  ..............          175  ..............          175
    (E)EASTERN SHORE, MD                                                  1,250          296            250   ...........            250   ...........
    (E)LOWER POTOMAC ESTUARY WATERSHED, MATTAWOMAN, MD                      460          323             87   ...........             87   ...........
    (E)LOWER POTOMAC ESTUARY WATERSHED, ST MARY'S, MD                       680          267            190   ...........            190   ...........
    (E)SMITH ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, MD                         5,655           75  ..............          300  ..............          300

                              MASSACHUSETTS

    (E)BLACKSTONE RIVER WATERSHED RESTORATION, MA AND RI                  1,797        1,050            100   ...........            100   ...........
    (N)BOSTON HARBOR, MA (45-FOOT CHANNEL)                                1,786          236            300   ...........            300   ...........
    (E)COASTAL MASSACHUSETTS ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, MA                      600          100            100   ...........            100   ...........
   (FC)MUDDY RIVER, BROOKLINE AND BOSTON, MA                             32,500          375  ..............          330  ..............          600
    (E)SOMERSET AND SEARSBURG DAMS, DEERFIELD RIVER, MA AND VT              369          166            100   ...........            100   ...........

                                 MICHIGAN

       BELLE ISLAND SHORELINE, DETROIT, MI                          ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            150   ...........
       CASS RIVER, VASSAR, MI                                       ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........
       DETROIT RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, MI                     ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            200   ...........
       DETROIT RIVER MASTER PLAN, MI                                        200          100  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
    (N)GREAT LAKES NAV SYST STUDY, MI, IL, IN, MN, NY, OH, PA             1,000          499            501   ...........            501   ...........
       ROUGE RIVER WATERSHED, MI                                    ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........
    (N)SAULT STE MARIE (REPLACEMENT LOCK), MI                           130,600        2,602  ..............        1,530  ..............        1,530
       ST CLAIR RIVER AND LAKE ST CLAIR, MI                                 400          200  ..............  ...........            200   ...........

                                MINNESOTA

    (E)LOWER ST ANTHONY FALLS RAPIDS RESTORATION, MN                ...........          900  ..............          100  ..............          100
    (E)RED RIVER OF THE NORTH BASIN, MN, ND, SD AND MANITOBA, C           8,210          200            500   ...........            500   ...........
    (E)UPPER MISS RIVER WATERSHED MGMT, LAKE ITASCA TO L/D 2,             3,105          337            200   ...........            200   ...........

                               MISSISSIPPI

       HANCOCK COUNTY, MS                                           ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........

                                 MISSOURI

   (FC)CHESTERFIELD, MO                                                  37,759          134  ..............          605  ..............          605
    (N)HANNIBAL HARBOR, MO                                                  400           75            175   ...........            175   ...........
  (FDP)KANSAS CITYS, MO AND KS                                            3,750        1,272            580   ...........            900   ...........
  (RCP)MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, UNITS L455 AND R460-471, MO           1,570        1,214            180   ...........            180   ...........
       NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO                                        ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........
   (FC)RIVER DES PERES, MO                                               17,400        1,255  ..............          242  ..............          242
   (FC)ST LOUIS FLOOD PROTECTION, MO                                      6,000          589  ..............           98  ..............           98
    (N)ST LOUIS HARBOR, MO AND IL                                        15,524        3,410  ..............          284  ..............          284
       ST LOUIS RIVERFRONT, MO AND IL                               ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
   (FC)SWOPE PARK INDUSTRIAL AREA, KANSAS CITY, MO                        6,500           38  ..............          150  ..............          150
       WEARS CREEK, JEFFERSON, MO                                   ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........

                                 MONTANA

   (FC)LOWER YELLOWSTONE RIVER DIVERSION DAM, MT                          6,500           75  ..............           25  ..............           25
  (COM)YELLOWSTONE RIVER CORRIDOR, MT                                     2,175          200            325   ...........            325   ...........

                                 NEBRASKA

   (FC)ANTELOPE CREEK, LINCOLN, NE                                        1,014          614  ..............          400  ..............          400
  (FDP)LOWER PLATTE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NE                             2,481        2,045            350   ...........            350   ...........
       LOWER PLATTE RIVER WATERSHED, NE                             ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........
       SAND CREEK WATERSHED, WAHOO, NE                                   17,586          469  ..............          656  ..............          656
   (FC)WESTERN SARPY AND CLEAR CREEK, NE                                    591          100  ..............           90  ..............          590

                                  NEVADA

       LAS VEGAS WASH, NORTH LAS VEGAS, NV                          ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
    (E)LOWER LAS VEGAS WASH WETLANDS, NV                                  1,800        1,475             50   ...........            725   ...........
   (FC)TRUCKEE MEADOWS, NV                                               39,200        7,124  ..............          500  ..............          500
    (E)WALKER RIVER BASIN, NV                                             1,325          350            200   ...........            200   ...........

                              NEW HAMPSHIRE

       CONNECTICUT RIVER ECO SYSTEM RESTORATION, NH AND VT          ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
  (COM)MERRIMACK RIVER BASIN, NH                                          3,850          374            300   ...........            500   ...........

                                NEW JERSEY

    (E)BARNEGAT BAY, NJ                                                   6,000           50  ..............          300  ..............          300
   (SP)BARNEGAT INLET TO LITTLE EGG HARBOR, NJ                          353,000          573  ..............          263  ..............          263
       GOFFLE BROOK, BOROUGH OF HAWTHORNE, NJ                       ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........
   (SP)GREAT EGG INLET TO TOWNSEND INLET, NJ                             13,600          112  ..............           69  ..............          150
    (E)HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, LOWER PASSAIC RIVER, NJ                    2,500           81            200   ...........            200   ...........
    (E)LOWER PASSAIC RIVER, NJ                                            2,600          100             75   ...........            200   ...........
   (SP)MANASQUAN INLET TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ                             10,350          112  ..............           68  ..............          200
    (E)NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, ENV RESTORATION, NJ              6,000  ...........  ..............          150  ..............          150
       NEW JERSEY SHORE PROTECTION, HERFORD/CAPE MAY INLET          ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            200   ...........
       NEW JERSEY SHORELINE ALTERNATIVE LONG-TERM NOURISHMENT       ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........
   (FC)PASSAIC RIVER, HARRISON, NJ                                  ...........          525  ..............          100  ..............          200
  (FDP)RAHWAY RIVER BASIN, NJ                                             4,260          198            100   ...........            230   ...........
   (SP)RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, HIGHLANDS, NJ                      1,750           86             50   ...........            300   ...........
       RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, KEYPORT, NJ                  ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            350   ...........
   (SP)RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, LEONARDO, NJ                       1,375          632            250   ...........            450   ...........
   (SP)RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, PORT MONMOUTH, NJ                 18,900          272  ..............          100  ..............          300
   (SP)RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, UNION BEACH, NJ                    1,919        1,875             44   ...........             44           150
  (FDP)SHREWSBURY RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NJ                               1,500          190             50   ...........            250   ...........
   (FC)SOUTH RIVER, RARITAN RIVER BASIN, NJ                         ...........  ...........  ..............          100  ..............          200
    (E)STONY BROOK, MILLSTONE RIVER BASIN, NJ                             1,500          190            100   ...........            250   ...........
  (FDP)UPPER PASSAIC RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NJ                              750          581            169   ...........            169   ...........
  (FDP)UPPER ROCKAWAY RIVER, NJ                                           1,400          581            200   ...........            200   ...........
  (FDP)WOODBRIDGE RIVER BASIN, NJ                                         1,330          198            100   ...........            250   ...........

                                NEW MEXICO

       NAVAJO NATION, NM, AZ AND VT                                 ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
  (COM)RIO GRANDE BASIN, NM, CO AND TX                                    2,000          450            300   ...........            300   ...........
       SANTA FE, NM                                                 ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
       SW VALLEY FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION STUDY, NM                   ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            300   ...........

                                 NEW YORK

  (FDP)AUSABLE RIVER BASIN, ESSEX AND CLINTON COUNTIES, NY                  800          144             50   ...........             50   ...........
  (FDP)BOQUET RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, ESSEX COUNTY, NY                       800          142             50   ...........             50   ...........
  (FDP)BRONX RIVER BASIN, NY                                                900          487             50   ...........            100   ...........
       DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, NY,NJ,DE,PA              ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........
    (E)FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY                                         1,614        1,098            409   ...........            409   ...........
    (N)FREEPORT CREEK, VILLAGE OF FREEPORT, NY                            1,600          100             75   ...........             75   ...........
    (E)HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, GOWANUS CANAL, NY AND NJ                  2,500           81            400   ...........            400   ...........
    (E)HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, NY AND NJ                                 6,200          638          1,369   ...........          1,369   ...........
   (SP)JAMAICA BAY, MARINE PARK AND PLUMB BEACH, ARVERNE, NY              1,000           37             50   ...........             50   ...........
   (SP)JAMAICA BAY, MARINE PARK AND PLUMB BEACH, NY                       2,510        1,910            400   ...........            400   ...........
    (N)LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR,NY                                             1,400          575            100   ...........            200   ...........
  (FDP)LINDENHURST, NY                                                      800          149             50   ...........             50   ...........
    (N)NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY AND NJ                      1,100,000        3,951  ..............        2,500  ..............        2,750
    (N)NEW YORK HARBOR ANCHORAGE AREAS, NY                                1,300          810            200   ...........            200   ...........
   (SP)NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, ASHAROKEN, NY                            998          318             50   ...........            250   ...........
   (SP)NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, BAYVILLE, NY                           1,850          700            100   ...........            300   ...........
  (SPE)ONONDAGA LAKE, NY                                                  2,102        1,384            350   ...........            350   ...........
    (E)SAW MILL RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NY                                 1,600          225             50   ...........             50   ...........
    (E)SOUTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, NY                                     2,150          267             50   ...........             50   ...........
   (SP)SOUTH SHORE OF STATEN ISLAND, NY                                   2,000        1,451            209   ...........            209   ...........
    (E)UPPER DELAWARE RIVER WATERSHED, NY                                 1,300          150            160   ...........            160   ...........
       UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, NY                            ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            250   ...........

                              NORTH CAROLINA

   (SP)BOGUE BANKS, NC                                                    1,735          350            400   ...........            400   ...........
    (E)CURRITUCK SOUND, NC                                                1,100           75            200   ...........            200   ...........
   (SP)DARE COUNTY BEACHES, NC                                            5,397        2,837            100   ...........            600   ...........
   (SP)DARE COUNTY BEACHES, NC (BODIE ISLAND PORTION)                   199,467          250  ..............          500  ..............          750
    (E)LOCKWOODS FOLLY RIVER, NC                                          1,470          142             83   ...........             83   ...........
  (FDP)NEUSE RIVER BASIN, NC                                              1,100          159            100   ...........            100   ...........
   (SP)SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH, NC                              1,100  ...........            100   ...........            300   ...........
    (E)TENNESSEE RIVER AND TRIBS, FRANKLIN, MACON COUNTY, NC                393          238            155   ...........            155   ...........

                               NORTH DAKOTA

   (FC)DEVILS LAKE, ND                                              ...........        6,000  ..............        1,700  ..............        1,700
   (FC)GRAFTON, PARK RIVER, ND                                           19,500          940  ..............           60  ..............           60

                                   OHIO

    (E)ASHTABULA RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, OH                        21,130          249  ..............          583  ..............          583
       BELPRE RIVERFRONT PARK, OH                                   ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            200   ...........
  (FDP)BUTLER COUNTY, OH                                                    850          100            100   ...........            100   ...........
    (E)HOCKING RIVER BASIN ENV RESTORATION, MONDAY CREEK, OH                556          378            178   ...........            178   ...........
    (E)HOCKING RIVER BASIN ENV RESTORATION, SUNDAY CREEK, OH                700          200            200   ...........            200   ...........
    (E)LOWER BIG DARBY CREEK BASIN ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION,             1,425          100            370   ...........            370   ...........
       MAHONING RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, HOH                   ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........             50   ...........
    (E)MUSKINGUM BASIN SYSTEM STUDY, OH                                   2,061          175            400   ...........            400   ...........
       OHIO RIVERFRONT STUDY, CINCINNATI, OH                        ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
       OHIO RIVER FLOW COMMODITY STUDY, OH                                  800          200  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........
  (FDP)RICHLAND COUNTY, OH                                                  600          175            200   ...........            200   ...........
       SANDUSKY RIVER, TIFFIN, OH                                           100          100  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........
       STEUBENVILLE, OH                                                     175           25  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........
    (E)UPPER BIG DARBY CREEK BASIN ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION,               375          310             65   ...........             65   ...........
       WESTERN LAKE ERIE BASIN, OH                                  ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........

                                 OKLAHOMA

    (E)CIMARRON RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, OK, KS, NM AND CO                  2,620          220            226   ...........            226   ...........
       MIAMI AND VICINITY, OK                                       ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            300   ...........
    (E)SOUTHEAST OKLAHOMA WATER RESOURCE STUDY, OK                        2,900          336            200   ...........  ..............
  (FDP)WARR ACRES, OK                                                       360          186            174   ...........            174   ...........
       WISTER LAKE WATERSHED, OK                                    ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            375   ...........

                                  OREGON

       AMAZON CREEK, OR                                             ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
    (E)LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR AND WA              3,200           75            135   ...........            135   ...........
    (E)TILLAMOOK BAY AND ESTUARY ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR                1,860        1,174            500   ...........            500   ...........
       WALLA WALLA WATERSHED, OR AND WA                             ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            600   ...........
  (COM)WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN REVIEW, OR                                  2,284        1,908            130   ...........            130   ...........
    (E)WILLAMETTE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, OR                        3,200          171            369   ...........            369   ...........
    (E)WILLAMETTE RIVER FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION, OR                        1,590          225            170   ...........            170   ...........

                               PENNSYLVANIA

  (FDP)BLOOMSBURG, PA                                                     1,152          791            250   ...........            250   ...........
       SCHUYLKILL RIVER, WISSAHICKON, PA                            ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........

                               RHODE ISLAND

    (N)QUONSET DAVISVILLE PORT, RI                                        1,600          100            150   ...........            150   ...........
    (E)RHODE ISLAND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, RI                             1,200          290             50   ...........             50   ...........
    (E)RHODE ISLAND SOUTH COAST, HABITAT REST AND STRM DMG REDU           6,825  ...........  ..............          160  ..............          160

                              SOUTH CAROLINA

  (RCP)ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC                                 4,722        1,835            655   ...........            655   ...........
  (COM)BROAD RIVER BASIN, SC                                                975          100            125   ...........            125   ...........
    (E)CHARLESTON ESTUARY, SC                                             1,677          157             50   ...........             50   ...........
       CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC                                        ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
   (SP)PAWLEYS ISLAND, SC                                                   478          378            100   ...........            100   ...........
   (SP)PAWLEYS ISLAND, SC                                                 4,300  ...........  ..............           25  ..............           25
       REEDY RIVER, SC                                              ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........
       SANTEE DELTA ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, SC                   ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
  (FDP)WACCAMAW RIVER, SC                                                   600           55            195   ...........            195   ...........
    (E)YADKIN--PEE DEE RIVER WATERSHED, SC AND NC                         9,750  ...........  ..............           50  ..............           50

                               SOUTH DAKOTA

  (FDP)NIOBRARA RIVER AND MISSOURI RIVER, SD                                350           75             25   ...........            225   ...........

                                TENNESSEE

       CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TN                                         ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........
  (FDP)DAVIDSON COUNTY, TN                                                  910          185            105   ...........            105   ...........
       FORT DEFIANCE, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, CLARKSVILLE, TN            ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
    (E)FRENCH BROAD WATERSHED, TN                                           706          355            280   ...........            280   ...........

                                  TEXAS

  (FDP)BOIS D'ARC CREEK, BONHAM, TX                                         770          130            200   ...........            200   ...........
       BRAZORIA COUNTY, TX                                          ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
  (FDP)BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, WHITE OAK BAYOU, TX                 1,670          472            150   ...........            500   ...........
       CEDAR BAYOU, TX                                              ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............          400
    (E)COLONIAS-LWR RIO GRANDE BASIN ALONG TX AND MEXICO BORDER     ...........           45  ..............          100  ..............          400
    (N)CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, LAQUINTA CHANNEL, TX                  1,120          742            378   ...........            378   ...........
    (N)CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX                                    2,851        2,093            572   ...........            572   ...........
       FREEPORT HARBOR, TX                                          ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
  (FDP)FREEPORT HURRICANE PROTECTION LEVEE, TX                            4,380           75            100   ...........            100   ...........
    (N)GIWW MODIFICATIONS, TX                                             8,810          219            400   ...........            150   ...........
  (RCP)GIWW, BRAZOS RIVER TO PORT O'CONNOR, TX                            4,710        2,843            810   ...........            810   ...........
    (N)GIWW, HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS RIVER, TX                             50,000  ...........  ..............          540  ..............          540
    (N)GIWW, MATAGORDA BAY, TX                                           10,000          150  ..............          200  ..............          400
  (RCP)GIWW, PORT O'CONNOR TO CORPUS CHRISTI BAY, TX                      4,660        2,003            600   ...........            600   ...........
   (FC)GREENS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX                                        171,294        6,568  ..............          190  ..............          377
    (E)GUADALUPE AND SAN ANTONIO RIVER BASINS, TX                         2,600          500            200   ...........            200   ...........
    (E)LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN, TX                                    10,395        1,639            950   ...........            950   ...........
    (E)MIDDLE BRAZOS RIVER, TX                                            1,540          826            100   ...........            100   ...........
    (E)NORTH BOSQUE RIVER, TX                                             6,600  ...........  ..............          100  ..............          100
    (E)NORTH PADRE ISLAND, CORPUS CHRISTI, TX                            19,500        1,319  ..............          130  ..............          130
  (FDP)NORTHWEST EL PASO, TX                                                975          590            250   ...........            250   ...........
   (FC)RAYMONDVILLE DRAIN, TX                                            80,850          311  ..............           50  ..............          250
    (E)RESACAS AT BROWNSVILLE, TX                                         2,650           75            100   ...........            325   ...........
    (N)SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX                                         3,715        1,064            650   ...........            650   ...........
    (E)SABINE PASS TO GALVESTON BAY, TX                                   4,850          146            450   ...........            450   ...........
   (FC)SOUTH MAIN CHANNEL, TX                                           153,700        7,495  ..............          380  ..............          600
       SULPHUR RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, TX                  ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
       TEXAS CITY CHANNEL, TX                                       ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            250   ...........
  (FDP)UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TX                                      9,310        7,739            650   ...........          1,200   ...........

                                   UTAH

       PARK CITY, UT                                                ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
  (FDP)PROVO AND VICINITY, UT                                             1,495          620            100   ...........            100   ...........

                                 VIRGINIA

    (N)AIWW, BRIDGES AT DEEP CREEK, VA                                   22,168          150  ..............          475  ..............          475
   (SP)CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINE, HAMPTON, VA                              1,004          872            100   ...........            100   ...........
    (N)ELIZABETH RIVER, HAMPTON ROADS, VA                                37,200  ...........  ..............          284  ..............          284
       FOURMILE RUN, VA                                             ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........
       GOSHEN DAM, VA                                               ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........
    (N)JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA                                            9,795          376  ..............          295  ..............          295
  (FDP)JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA AND NC (SECTION 216)             1,650          286            400   ...........            400   ...........
    (N)NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, CRANEY ISLAND, VA                     3,050        2,104            946   ...........            946   ...........
    (E)POWELL RIVER WATERSHED, VA                                         1,477        1,065            100   ...........            100   ...........

                                WASHINGTON

    (E)BELLINGHAM BAY, WA                                                   601          125            200   ...........            300   ...........
   (FC)CENTRALIA, WA                                                     56,000        5,076  ..............          500  ..............        1,000
    (E)CHEHALIS RIVER BASIN, WA                                             700          100            250   ...........            250   ...........
       COMMENCEMENT BAY, WA                                         ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
    (E)DUWAMISH AND GREEN RIVER BASIN, WA                                92,740          166  ..............          250  ..............          375
   (FC)HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA                                             61,192        5,618  ..............          500  ..............        1,250
  (RCP)LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA                                     2,791        1,741            254   ...........          1,050   ...........
   (SP)OCEAN SHORES, WA                                                     896          100             50   ...........             50   ...........
    (N)PUGET SOUND CONFINED DISPOSAL SITES, WA                            2,124        1,537            225   ...........            225   ...........
    (E)PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE MARINE HABITAT RESTORATION, WA                 700          100            200   ...........            200   ...........
  (FDP)SKAGIT RIVER, WA                                                   2,547        1,497            200   ...........            200   ...........
    (E)SKOKOMISH RIVER BASIN, WA                                          1,386          175             50   ...........             50   ...........
    (E)STILLAGUAMISH RIVER BASIN, WA                                     20,825           50  ..............           50  ..............           50
       WALLA WALLA WATERSHED, WA                                    ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........          1,000   ...........
       WHITE RIVER BASIN, WA                                        ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........

                              WEST VIRGINIA

       ERICKSON/WOOD COUNTY PUBLIC PORT, WV                         ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............          600
   (FC)ISLAND CREEK AT LOGAN, WV                                         12,718        2,067  ..............          483  ..............          983
       LITTLE KANAWHA RIVER, WV                                     ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
   (FC)MERCER COUNTY, WV                                            ...........  ...........  ..............          100  ..............          100
    (E)NEW RIVER BASIN, WV, NC AND VA                                     2,400          200            200   ...........            200   ...........
       PARKERSBURG/VIENNA, WV                                       ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............          300
       WEIRTON PORT, WV                                             ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............          400

                                WISCONSIN

    (E)BARABOO RIVER, WI                                                  2,650          100            240   ...........            240   ...........

                                 WYOMING

    (E)JACKSON HOLE RESTORATION, WY                                       8,000          225  ..............          175  ..............          175

                              MISCELLANEOUS

       COASTAL FIELD DATA COLLECTION                                ...........  ...........          2,200   ...........          3,200   ...........
       ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STUDIES                                   ...........  ...........            100   ...........            100   ...........
       FLOOD DAMAGE DATA                                            ...........  ...........            400   ...........            400   ...........
       FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES                              ...........  ...........          8,200   ...........          9,500   ...........
       GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION                ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            200   ...........
       GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM (SEC. 401)               ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........          2,000   ...........
       HYDROLOGIC STUDIES                                           ...........  ...........            500   ...........            500   ...........
       INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES                                  ...........  ...........            500   ...........            500   ...........
       JOHN GLENN GREAT LAKES BASIN PROGRAM                         ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            500   ...........
       NATIONAL SHORELINE                                           ...........  ...........            300   ...........  ..............  ...........
       OTHER COORDINATION PROGRAMS                                  ...........  ...........          7,200   ...........          7,200   ...........
       PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES                                ...........  ...........          6,500   ...........          6,500   ...........
       PRECIPITATION STUDIES (NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE)             ...........  ...........            400   ...........            400   ...........
       PROJECT MONITORING                                           ...........  ...........            100   ...........  ..............  ...........
       REMOTE SENSING/GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM SUPPORT         ...........  ...........            300   ...........            300   ...........
       RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT                                     ...........  ...........         24,000   ...........         29,000   ...........
       SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTERS                 ...........  ...........            100   ...........            100   ...........
       STREAM GAGING (U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY)                       ...........  ...........            700   ...........            700   ...........
       TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS                                       ...........  ...........            700   ...........            700   ...........
       TRI-SERVICE CADD/GIS TECHNOLOGY CENTER                       ...........  ...........            650   ...........            650   ...........
       REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE               ...........  ...........        -24,050   ...........        -50,059   ...........
                                                                   =====================================================================================
             TOTAL, GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS                          ...........  ...........         96,274        33,726        105,310        47,092
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         TYPE OF PROJECT:
           (N)  NAVIGATION
           (BE)  BEACH EROSION CONTROL
           (FC)  FLOOD CONTROL
           (MP)  MULTIPURPOSE, INCLUDING POWER
           (SP)  SHORELINE PROTECTION
           (FDP)  FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION
           (RCP)  REVIEW OF COMPLETED PROJECT
           (RDP)  REVIEW OF DEFERRED PROJECT
           (COMP)  COMPREHENSIVE
           (SPEC)  SPECIAL

    Aniak Harbor, AK.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$100,000 to initiate the feasibility study for Aniak Harbor, 
AK.
    False Pass, AK.--The Committee has provided $313,000 to 
expedite completion of the plans and specifications for the 
harbor project at False Pass, AK.
    Kenai River Bluff Erosion, AK.--The Committee has provided 
$500,000 for a special technical evaluation study of bank 
stabilization needs along the Lower Kenai River.
    Seward Harbor, AK.--Based on the findings of the Corps of 
Engineers feasibility for navigation improvements to Seward 
Harbor, Alaska, the Committee urges the Corps to proceed with 
implementing this critical project within available funds.
    Ship Creek Watershed, AK.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $150,000 to complete feasibility studies and to 
initiate preconstruction engineering and design for Ship Creek 
Watershed, AK.
    Red River Navigation Study, Southwest Arkansas, AR.--The 
Committee has provided $500,000 for continuation of the cost-
shared navigation feasibility study. The Committee understands 
that navigation in the Shreveport, Louisiana to Index, Arkansas 
reach is an extension of the existing J. Bennett Johnston 
Waterway, and as such, urges the Corps to perform an additional 
analysis using the same discount rate and local cost-sharing 
requirements as required for the existing waterway. This 
analysis should be displayed as a part of the feasibility 
report.
    Red River Waterway, AR, LA, OK, & TX.--The Committee has 
provided $100,000 for a reconnaissance study of the Index, AR 
to Denison Dam reach of the Red River. The study is to examine 
environmental restoration and other water resource needs of the 
river corridor.
    American River Watershed, CA.--The Committee recognizes the 
serious flood threat that faces the Sacramento area and has 
provided $2,600,000 to expedite completion of the 
preconstruction engineering and design of this vital flood 
control project.
    Los Angeles Harbor Main Channel Deepening, Los Angeles, 
CA.--The Committee has provided $2,600,000 to complete 
preconstruction engineering and design for the Los Angeles 
Harbor Main Channel Deepening, Los Angeles, CA.
    Westminster, CA.--An amount of $300,000 is recommended by 
the Committee to complete the reconnaissance study and initiate 
the feasibility study for the East Garden Grove/Winterburg 
Channel in Westminster, CA.
    Wailupe Stream Flood Control Study, Oahu, HI.--The 
Committee has provided $100,000 to initiate preconstruction 
engineering and design activities for the Wailupe Stream flood 
control study, in Oahu, HI.
    Illinois Rivers, IL.--The Committee is aware of an 
innovative restoration initiative in the Illinois River Basin 
designed to enhance the waterway as a vital transportation 
corridor, improve water quality, protect farmland and open 
space, and promote important conservation and environmental 
practices--Illinois Rivers 2020. The project was authorized in 
Public Law 106-541. The Committee expects the Corps to continue 
to work with the State of Illinois on this project and to 
identify appropriate funding sources.
    Upper Mississippi & Illinois Navigation Study, IL, IA, MN, 
MO, & WI.--The Committee has provided $3,724,000 to continue 
this study. The Committee recognizes that the controversy over 
the past year has considerably slowed progress on completing 
this important study. However, with the completion of the 
various investigations and independent reviews, the Committee 
believes that it is time for the Corps to finish this nearly 
decade long study. The Corps should make every effort to bring 
this study to a logical conclusion within 18 months of 
enactment of this act. No funding shall be expended on 
preconstruction engineering and design activities until the 
feasibility study is completed.
    Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Study, IL, IA, MO, 
MN, and WI.--The Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for 
the Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Study. The funding 
will allow the Corps to initiate studies for the following: 
development of an integrated strategy and implementation plan 
for flood control and flood damage reduction, continued 
maintenance and improvement of the navigation project, improved 
management of nutrients and sediment, environmental 
stewardship, and increased recreational opportunities for the 
Upper Mississippi River above Cairo, IL and the entire Illinois 
River.
    Ouachita and Black Rivers, LA & AR.--The Committee 
understands that there are critical erosion problems along the 
Ouachita River in Arkansas and Louisiana. These erosion 
problems are threatening Federal flood control levees and 
hindering navigation, as well as causing damage to utilities, 
roads, historic sites and private property. The Committee has 
provided $100,000 for the Corps to assess bank caving locations 
along the Ouachita River in Louisiana and Arkansas and to 
prepare an evaluation report identifying and prioritizing the 
most critical caving locations.
    Belle Island Shoreline, Detroit, MI.--The Committee has 
provided $150,000 to initiate the feasibility studies for 
stabilization of the crumbling Bell Island Shoreline. The 
Committee urges the Corps to examine the use of innovative 
techniques for stabilization alternatives.
    Sault Ste. Marie Lock, Sault Ste. Marie, MI.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $1,530,000 to complete the 
preconstruction engineering and design of the replacement lock 
at Sault Ste. Marie in Michigan.
    Kansas Citys, MO & KS.--The Committee has provided $900,000 
to continue flood damage reduction studies for the Kansas Citys 
area of Missouri and Kansas.
    Little Tallahatchie River, MS.--The Committee urges the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to examine a proposal by the 
Friends of the Upper Sardis Wildlife Management Area to repair 
and restore the Little Tallahatchie River located in Holly 
Springs National Forest, Mississippi.
    Lower Las Vegas Wash Wetlands, NV.--The Committee has 
provided $725,000 for feasibility studies of the environmental 
restoration of the Lower Las Vegas Wash Wetlands, Las Vegas, 
NV.
    Grafton, Park River, ND.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $60,000 to complete the preconstruction engineering 
and design of the Grafton, Park River, ND flood damage 
reduction project.
    Amazon Creek, OR.--The Committee has provided $100,000 to 
initiate and complete a reconnaissance study of Amazon Creek in 
the Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan area.
    Niobrara River and Missouri River, SD.--The Committee has 
provided $225,000 to complete the reconnaissance study and to 
initiate the feasibility study.
    Upper Trinity River Basin, TX.--The Committee has provided 
$1,200,000 to continue feasibility studies. The additional 
amount provided will allow for completion of the Dallas 
Floodway and Stemmons North Industrial Corridor Studies, for 
continuation of studies on the Clear and West Forks of the 
Trinity River and the Big Fossil Creek Watershed, and for 
initiation of a new study.
    North Padre Island, TX.--The Committee has included 
$130,000 for the preconstruction engineering and design 
portion, as well as continuing the environmental studies, for 
the North Padre Island, Texas, flood control project.
    Coastal Field Data Collection.--The Committee has provided 
an additional $1,000,000 over the budget request for the 
Southern California Beach Processes Study to help preserve the 
California coastline from beach erosion.
    Great Lakes Remedial Action Program.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $2,000,000 for the Great Lakes Remedial 
Action Program. The funds will allow for the continuation of 
development of remedial action plans identified in the Great 
Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978.
    Planning Assistance to States.--Within the funds provided 
for Planning Assistance to States, the Committee urges the 
Corps of Engineers to initiate an investigation of the 
streambank erosion problems in the East Baton Rouge Parish 
Canal in Baker, Louisiana, and desalinization efforts at 
Tularosa Basin in Alamogordo, New Mexico.
    Other Coordination Programs.--The Committee encourages the 
Corps to use funds provided herein to support the Estuaries 
Council in the development of a national strategy for estuary 
habitat restoration programs.
    Research and Development.--The Committee has provided 
$29,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers R&D Program. Within the 
amount provided, $800,000 is for the National Shoreline Erosion 
Control Development and Demonstration Program at Allergan 
County, Michigan.

                         construction, general

Appropriations, 2001....................................  $1,716,165,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................   1,324,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,570,798,000

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

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

                                           ALABAMA

    (N)MOBILE HARBOR, AL                                                                       326,605          30,017           2,300           2,300
   (MP)WALTER F GEORGE POWERHOUSE AND DAM, AL AND GA (MAJOR REH                                 43,700           1,357          12,325          11,325
   (MP)WALTER F GEORGE POWERPLANT, AL AND GA (MAJOR REHAB)                                      36,000           7,423           3,000           3,000

                                            ALASKA

    (N)CHIGNIK HARBOR, AK                                                                        6,500           1,751           3,300           3,300
    (N)NOME HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS, AK                                                             20,192           1,294           2,200           2,200
    (N)ST PAUL HARBOR, AK                                                                       23,125          12,500             700             700

                                           ARIZONA

    (E)RIO SALADO, PHOENIX AND TEMPE REACHES, AZ                                                62,730           5,953          13,200          18,000

                                           ARKANSAS

       FOURCHE BAYOU BASIN, AR                                                          ..............  ..............  ..............             180
    (N)MCCLELLAN--KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR                                    651,000         616,536           3,000           3,000
    (N)MONTGOMERY POINT LOCK AND DAM, AR                                                       242,000         158,064          18,000          24,000
       RED RIVER WATERWAY, INDEX, AR TO DENISON DAM, TX                                         76,700          76,700  ..............           3,000
       RED RIVER EMERGENCY BANK PROTECTION, AR                                          ..............  ..............  ..............           4,500
       RED RIVER BELOW DENISON DAM, AR, LA, OK AND TX                                   ..............  ..............  ..............           3,500

                                          CALIFORNIA

   (FC)AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CA                                                             87,000          38,268          13,000          13,000
   (FC)AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CA (FOLSOM DAM MODIFICATIONS                                   97,500           5,752           4,500           4,500
       CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CA                                                        ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
   (FC)CORTE MADERA CREEK, CA                                                                   21,900          12,625             250             250
   (FC)COYOTE AND BERRYESSA CREEKS, CA                                                          43,300          33,331             600             600
   (FC)GUADALUPE RIVER, CA                                                                     128,700          79,188           4,000           6,000
    (E)HAMILTON AIRFIELD WETLANDS RESTORATION, CA                                               47,400           1,589           1,000           4,000
       HARBOR/SOUTH BAY WATER RECYCLING, CA                                             ..............  ..............  ..............           4,500
   (SP)IMPERIAL BEACH, SILVER STRAND SHORELINE, CA                                              15,300           3,654             500             500
   (FC)KAWEAH RIVER, CA                                                                         19,700           6,660           3,000           4,000
   (FC)LOWER SACRAMENTO AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA                                            5,100           3,669           1,431           1,431
       LOWER WALNUT CREEK, CA                                                           ..............  ..............  ..............             250
   (FC)MARYSVILLE/YUBA CITY LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA                                            34,700          30,625           4,075           4,075
   (FC)MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA                                                                91,800          19,816             500             500
   (FC)MID-VALLEY AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA                                                 14,700          12,437           2,263           2,263
   (FC)NAPA RIVER, CA                                                                           91,000          21,091           5,500           6,000
    (N)OAKLAND HARBOR, CA (50 FOOT PROJECT)                                                    144,000           7,142           2,000          12,000
       PETALUMA RIVER, CA                                                               ..............  ..............  ..............           4,500
   (FC)SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION PROJECT, CA                                            179,900         114,601           2,326           2,326
       SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CA                                     ..............  ..............  ..............             300
   (FC)SACRAMENTO RIVER, GLENN-COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, CA                                   20,000          15,008           2,284           4,000
    (N)SAN FRANCISCO BAY TO STOCKTON, CA                                                       173,000          66,850             250             250
       SAN GABRIEL BASIN RESTORATION, CA                                                ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
   (FC)SAN LORENZO RIVER, CA                                                                    19,440          12,832           3,490           3,490
   (FC)SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA                                                            924,000         685,775          26,800          30,800
    (N)SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA                                                                  5,450             410             100             100
   (FC)SANTA PAULA CREEK, CA                                                                    36,000          19,805           1,700           1,700
   (FC)STOCKTON METROPOLITIAN FLOOD CONTROL REIMBURSEMENT, CA                                   35,700           3,352           1,000  ..............
   (FC)SUCCESS DAM, TULE RIVER, CA (DAM SAFETY)                                                 30,900           2,054           1,000           1,000
   (SP)SURFSIDE--SUNSET--NEWPORT BEACH, CA                                                       8,300             700             300             300
   (FC)UPPER SACRAMENTO AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA                                            5,810           4,347           1,463           1,463
   (FC)WEST SACRAMENTO, CA                                                                      17,700          16,332           1,368           1,368

                                           DELAWARE

   (SP)DELAWARE COAST PROTECTION, DE                                                            12,600           5,597             270             353
   (SP)DELAWARE COAST, REHOBOTH BEACH TO DEWEY BEACH, DE                                        64,900           3,237             100             100

                                           FLORIDA

   (SP)BREVARD COUNTY, FL                                                                      136,600           8,939             200             200
   (SP)BROWARD COUNTY, FL (REIMBURSABLE)                                                        90,200          21,422             200             200
    (N)CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL                                                                    133,740          35,878           5,701           5,701
    (E)CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL                                                      2,219,000         560,018          95,278          95,278
   (SP)DADE COUNTY, FL                                                                         182,400          70,613           8,000           8,000
       DUVAL COUNTY, FL                                                                 ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
    (E)EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL                                   75,000          19,455          19,876          19,876
       FORT PIERCE BEACH, FL                                                            ..............  ..............  ..............             500
    (N)JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL                                                                  11,000           5,384           1,457           5,300
   (MP)JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM POWERHOUSE, FL AND GA (MAJOR R                                 29,800          22,037           4,300           4,300
    (E)KISSIMMEE RIVER, FL                                                                     265,600          92,532          25,846          25,846
    (N)MANATEE HARBOR, FL                                                                       26,485           7,149           1,000           1,000
       MARTIN COUNTY, FL                                                                ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
    (N)MIAMI HARBOR CHANNEL, FL                                                                 50,255          23,443           5,274           5,274
   (SP)PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL (REIMBURSEMENT)                                                    85,000          12,840             200             200
    (N)PALM VALLEY BRIDGE, FL                                                                   19,000          11,701           7,299           7,299
    (N)PANAMA CITY HARBOR, FL                                                                   25,747           2,832           1,215           1,215
       PINELLAS COUNTY, FL                                                              ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
       PORT EVERGLADES, FL                                                              ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
   (SP)ST JOHN'S COUNTY, FL                                                                    184,700           5,458             300           1,000
       ST LUCIE INLET, FL                                                               ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
    (N)TAMPA HARBOR, FL                                                                            751             251             500             500

                                           GEORGIA

    (N)BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA                                                                     41,461           2,044           4,084           6,400
   (MP)BUFORD POWERHOUSE, GA (MAJOR REHAB)                                                      27,200           7,319           3,000           3,000
   (MP)HARTWELL LAKE POWERHOUSE, GA AND SC (MAJOR REHAB)                                        31,000          25,600           4,500           4,500
    (N)LOWER SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN, GA AND SC                                                     3,167           1,124           1,300           1,300
   (FC)OATES CREEK, RICHMOND COUNTY, GA (DEF CORR)                                              11,208           9,739             632             632
   (MP)RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND SC                                               619,570         603,835           3,000           3,000
   (MP)THURMOND LAKE POWERHOUSE, GA AND SC (MAJOR REHAB)                                        69,700          29,265           6,500           6,500

                                            HAWAII

       HAWAII WATER MANAGEMENT, HI                                                      ..............  ..............  ..............             200
   (FC)IAO STREAM FLOOD CONTROL, MAUI, HI (DEF CORR)                                            15,004           1,224             400             400
       KAUMALAPAU HARBOR, HI                                                                    11,700           3,000  ..............           1,300
    (N)KIKIAOLA SMALL BOAT HARBOR, KAUAI, HI                                                     5,620           4,194           1,275           1,275
    (N)MAALAEA HARBOR, MAUI, HI                                                                 11,883           3,983             325             325

                                           ILLINOIS

    (N)CHAIN OF ROCKS CANAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL (DEF CORR)                                   24,756           3,895           3,617           3,617
   (SP)CHICAGO SHORELINE, IL                                                                   174,188          67,459          24,000          25,000
   (FC)EAST ST LOUIS, IL                                                                        37,861          30,642           1,000           1,000
       EAST ST LOUIS INTERIOR FLOOD CONTROL, IL                                         ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
    (N)LOCK AND DAM 24, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL AND MO (MAJOR REH                                 68,592          24,704           8,038           8,038
   (FC)LOVES PARK, IL                                                                           21,000          13,862           1,600           1,600
   (FC)MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS, IL                                                      501,100          35,678          10,000          17,000
    (N)MELVIN PRICE LOCK AND DAM, IL AND MO                                                    740,636         731,324             500             500
    (N)OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL AND KY                                          1,052,000         511,482          34,000          41,000
    (E)UPPER MISS RVR SYSTEM ENV MGMT PROGRAM, IL, IA, MN, MO                                  766,195         217,229          21,000          19,000

                                           INDIANA

       CALUMET REGION, IN                                                               ..............  ..............  ..............           1,500
    (N)INDIANA HARBOR, IN (CONFINED DISPOSAL FACILITY)                                          61,100           4,918           5,000           5,000
       INDIANA SHORELINE EROSION, IN                                                    ..............  ..............  ..............           1,000
       INDIANA POLIS CENTRAL WATERFRONT, IN                                             ..............  ..............  ..............           5,000
   (FC)INDIANAPOLIS, WHITE RIVER (NORTH), IN                                                    12,806           1,576           3,600           3,600
   (FC)LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, IN                                                                139,000          77,977           4,000           4,000
   (FC)MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN (MAJOR REHAB)                                                      46,619           2,080           8,500           9,500
   (FC)OHIO RIVER GREENWAY PUBLIC ACCESS, IN                                                    17,500           3,209           2,400           2,400

                                             IOWA

    (N)LOCK AND DAM 12, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IA (MAJOR REHAB)                                     15,000           5,464           4,906           4,906
    (E)MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION, IA, NE, K                                   85,400          63,611          11,000          12,609
   (FC)MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, IA, NE, KS AND MO                                          152,394         105,689           8,500           9,200
   (FC)PERRY CREEK, IA                                                                          46,540          37,905           4,000           4,000

                                            KANSAS

   (FC)ARKANSAS CITY, KS                                                                        20,850          13,384           3,050           5,100

                                           KENTUCKY

       CARR CREEK LAKE, KY                                                              ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
   (FC)DEWEY LAKE, KY (DAM SAFETY)                                                              17,000          10,808           2,900           2,900
    (N)KENTUCKY LOCK AND DAM, TENNESSEE RIVER, KY                                              533,000          70,058          14,400          23,000
       LOUISVILLE WATERFRONT, KY                                                        ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
    (N)MCALPINE LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, KY AND IN                                           278,000          60,316          13,632          19,000
   (FC)METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, BEARGRASS CREEK, KY                                              7,951           1,270           2,575           2,575
   (FC)METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, POND CREEK, KY                                                  13,524           8,665           1,400           1,400
       POND CREEK, KY                                                                   ..............  ..............  ..............             425
       SOUTHERN AND EASTERN KENTUCKY, KY                                                ..............  ..............  ..............           2,500

                                          LOUISIANA

   (FC)COMITE RIVER, LA                                                                        106,000          11,361             500           4,000
       GRAND ISLE AND VICINITY, LA                                                      ..............  ..............  ..............             200
    (N)INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL LOCK, LA                                                  652,000          71,181          10,000          15,000
    (N)J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA                                                       1,895,807       1,732,172          16,555          20,000
   (FC)LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN AND VICINITY, LA (HURRICANE PROTECT                                  527,000         425,826           7,500          15,000
   (FC)LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION)                                       81,000          75,857           1,500           1,500
    (N)MISSISSIPPI RIVER SHIP CHANNEL, GULF TO BATON ROUGE, L                                  179,800          27,419             575             575
    (N)MISSISSIPPI RIVER, GULF OUTLET, LA                                                       92,189          81,184             500             500
   (FC)NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION)                                        173,000         146,736           2,000           2,000
       OUACHITA RIVER LEVEES, AR AND LA                                                         30,417          24,516  ..............           1,500
   (FC)SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA, LA                                                                 450,000         233,067          51,908          62,000
   (FC)WEST BANK AND VICINITY, NEW ORLEANS, LA                                                 200,000          61,843          12,000          13,000

                                           MARYLAND

       ANACOSTIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, MD                                              ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
   (SP)ASSATEAGUE ISLAND, MD                                                                    25,800           2,095          10,000          10,000
   (SP)ATLANTIC COAST OF MARYLAND, MD                                                          189,000          34,951           2,300           5,000
    (N)BALTIMORE HARBOR ANCHORAGES AND CHANNELS, MD AND VA                                      21,000           3,189           8,000           8,000
    (E)CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD AND VA                                                27,000           6,454           1,500           3,000
    (E)POPLAR ISLAND, MD                                                                       320,000          77,700          18,200          18,200

                                        MASSACHUSETTS

    (N)CAPE COD CANAL RAILROAD BRIDGE, MA (MAJOR REHAB)                                         31,800           8,375          12,500          12,500
   (FC)WEST HILL DAM, MA (MAJOR REHAB)                                                          13,200           1,000           9,000           9,000

                                          MINNESOTA

   (FC)CROOKSTON, MN                                                                             7,020           1,708           2,000           1,000
    (N)LOCK AND DAM 3, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN (MAJOR REHAB)                                      18,800           3,114             800             800
       NORTHEASTERN, MN                                                                 ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
    (N)PINE RIVER DAM, CROSS LAKE, MN (DAM SAFETY)                                              10,200           9,570             630             630
       STILLWATER, MN                                                                   ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............

                                         MISSISSIPPI

       DESOTO COUNTY, MS                                                                ..............  ..............  ..............           5,000
    (N)GULFPORT HARBOR, MS                                                                      32,948          26,083             100             100
    (N)PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS                                                                    47,789          28,232           1,930           1,930

                                           MISSOURI

   (FC)BLUE RIVER BASIN, KANSAS CITY, MO                                                        13,500           1,662             675             675
   (FC)BLUE RIVER CHANNEL, KANSAS CITY, MO                                                     220,000         175,497           8,400          10,400
       BOIS BRULE DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICT, MO                                       ..............  ..............  ..............             100
   (FC)CAPE GIRARDEAU, JACKSON, MO                                                              37,128          32,521           1,717           1,717
   (FC)MERAMEC RIVER BASIN, VALLEY PARK LEVEE, MO                                               29,056          18,579           1,200           1,200
    (N)MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS (REG WORKS), MO                                  269,273         198,687           4,000           4,000
       ST LOUIS, MO                                                                     ..............  ..............  ..............           2,000
   (FC)STE GENEVIEVE, MO                                                                        34,710          29,598             850             850
   (MP)TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO AND AR (DAM SAFETY)                                                  60,200          20,510           5,900           5,900

                                           MONTANA

       FORT PECK DAM, MT                                                                         7,443           5,233  ..............             700

                                           NEBRASKA

   (FC)MISSOURI NATIONAL RECREATIONAL RIVER, NE AND SD                                          21,000           5,073           1,800           1,800
   (FC)WOOD RIVER, GRAND ISLAND, NE                                                             10,698           3,884           4,000           4,000

                                            NEVADA

       RURAL NEVADA, NV                                                                         25,000           3,332  ..............           9,000
   (FC)TROPICANA AND FLAMINGO WASHES, NV                                                       214,800         109,010          22,000          30,000

                                        NEW HAMPSHIRE

       ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, LEBANON, NH                                        ..............  ..............  ..............           2,000

                                          NEW JERSEY

   (SP)BRIGANTINE INLET TO GREAT EGG INLET, NJ (ABSECON ISLAN                                  290,000           5,284             100             100
   (SP)CAPE MAY INLET TO LOWER TOWNSHIP, NJ                                                     53,400          16,250             780             780
    (N)DELAWARE RIVER MAIN CHANNEL, NJ, PA AND DE                                              231,000          30,555          10,000           8,000
   (SP)GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET AND PECK BEACH, NJ                                               241,500          36,630             130             130
    (N)NEW YORK HARBOR AND ADJACENT CHANNELS, PORT JERSEY CHANN                                 84,300          11,184          22,000          21,000
   (FC)PASSAIC RIVER PRESERVATION OF NATURAL STORAGE AREAS, N                                   19,700           4,605           5,400           5,400
       PASSAIC RIVDR STREAMBANK RESTORATION, NJ                                         ..............  ..............  ..............           2,000
   (FC)RAMAPO AND MAHWAH RIVERS, MAHWAH, NJ AND SUFFERN, NY                                      8,400           1,559             100             100
   (FC)RAMAPO RIVER AT OAKLAND, NJ                                                              11,800           6,851           4,949           4,949
   (SP)RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, NJ                                                      343,000           1,126             100             400
   (FC)RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK SUB-BASIN, NJ                                          314,400          33,827          10,000           8,000
   (SP)SANDY HOOK TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ                                                        698,200         120,495           5,000           5,000
   (SP)TOWNSENDS INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET, NJ                                                   163,000           4,702           2,000           2,000

                                          NEW MEXICO

   (FC)ACEQUIAS IRRIGATION SYSTEM, NM                                                           66,000          13,224           2,000           2,000
   (FC)ALAMOGORDO, NM                                                                           41,400           8,039           3,500           3,500
       CENTRAL NEW MEXICO, NM                                                                   25,000           2,514  ..............           6,000
   (FC)MIDDLE RIO GRANDE FLOOD PROTECTION, BERNALILLO TO BELE                                   46,800           9,889             600             600
   (FC)RIO GRANDE FLOODWAY, SAN ACACIA TO BOSQUE DEL APACHE,                                    62,300           5,138             300             300

                                           NEW YORK

    (N)ARTHUR KILL CHANNEL, HOWLAND HOOK MARINE TERMINAL, NY                                   230,400           8,452          15,000          18,000
   (SP)ATLANTIC COAST OF NYC, ROCKAWAY INLET TO NORTON POINT,                                   76,500          15,761             300             900
   (SP)EAST ROCKAWAY INLET TO ROCKAWAY INLET AND JAMAICA BAY,                                   55,000          43,982           1,230           1,230
   (SP)FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY                                                    119,300          36,374           4,700           4,700
   (SP)FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, NY                                                  403,400          59,858           2,275           2,275
    (N)KILL VAN KULL AND NEWARK BAY CHANNEL, NY AND NJ                                         580,200         282,643          44,000          42,000
       NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED, NY                                                      ..............  ..............  ..............           2,000
       ONONDAGA LAKE, NY                                                                ..............  ..............  ..............           4,000

                                        NORTH CAROLINA

   (SP)BRUNSWICK COUNTY BEACHES, OCEAN ISLE BEACH PORTION, NC                                   96,600           9,277             300             800
       MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC                                                      ..............  ..............  ..............             300
   (SP)WEST ONSLOW BEACH AND NEW RIVER INLET, NC                                               112,300             699             300             700
    (N)WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC                                                                   248,100          58,068          43,159          46,000
   (SP)WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NC                                                                   26,500           4,609             550             550

                                         NORTH DAKOTA

   (FC)BUFORD--TRENTON IRRIGATION DISTRICT LAND ACQUISITION,                                    34,000          17,279           3,000           5,000
   (MP)GARRISON DAM AND POWER PLANT, ND (MAJOR REHAB)                                           44,318          19,813           7,000           7,000
   (FC)GRAND FORKS, ND--EAST GRAND FORKS, MN                                                   178,800          26,741          25,954          31,000
   (FC)HOMME LAKE, ND (DAM SAFETY)                                                              12,400           8,712           2,400           2,400
   (FC)SHEYENNE RIVER, ND                                                                       55,807          28,998           2,000           2,000

                                             OHIO

       LOWER GIRARD LAKE DAM, OH                                                        ..............  ..............  ..............           1,000
   (FC)METROPOLITAN REGION OF CINCINNATI, DUCK CREEK, OH                                        32,123           5,347           2,700           2,700
   (FC)MILL CREEK, OH                                                                          163,000         102,661           2,000           3,000
       OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, OH                                            ..............  ..............  ..............           1,000
       OTTAWA RIVER, OH                                                                 ..............  ..............  ..............             300
   (FC)WEST COLUMBUS, OH                                                                        97,000          77,754           7,200          10,000

                                           OKLAHOMA

   (FC)SKIATOOK LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY)                                                           10,000           1,228           1,800           1,800
   (MP)TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY)                                                    39,300          16,315           3,700           3,700

                                            OREGON

   (MP)BONNEVILLE POWERHOUSE PHASE II, OR AND WA (MAJOR REHAB)                                 110,800          60,036          10,000          10,000
   (MP)COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY FISHING ACCESS SITES, OR AND WA                                    79,760          39,970           5,000           5,000
   (FC)ELK CREEK LAKE, OR                                                                      179,400         110,273           2,000           2,000
   (FC)LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN BANK PROTECTION, OR AND WA                                    28,000          21,693             100             100
    (E)WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE CONTROL, OR                                                 72,000          16,719           8,000           9,000

                                         PENNSYLVANIA

   (FC)JOHNSTOWN, PA (MAJOR REHAB)                                                              32,500          29,418           3,082           3,082
    (N)LOCKS AND DAMS 2, 3 AND 4, MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA                                        705,000         185,322          34,470          40,470
       NANTY GLO, PA                                                                    ..............  ..............  ..............             100
       NORTHEAST PENNSYLVANIA, PA                                                       ..............  ..............  ..............           3,000
   (SP)PRESQUE ISLE PENINSULA, PA (PERMANENT)                                                   64,785          17,716             392             392
   (FC)SAW MILL RUN, PITTSBURGH, PA                                                             13,374           6,437           4,138           4,138
       SCHUYLKILL RIVER PARK, PA                                                        ..............  ..............  ..............             500
       SOUTH CENTRAL PENN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM                             ..............  ..............  ..............           5,000
       SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA, PA                                                             5,000             276  ..............  ..............
   (FC)WYOMING VALLEY, PA (LEVEE RAISING)                                                      131,000          63,293          19,000          19,000

                                         PUERTO RICO

   (FC)ARECIBO RIVER, PR                                                                        14,400           3,199             500             500
   (FC)PORTUGUES AND BUCANA RIVERS, PR                                                         430,300         395,516           5,409           5,409
   (FC)RIO DE LA PLATA, PR                                                                      66,700           7,340             500             500
   (FC)RIO GRANDE DE LOIZA, PR                                                                 155,300           3,342             500             500
   (FC)RIO GRANDE DE MANATI, PR                                                                  1,500  ..............           1,500           1,500
   (FC)RIO PUERTO NUEVO, PR                                                                    331,000          75,163           9,000           9,000

                                        SOUTH CAROLINA

    (N)CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC (DEEPENING AND WIDENING)                                           98,444          66,766           6,365          10,865
       FOLLY BEACH, SC                                                                  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
   (MP)HARTWELL LK,CLEMSON UPPER AND LOWER DIVERSION, SC (DAM S                                  8,741             400           2,500           2,500
       LAKES MARION AND MOULTRIE, SC                                                            15,000           3,352  ..............          11,648

                                         SOUTH DAKOTA

   (FC)BIG SIOUX RIVER, SIOUX FALLS, SD                                                         30,450           7,103           6,000           6,000
    (E)CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUX, SD                                       107,000           6,252           3,000           7,000
   (MP)PIERRE, SD                                                                               35,000          12,868           6,000           6,000

                                          TENNESSEE

       BLACK FOX, MURFREE AND OAKLANDS SPRINGS WETLANDS, TN                             ..............  ..............  ..............           2,000

                                            TEXAS

       BOSQUE AND LEON RIVERS, TX                                                       ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
   (FC)BRAYS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX                                                                312,485          23,751           4,066           4,066
    (N)CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX                                                                  28,391          22,826           5,565           5,565
   (FC)CLEAR CREEK, TX                                                                          94,115          24,154           1,200           1,200
   (FC)DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, TRINITY RIVER PROJECT, TX                                     95,826          10,698           2,000          10,000
   (FC)EL PASO, TX                                                                             116,300         111,907           3,400           3,400
    (N)HOUSTON-GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS, TX                                               475,468         159,576          28,785          24,785
   (FC)JOHNSON CREEK, UPPER TRINITY BASIN, ARLINGTON, TX                                        13,630           5,724           2,900           5,000
       MOUTH OF COLORADO RIVER, TX                                                      ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
    (N)NECHES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES SALTWATER BARRIER, TX                                       45,375          15,364           8,068          10,000
       RED RIVER BASIN CHLORIDE CONTROL, TX AND OK                                      ..............  ..............  ..............           2,100
       RED RIVER BELOW DENISON DAM, TX,AR,LA                                            ..............  ..............  ..............           2,500
   (FC)SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, TX                                                     155,300         153,632             866             866
   (FC)SIMS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX                                                                 225,752          90,058           9,000           9,000
       WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX                                                             ..............  ..............  ..............           2,617

                                             UTAH

   (FC)UPPER JORDAN RIVER, UT                                                                    9,660           2,429             500             500

                                           VIRGINIA

    (N)AIWW BRIDGE AT GREAT BRIDGE, VA                                                          24,054          14,755           7,000           7,000
   (MP)JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA AND NC (MAJOR REHAB)                                   61,800           4,553           4,800           4,800
       LYNCHBURG COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW, VA                                            ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
    (N)NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS (DEEPENING), VA                                             137,400          23,916             486             486
       RICHMOND COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW, VA                                             ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
   (FC)ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, HEADWATERS AREA, VA                                           31,000           7,304           3,000           3,000
   (SP)SANDBRIDGE BEACH, VA                                                                    193,050           3,734           3,380           3,380
   (SP)VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (HURRICANE PROTECTION)                                               273,624          72,084           9,000           9,000
       VIRGINA BEACH, VA (REIMBURSEMENT)                                                ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............

                                          WASHINGTON

    (E)COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR AND ID                                         1,506,330         706,416          81,000          83,000
    (N)GRAYS HARBOR, WA                                                                         28,170          18,170             325             325
    (E)LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE COMPENSATION, WA, OR                                261,000         230,612           2,555           2,555
   (FC)MT ST HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA                                                       199,500         116,476             545             545
   (FC)MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA (DAM SAFETY)                                                        93,720          81,944           3,300           3,300
   (MP)THE DALLES POWERHOUSE (UNITS 1-14), WA AND OR (MAJOR REH                                102,900          25,728           7,000           7,000

                                        WEST VIRGINIA

   (FC)BLUESTONE LAKE, WV (DAM SAFETY)                                                         112,300          11,463           8,000          12,000
       CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA, WV                                                        ..............  ..............  ..............           3,000
       GREENBRIER RIVER BASIN, WV                                                       ..............  ..............  ..............           1,200
   (FC)LEVISA AND TUG FORKS AND UPPER CUMBERLAND RIVER, WV, V                                1,931,287         760,170          16,700          41,100
    (N)LONDON LOCKS AND DAM, KANAWHA RIVER, WV (MAJOR REHAB)                                    22,200           3,596           4,300           8,700
       LOWER MUD RIVER, WV                                                              ..............  ..............  ..............             750
    (N)MARMET LOCK, KANAWHA RIVER, WV                                                          313,000          46,358           6,200          28,100
    (N)ROBERT C BYRD LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, WV AND OH                                      369,474         362,290           1,300           3,500
       SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA, WV                                                       ..............  ..............  ..............           3,000
   (FC)TYGART LAKE, WV (DAM SAFETY)                                                              9,500           8,039           1,461           1,461
       WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD CONTROL, WV AND PA                          ..............  ..............  ..............           2,300
    (N)WINFIELD LOCKS AND DAM, KANAWHA RIVER, WV                                               235,500         227,344             600           2,700

                                          WISCONSIN

   (FC)LAFARGE LAKE, WI                                                                         17,000           7,472           5,150           5,150

                                        MISCELLANEOUS

       AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (SECTION 206)                                      ..............  ..............          15,000          20,000
       AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROGRAM                                                    ..............  ..............           3,000           5,000
       BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL (SECTION 204)                                ..............  ..............           1,500           4,000
       DAM SAFETY AND SEEPAGE/STABILITY CORRECTION PROGRAM                              ..............  ..............           5,000           9,000
       DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROGRAM                                     ..............  ..............           9,000           9,000
       EMERGENCY STREAMBANK AND SHORELINE PROTECTION (SEC. 14)                          ..............  ..............           7,000           9,000
       EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION                                                          ..............  ..............          20,000          20,000
       FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 205)                                             ..............  ..............          30,000          40,000
       INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--BOARD EXPENSE                                      ..............  ..............              45              45
       INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--CORPS EXPENSE                                      ..............  ..............             185             185
       NAVIGATION MITIGATION PROJECT (SECTION 111)                                      ..............  ..............             500           1,000
       NAVIGATION PROJECTS (SECTION 107)                                                ..............  ..............           7,000          10,000
       PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONME                           ..............  ..............          21,000          25,000
       SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECTS (SECTION 103)                                      ..............  ..............           5,000           5,000
       SNAGGING AND CLEARING PROJECT (SECTION 208)                                      ..............  ..............           1,000           1,000
       REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE                                   ..............  ..............        -156,580        -262,793
                                                                                       =================================================================
             TOTAL, CONSTRUCTION GENERAL                                                ..............  ..............       1,324,000       1,570,798
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       TYPE OF PROJECT:
           (N)  NAVIGATION
           (BE)  BEACH EROSION CONTROL
           (FC)  FLOOD CONTROL
           (MP)  MULTIPURPOSE, INCLUDING POWER

    Montgomery Point Lock and Dam, AR.--An appropriation of 
$24,000,000 is provided. While this is a significant increase 
over the budget request of $18,000,000, it is still far below 
the amount needed to fund the project at an optimum level.
    Red River Emergency Bank Protection, AR, LA, OK, TX.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $4,500,000 to continue bank 
stabilization along the Red River in Arkansas.
    Red River Below Denison Dam, AR, LA, OK, TX.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $3,500,000 to continue the project 
along the Red River in Arkansas.
    Guadalupe River, CA.--An amount of $6,000,000 is 
recommended for the Guadalupe River, CA flood damage reduction 
project.
    Sacramento area flood control.--Sacramento California 
remains perhaps the most flood threatened major urban area in 
the country with upwards of 400,000 people and up to 
$30,000,000,000 in property at risk, $16,000,000,000 of that in 
the 100-year flood plain. Flood control improvements authorized 
in 1996 and 1999 will provide a doubling of flood protection 
but still leave the city exposed to an unreasonable risk of 
flooding. The Corps should make every effort to move forward 
with the authorized improvements as quickly as possible and the 
Committee has included funding for initiation of the South 
Sacramento Streams Group project, the American River Common 
Elements project and the Folsom Modifications project.
    The Committee directs that, in carrying out the work on the 
Common Elements project, as modified by section 366 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1999, the Corps should 
consider necessary adjustments to the project to pass the 
existing design emergency release from Folsom Dam for 
communities along both banks of the levees along the American 
River and to provide a uniform level of protection consistent 
with the other authorized work along the Sacramento River.
    Delaware Coast, Rehoboth Beach to Dewey Beach, DE.--An 
appropriation of $100,000, the Corps' full capability, is 
provided to continue construction of the shoreline protection 
project.
    Kaumalapau Harbor, HI.--The Bill includes $1,300,000 to 
continue construction of the Kaumalapau Harbor, Hawaii project.
    McCook and Thornton Reservoirs, IL.--An appropriation of 
$17,000,000 is provided. While this is a significant increase 
over the budget request of $10,000,000, it is still far below 
the amount needed to fund the project at an optimum level.
    Olmsted Locks and Dam, IL & KY.--An appropriation of 
$41,000,000 is provided. While this is a significant increase 
over the budget request of $34,000,000, it is still far below 
the amount needed to fund the project at an optimum level. No 
funds are included for reimbursement of the Claims and 
Judgement Fund.
    Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation, IA, NE, KS, & 
MO.--The full capability of $12,609,000 is provided for project 
mitigation. Funds provided above the budget request are to 
complete the Lower Hamburg Site in Missouri and the Kansas Bend 
Site in Nebraska.
    Missouri River Levee System, IA, NE, KS, MO.--The Committee 
recommendation is $9,200,000. Funds provided above the budget 
request are to accelerate the first contract for the Unit L15 
levee project.
    Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock, LA.--An appropriation 
of $15,000,000 is provided. While this is a significant 
increase over the budget request of $10,000,000, it is still 
far below the amount needed to fund the project at an optimum 
level. The Committee expects the Corps to continue to work 
closely with community leaders to implement the mitigation 
plan.
    J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, LA.--An appropriation of 
$20,000,000 has been provided to continue necessary navigation 
channel refinements, mitigation of project impacts, and 
construction of project recreation elements.
    Southeast Louisiana, LA.--An appropriation of $62,000,000 
is provided. While this is a significant increase over the 
budget request of $51,908,000, it is still far below the amount 
needed to fund the project at an optimum level.
    DeSoto County, MS.--The Committee has included $5,000,000 
to continue DeSoto County, Mississippi wastewater treatment 
project, as authorized under Section 502 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999.
    Blue River Channel, Kansas City, MO.--The Committee has 
provided $10,400,000 for the Corps to expedite work on the Blue 
River Channel, Kansas City, Missouri flood control project.
    Grand Forks, ND-East Grand Forks, MN.--An appropriation of 
$31,000,000 is provided. While this is an increase over the 
budget request of $25,954,000, it is still far below the amount 
needed to fund the project at an optimum level.
    Fort Peck Dam, MT.--The Committee has provided $700,000 to 
continue construction of facilities at Fort Peck Dam.
    Central New Mexico, NM.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $6,000,000 for the Central New Mexico project. Within 
funds provided, the Corps' attention is directed to projects 
located in Belen, Los Lunas, Bosque Farms, Bernalillo, 
Corrales, Bernalillo County, and the City of Albuquerque, New 
Mexico.
    Rural Nevada, NV.--The Committee has provided $9,000,000 to 
continue the Rural Nevada project. Within funds provided, the 
Corps is directed to give consideration to projects at 
Mesquite, Silver Springs, Lawton-Verdi, Moapa, and Elko County, 
Nevada.
    Tropicana and Flamingo Washes, NV.--The Committee has 
provided $30,000,000 for the Tropicana and Flamingo Washes 
project in Nevada to advance completion of this important flood 
control project. The Committee recommendation includes 
$8,000,000 for reimbursement of work performed by the project 
non-Federal sponsor in accordance with Section 211 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996.
    Wilmington Harbor, NC.--An appropriation of $46,000,000 is 
provided. While this is an increase over the budget request of 
$43,159,000, it is still far below the amount needed to fund 
the project at an optimum level.
    Mill Creek, OH.--The Committee has provided $3,000,000 for 
the General Reevaluation Report and to complete the plans and 
specifications of the Mill Creek, Ohio project.
    Willamette River Temperature Control, OR.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $9,000,000. The increase over the 
budget request of $8,000,000, is to expedite the project 
modifications necessary to improve downstream water 
temperatures for fish and wildlife habitat.
    Locks and Dams 2, 3, & 4, Monongahela River, PA.--An 
appropriation of $40,470,000 is provided. While this is a 
significant increase over the budget request of $34,470,000, it 
is still far below the amount needed to fund the project at an 
optimum level.
    Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux, SD.--The 
Committee notes that Title VI of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999, as amended, authorizes funding to pay 
administrative expenses, implementation of terrestrial wildlife 
restoration plans, activities associated with land transferred 
or to be transferred, and annual expenses for operating 
recreational areas. Within the funds provided, the Committee 
directs that not more than $1,000,000 shall be provided for 
administrative expenses, and that the Corps is to distribute 
remaining funds as directed by Title VI to the State of South 
Dakota, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and Lower Brule Sioux 
Tribe.
    Colonias-Lower Rio Grande Basin along Texas & Mexico 
border.--The Committee has provided $400,000 for the Corps of 
Engineers to continue their work in the Texas colonias, and 
directs that of this amount $100,000 be used to conduct a 
reconnaissance study in the Sparks Colonia in El Paso County, 
Texas.
    Virginia Beach, Hurricane Protection, VA.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $9,000,000. The Committee understands 
that these funds complete the project providing needed flood 
damage protection to the Virginia Beach area.
    Columbia River Fish Mitigation, WA, OR, & ID.--An 
appropriation of $83,000,000 is provided to continue the 
Columbia River Fish Mitigation project. This increased level of 
funding is intended to assist in implementing the 
recommendations of the recently issued biological opinion.
    Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper 
Cumberland River, West Virginia, and Kentucky.--The Committee 
recommendation includes a total of $41,100,000 for the Levisa 
and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River 
project. The amount provided includes: $4,500,000 for the 
Clover Fork, Kentucky, element of the project; $1,000,000 for 
the City of Cumberland, Kentucky, element of the project; 
$1,650,000 for the town of Martin, Kentucky, element of the 
project; $2,100,000 for the Pike County, Kentucky, element of 
the project, including $1,100,000 for additional studies along 
the tributaries of the Tug Fork and continuation of a Detailed 
Project Report for the Levisa Fork; $3,850,000 for the Martin 
County, Kentucky, element of the project; $950,000 for the 
Floyd County, Kentucky, element of the project; $600,000 for 
the Harlan County element of the project; and $800,000 for 
additional studies along tributaries of the Cumberland River in 
Bell County, Kentucky.
    The Committee has also provided $18,600,000 for the Corps 
of Engineers to continue work on the Grundy, Virginia, element 
of the project; $450,000 to complete the Buchanan County, 
Virginia, Detailed Project Report; and $700,000 to continue the 
Dickenson County, Detailed Project Report. The Committee 
directs the Corps of Engineers to continue the Dickenson County 
Detailed Project Report as generally defined in Plan 4 of the 
Huntington District Engineer's Draft Supplement to the Section 
202 General Plan for Flood Damage Reduction dated April 1997, 
including all Russell Fork tributary streams within the County 
and special considerations, as may be appropriate, to address 
the unique relocations and resettlement needs for the flood-
prone communities within the County.
    In addition, the Committee has also provided $1,500,000 for 
the Lower Mingo County, West Virginia, element of the project; 
$600,000 for the Upper Mingo County, West Virginia, element of 
the project; $600,000 for the Wayne County, West Virginia, 
element of the project; and $3,200,000 for the McDowell County 
element of the project.
    Marmet Lock, Kanawha River, WV.--The Committee has provided 
$28,100,000 for continued construction of the replacement lock 
and dam.
    Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam, Ohio River, WV & OH.--An 
appropriation of $3,500,000 is provided. No funds are included 
for reimbursement of the Claims and Judgement Fund.
    Aquatic Plant Control.--The Committee has provided 
$5,000,000 for the Aquatic Plant Control Program. While this is 
an increase over the budget amount of $3,000,000, it is far 
less funding than is needed for this national program. Within 
the amount provided, the recommendation includes: $500,000 to 
eradicate Eurasian Watermilfoil on Houghton Lake, Michigan; 
$80,000 to study the problem of Eurasian Watermilfoil at 
Clearwater Lake, Michigan; $250,000 for South Carolina, to be 
matched by an equal amount by the State for aquatic plant 
control activities in that State; $400,000 for aquatic weed 
control at Lake Champlain, Vermont; and $300,000 for the 
removal of aquatic weeds in the Lavaca and Navidad Rivers, 
Texas.
    Dam Safety and Seepage/Stability Correction Program.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $9,000,000 for the Dam Safety 
and Seepage/Stability Correction Program. Within this amount, 
$4,000,000 is provided for the Corps of Engineers to continue 
critical dam safety repairs to Waterbury Dam in Vermont.

                     Continuing Authorities Program

    The continuing project authorities listed below, allow the 
Corps great flexibility to respond to various, limited-scope, 
water resource problems facing communities throughout the 
Nation. This program has proven to be remarkably successful in 
providing a quick response to serious local problems. These 
problems range from flood control and navigation to bank 
stabilization and environmental restoration. The Committee has 
provided funds in excess of the budget request for virtually 
all of these accounts. As a general rule, once a project has 
received funds for the initial phases of any of these 
authorities, the project will continue to be funded as long as 
it proves to be environmentally sound, technically feasible, 
and economically justified, as applicable. With this in mind, 
the Committee has chosen to limit explicit direction of these 
project authorities.
    The Committee is aware that there are funding requirements 
for ongoing, continuing authorities projects that may not be 
accommodated within the funds provided for each program. It is 
not the Committee's intent that ongoing projects be terminated. 
If additional funds are needed to keep ongoing work in any 
program on schedule, the Committee urges the Corps to reprogram 
the necessary funds.
     Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration (Section 206).--The 
Committee has provided $20,000,000 for the Section 206 Program. 
Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes: 
$105,000 to complete the ecosystem restoration report for the 
Agua Caliente Wash, Pima County, AZ, project; $500,000 for 
completion of engineering and design and initiation of 
construction for the Arkansas River Fisheries Habitat 
Restoration, Pueblo, CO, project; $175,000 for feasibility 
studies for the Mill River, Stamford, CT, project; $150,000 to 
initiate feasibility studies on the Wabash River, West 
Lafayette, IN, project; $329,000 for the Iowa River and Clear 
Creek, Johnson, IA, project; $700,000 for plans and 
specifications and to initiate construction for the Whitebreast 
Creek, IA, project; $208,000 to initiate plans and 
specifications for the Hay Creek, MN, project; $400,000 for the 
Lawrence Gateway, MA, restoration project; $100,000 to continue 
the Carson River, NV project; $150,000 to continue the 
Steamboat Creek, Washoe County, NV, project; $125,000 to 
continue the Bottomless Lakes State Park, NM, project; $100,000 
to continue the Jemez River, NM, project; $1,000,000 for plans 
and specifications and to initiate construction for the 
Springfield Millrace, OR, project; $332,000 is provided to 
continue the City Creek, UT, project; $350,000 for completion 
of plans and specifications for the Jordan River Meander 
environmental restoration in Utah; $430,000 for the completion 
of plans and specifications for the Upper Jordan River 
ecosystem restoration in Utah; $700,000 for the Salmon Creek, 
WA, project; and $117,000 to complete design and initiate 
construction of the Brodhead Dam Fish Passage, WI, project.
    Navigation Projects (Section 107).--The Committee has 
provided $10,000,000 for the Section 107 Program. Within the 
amount provided, the recommendation includes: $250,000 to 
complete plans and specifications and initiate construction of 
the Russellville Slackwater Harbor, AR; $500,000 to complete 
the feasibility studies and initiate the plans and 
specifications for the Blytheville Harbor, AR; $100,000 is 
provided for feasibility studies of repairing or replacing the 
existing wave attenuator for Lubec Harbor, Lubec, ME; $827,000 
for construction of the Pemiscot County Harbor, MO; $45,000 to 
initiate the feasibility studies for Fairport Harbor, OH; and 
$100,000 to initiate feasibility studies at Saxon Harbor, WI.
    Navigation Mitigation Projects (Section 111).--The 
Committee has provided $1,000,000 for the Section 111 Program. 
Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes: 
$100,000 to initiate studies of shoreline damages attributable 
to the Federal jetties at Moss Landing Harbor, CA; $150,000 to 
initiate studies for the Wells Harbor, Wells, Maine, project; 
$350,000 for completion of plans and specifications, 
environmental documentation, and design for the estimated 
$3,500,000 project at Saco River and Camp Ellis Beach, Maine to 
mitigate shoreline damages caused by the Federal navigation 
project; and 100,000 to initiate studies for the Puget Island 
Shoreline, WA & OR, project.
    Project Modifications for Improvement of the Environment 
(Section 1135).--The Committee has provided $25,000,000 for the 
Section 1135 Program. Within the amount provided, the 
recommendation includes: $150,000 to initiate feasibility 
studies for Horseshoe Lake, AR; $2,000,000 to continue 
construction of the Colfax Reach, South Platte River, Denver, 
CO, project; $190,000 to initiate plans and specifications for 
Spunky Bottoms, Brown County, IL; $100,000 to initiate studies 
on Nahunt Marsh, Davenport, IA; $500,000 to initiate and 
complete design and to initiate construction of the Brush 
Creek-Lake of the Enshriners, MO, project; $150,000 for the 
feasibility study for Duck Creek, Stoodard County, MO; $500,000 
to complete the plans and specifications and initiate 
construction of the Kansas City Riverfront, MO, habitat 
restoration project; $200,000 for the Albuquerque Biopark, NM, 
wetlands restoration project; $2,000,000 for the Pueblo Santa 
Ana, NM, riparian and wetland restoration project; $530,000 for 
the Eagleland environmental restoration project located along 
the San Antonio River in Texas; $281,000 is provided to conduct 
the feasibility study and to initiate the plans and 
specifications for the Chamna Area Shoreline, WA, project; and 
$500,000 to complete the feasibility study and to initiate and 
complete the design of the Pasco County Shoreline, WA, project.
    Emergency Streambank & Shoreline Protection Projects 
(Section 14).--The Committee has provided $10,000,000 for the 
Section 14 Program. Within the amount provided, the 
recommendation includes: $800,000 could be used to initiate and 
complete the Little Rock Slack Water Harbor, AR, bank 
stabilization project; $75,000 to initiate and complete the 
planning and design analysis and initiate plans and 
specifications for the Powers Boulevard at East Fork of Sand 
Creek, Colorado Springs, CO, project; $260,000 for construction 
of the Iowa River, Sac & Fox Settlement, Tama County, IA, 
project; $40,000 for the planning and design analysis for the 
Penobscot River, Brewer, ME, project; $100,000 to continue the 
planning and design analysis for the Belle Isle South Shore, 
Detroit, MI, project; $100,000 to continue the planning and 
design analysis of the Detroit River Shoreline, Detroit, MI; 
$700,000 is provided to continue the I-40, Rio Pierco, Gallup, 
NM, project; $150,000 is provided to continue the Paseo Del 
Norte, NM, project; $415,000 is provided to continue the 
Unnamed Arroyo, Hwy 371 near Crown Point, NM, project; $130,000 
for construction of the Heathcott Road, Lauderdale County, TN, 
project; $146,000 for construction of the Dresden, TN, project; 
$100,000 to complete the planning and design analysis and 
initiate construction of the Bogachiel River near La Push, 
Clallam County, WA, project; and $40,000 for the planning and 
design analysis of the Kenosha Harbor, Retaining Wall, Kenosha, 
WI.
    Flood Control Projects (Section 205).--The Committee has 
provided $40,000,000 for the Section 205 Program. Within the 
amount provided, the recommendation includes: $100,000 to 
initiate the plans and specifications for the Sugar Creek, 
Piggott, AR, project; $100,000 to initiate the detailed project 
report for Galindo Creek, CA; $100,000 for the feasibility 
study for the Ocmulgee River Levee, Macon, GA; $150,000 is for 
the Corps of Engineers to address flooding problems of the 
Snake River at Jensen Grove Lake in Blackfoot, ID; $50,000 to 
complete feasibility studies for the Mosquito Creek, Council 
Bluffs, IA, project; $200,000 for the Banklick Creek, Kenton 
County, Kentucky flood control project; $275,000 to initiate 
the plans and specifications for the Granite Fall, MN, project; 
$350,000 to initiate the plans and specifications for the 
Montevideo, MN project; $86,000 to complete the feasibility 
study and to initiate plans and specification for the Little 
River Diversion, Dutchtown, MO, project; $100,000 for flood 
control studies for Grant Creek, Missouli, Montana; $100,000 to 
continue the Arroyo de La Manteca, Las Vegas, NM, project; 
$750,000 to continue the Little Puerco Wash, Gallup, NM, 
project; $100,000 to initiate the Taos, NM, project; $1,500,000 
for construction of the Wahpeton, ND, project; $100,000 to 
initiate feasibility studies of the Lafayette Township, OH, 
project; $200,000 to complete the feasibility study and to 
initiate the plans and specifications for the Erwin, TN, 
project; $75,000 to complete the feasibility study for the 
Oliver Creek, TN, project; $75,000 to complete the feasibility 
study for the Covington, TN, project; and $200,000 to initiate 
studies of the Jamestown Island Seawall, VA.

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

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $350,458,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     280,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     328,011,000

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

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

                          GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

       SURVEYS:
           GENERAL STUDIES:
  (FDP)        ALEXANDRIA, LA TO THE GULF OF MEXICO                          3,150              810              710              500             500
   (FC)        BAYOU METO BASIN                                             14,417           11,844            6,158   ...............          1,500
  (FDP)        DONALDSONVILLE TO THE GULF, LA                                4,000            1,543            1,043              700             700
  (SPE)        SPRING BAYOU, LA                                              2,850              350              150              500             500
  (FDP)        COLDWATER RIVER BASIN BELOW ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS                1,350               95               95              200             200
               HORN LAKE CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, MS                   ..............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ..............
  (FDP)        OLIVE BRANCH, MS                                              1,500              200              200              300             100
  (COM)        MEMPHIS METRO AREA, TN AND MS                                 2,075              253              253              394             394
   (FC)        MORGANZA, LA TO THE GULF OF MEXICO                          442,000            2,309            1,895            4,000           4,000
   (FC)        SOUTHEAST ARKANSAS, AR                                        4,962           38,741              803   ...............            600
   (FC)        WOLF RIVER, MEMPHIS, TN                                       6,350              205              205              205             205
               TENSAS RIVER BASIN, LA                                ..............  ...............  ...............  ...............            100
               COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA                    ..............  ...............  ...............             615             615
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 SUBTOTAL, GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS                    ..............  ...............  ...............           7,414           9,414
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                               CONSTRUCTION

   (FC)CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND TN                3,863,000        2,602,600           36,866           43,405          45,405
   (FC)FRANCIS BLAND FLOODWAY DITCH (EIGHT MILE CREEK), AR                   9,270            5,981            2,000              915             915
   (FC)GRAND PRAIRIE REGION, AR                                            208,000           38,741           19,234   ...............         16,300
   (FC)HELENA AND VICINITY, AR                                               8,590            6,910            2,321            1,675           1,675
   (FC)MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND TN           2,106,000          936,548           40,911           43,457          49,457
   (FC)ST FRANCIS BASIN, AR AND MO                                         401,600          373,335            4,374            3,230           4,230
   (FC)ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA                              176,000           91,288           11,475            7,160           8,060
   (FC)ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA                                             1,790,000          890,470           21,635           23,400          27,400
   (FC)LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY LEVEE, LA                               19,500           14,690            3,712            3,022           3,022
   (FC)MISSISSIPPI AND LOUISIANA ESTUARINE AREAS, LA AND MS                 71,300            8,035               95               25             100
   (FC)MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA                                         99,800           92,720            6,738            1,600           2,900
   (FC)TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA                               169,195          132,342            5,804            2,628           3,653
       YAZOO BASIN                                                      (1,135,920)        (445,080)         (17,163)          (8,550)        (28,499)
   (FC)    BACKWATER PUMP, MS                                              195,400           11,912              733              500           4,000
   (FC)    BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS                                         110,000           97,236            3,264            1,000           1,500
   (FC)    DEMONSTRATION EROSION CONTROL, MS                               288,427          273,427          142,127   ...............          9,500
   (FC)    MAIN STEM, MS                                                   205,112           34,629               24               25              25
   (FC)    REFORMULATION UNIT, MS                                           32,408           29,434              469               25              25
   (FC)    TRIBUTARIES, MS                                                 250,000          107,713              356              200             200
   (FC)    UPPER YAZOO PROJECTS, MS                                        343,000          164,156           12,317            6,800          10,749
   (FC)ST JOHNS BAYOU AND NEW MADRID FLOODWAY, MO                           61,400            9,794              987              150             150
   (FC)NONCONNAH CREEK, FLOOD CONTROL FEATURE, TN AND MS                    17,900           14,736            1,895            1,300           1,300
   (FC)WEST TENNESSEE TRIBUTARIES, TN                                      153,300           54,186              224               25              25
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             SUBTOTAL, CONSTRUCTION                                  ..............  ...............  ...............         140,542         190,591
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                                MAINTENANCE

   (FC)CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND TN            ..............  ...............  ...............          61,462          61,462
    (N)HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR                            ..............  ...............  ...............             434             434
   (FC)INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR                             ..............  ...............  ...............             480             480
   (FC)LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, AR                          ..............  ...............  ...............             419             419
   (FC)LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, AR                          ..............  ...............  ...............              10              10
   (FC)MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND TN       ..............  ...............  ...............           7,650           9,000
   (FC)ST FRANCIS BASIN, AR AND MO                                   ..............  ...............  ...............           6,678           8,423
   (FC)TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS, AR AND LA              ..............  ...............  ...............           2,000           4,500
   (FC)WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR                                     ..............  ...............  ...............           1,102           1,102
   (FC)INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL                             ..............  ...............  ...............              43              43
   (FC)INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY                             ..............  ...............  ...............              29              29
   (FC)ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA                        ..............  ...............  ...............           2,065           2,065
   (FC)ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA                                         ..............  ...............  ...............          10,661          12,471
    (N)BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA                           ..............  ...............  ...............             216             216
   (FC)BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA                            ..............  ...............  ...............              56              56
   (FC)BONNET CARRE, LA                                              ..............  ...............  ...............           1,854           1,854
   (FC)INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA                             ..............  ...............  ...............             422             422
   (FC)LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, LA                        ..............  ...............  ...............           6,239           6,239
   (FC)MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA                                  ..............  ...............  ...............             916             916
   (FC)OLD RIVER, LA                                                 ..............  ...............  ...............           6,116           6,116
   (FC)TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA                         ..............  ...............  ...............           2,500           2,500
    (N)GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS                                         ..............  ...............  ...............             645             645
   (FC)INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS                             ..............  ...............  ...............             249             249
    (N)VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS                                          ..............  ...............  ...............             494             494
       YAZOO BASIN                                                   ..............  ...............  ...............         (21,260)        (23,260)
   (FC)    ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS                                        ..............  ...............  ...............           4,500           4,500
   (FC)    BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS                                   ..............  ...............  ...............           1,000           3,000
   (FC)    ENID LAKE, MS                                             ..............  ...............  ...............           3,500           3,500
   (FC)    GREENWOOD, MS                                             ..............  ...............  ...............             250             250
   (FC)    GRENADA LAKE, MS                                          ..............  ...............  ...............           4,500           4,500
   (FC)    MAIN STEM, MS                                             ..............  ...............  ...............             275             275
   (FC)    SARDIS LAKE, MS                                           ..............  ...............  ...............           6,500           6,500
   (FC)    TRIBUTARIES, MS                                           ..............  ...............  ...............             350             350
   (FC)    WILL M WHITTINGTON AUXILIARY CHANNEL, MS                  ..............  ...............  ...............              55              55
   (FC)    YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS                                  ..............  ...............  ...............             180             180
   (FC)    YAZOO CITY, MS                                            ..............  ...............  ...............             150             150
   (FC)INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO                             ..............  ...............  ...............             143             143
   (FC)WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO                                           ..............  ...............  ...............           8,000           8,000
   (FC)INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN                             ..............  ...............  ...............              86              86
    (N)MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, TN                             ..............  ...............  ...............           1,118           1,118
   (FC)MAPPING                                                       ..............  ...............  ...............           1,097           1,097
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             SUBTOTAL, MAINTENANCE                                   ..............  ...............  ...............         144,444         153,849
                                                                    ====================================================================================
       REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE                ..............  ...............  ...............         -12,400         -25,843
                                                                    ====================================================================================
             TOTAL, FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND             ..............  ...............  ...............         280,000         328,011
              TRIBUTARIES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       TYPE OF PROJECT:
           (N)  NAVIGATION
           (FC)  FLOOD CONTROL

    The Committee believes that it is essential to provide 
adequate resources and funding to the Mississippi River and 
Tributaries program in order to protect the large investment in 
flood control facilities. Although much progress has been made, 
considerable work remains to be done for the protection and 
economic development of the rich national resources in the 
Valley. The Committee expects the additional funds to be used 
to advance ongoing studies, initiate new studies, and advance 
important construction and maintenance work. In conjunction 
with efforts to optimize use of the additional funding 
provided, the Committee expects the Corps to make the necessary 
adjustments in lower priority activities and non-critical work 
in order to maximize the public benefit within the Mississippi 
River and Tributaries program.

Construction

    Grand Prairie Region, AR.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $16,300,000 to continue construction of the project, 
including construction of features designed to withdraw water 
from the White River.
    Mississippi River Levees, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, & TN.--An 
appropriation of $49,457,000 is provided for continued 
construction of this vital levee project. While this is an 
increase over the budget request of $43,457,000, it is still 
far below the amount needed to fund the project at an optimum 
level.
    St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid Floodway, MO.--The Committee 
has provided $150,000 to complete preconstruction engineering 
and design for the St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid Floodway 
project.
    Yazoo Basin, Mississippi Demonstration Erosion Control.--
The Committee has provided $9,500,000 for the Demonstration 
Erosion Control Project, a continuation of a joint effort by 
the Corps of Engineers and the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service in the Yazoo Basin of Mississippi. The work to date has 
demonstrated positive results in the reduction of flood 
damages, decreased erosion and sediments. Funds provided for 
fiscal year 2002 will continue to design for future work, 
monitor results for all watersheds as required for completion 
of the total program and award continuing contracts.
    Tensas Basin, Red River Backwater Area, LA.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $3,653,000 to complete construction of 
the Sicily Island Area Levee project.
    Upper Yazoo Projects, MS.--The Committee has provided 
$10,749,000 for the Upper Yazoo Projects, $3,949,000 more than 
the Administration's request for fiscal year 2002.

Maintenance

    Atchafalaya Basin, LA.--An appropriation of $12,471,000 is 
provided. Additional funds provided over the budget request are 
for major lock repairs at Berwick Lock.
    Yazoo Basin, Big Sunflower River, MS.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $3,000,000 to continue the maintenance 
project for the Big Sunflower River to restore the project's 
flood control channel capacities.

                   operation and maintenance, general

Appropriations, 2001....................................  $1,897,775,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................   1,745,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,833,263,000

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

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

                 ALABAMA

ALABAMA-COOSA COMPREHENSIVE WATER STUDY,             219             219
 AL.....................................
ALABAMA-COOSA RIVER, AL.................           1,555           4,710
BAYOU CODEN, AL.........................  ..............             500
BAYOU LA BATRE, AL......................              50             200
BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL..          21,100          21,100
BON SECOUR RIVER, AL....................              20              20
DAUPHIN ISLAND BAY, AL..................             250             600
DOG AND FOWL RIVERS, AL.................             450             450
FLY CREEK, AL...........................             200             200
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL..........           5,000           5,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AL.......             100           1,133
MILLERS FERRY LOCK AND DAM, WILLIAM                4,900           7,200
 ``BILL'' DANNELLY LA...................
MOBILE AREA DIGITAL MAPPING, AL.........  ..............  ..............
MOBILE HARBOR, AL.......................          18,900          20,900
PERDIDO PASS CHANNEL, AL................           1,000           1,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AL...........             350             350
ROBERT F HENRY LOCK AND DAM, AL.........           5,000           5,600
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AL.....              80              80
TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL AND MS.          23,800          23,800
TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WILDLIFE MITIGATION,  ..............  ..............
 AL.....................................
WALTER F GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL AND GA.           6,565           6,565

                 ALASKA

ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK....................           1,788           2,788
BETHEL HARBOR, AK.......................             416             416
CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK...................           1,659           1,659
COOK INLET SHOALS, AK...................           2,200           2,200
DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK...................             384             384
HOMER HARBOR, AK........................             181             181
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK.......              35              35
KETCHIKAN HARBOR, BAR POINT, AK.........             160             160
KODIAK HARBOR, AK.......................  ..............             750
NAKNEK RIVER, AK........................  ..............           1,000
NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK....................             173             173
NOME HARBOR, AK.........................           1,458           1,458
PELICAN HARBOR, AK......................  ..............             600
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK...........             527             527

                 ARIZONA

ALAMO LAKE, AZ..........................           1,306           1,306
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ.......              86              86
PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ....................           1,310           1,310
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AZ.....              32              32
WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ...................             184             184

                ARKANSAS

BEAVER LAKE, AR.........................           4,343           4,343
BLAKELY MT DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR.......           4,734           4,734
BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR..................           1,148           1,148
BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR....................           4,402           4,402
DARDANELLE LOCK AND DAM, AR.............           5,337           5,337
DEGRAY LAKE, AR.........................           4,235           4,235
DEQUEEN LAKE, AR........................             947             947
DIERKS LAKE, AR.........................             946             946
GILLHAM LAKE, AR........................             841             841
GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR...................           4,873           4,873
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR......  ..............             340
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR.......             308             308
MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION          22,338          21,338
 SYSTEM, AR.............................
MILLWOOD LAKE, AR.......................           1,559           1,559
NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR...........           3,308           3,308
NIMROD LAKE, AR.........................           1,319           1,319
NORFORK LAKE, AR........................           3,255           3,255
OSCEOLA HARBOR, AR......................  ..............             610
OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR AND LA....           7,127           7,127
OZARK-JETA TAYLOR LOCK AND DAM, AR......           3,912           3,912
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AR...........              10              10
WHITE RIVER, AR.........................             195             195
YELLOW BEND PORT, AR....................  ..............             150

               CALIFORNIA

BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA....................           1,952           1,952
BODEGA BAY, CA..........................  ..............           1,800
BUCHANAN DAM, H V EASTMAN LAKE, CA......           1,725           1,725
CHANNEL ISLANDS HARBOR, CA..............              40              40
COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, CA...           3,537           3,537
DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND                  4,604           4,604
 CHANNEL, CA............................
FARMINGTON DAM, CA......................             299             299
HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA............           1,687           1,687
HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA.............           3,516           3,516
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA.......           1,171           1,171
ISABELLA LAKE, CA.......................             836           1,476
LOS ANGELES--LONG BEACH HARBOR MODEL, CA             170             170
LOS ANGELES--LONG BEACH HARBORS, CA.....             200           2,200
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA....           4,691           4,691
MARINA DEL REY, CA......................              40              40
MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA...............             314             314
MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA....................             273             273
MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA....................           3,860           3,860
MOSS LANDING HARBOR, CA.................  ..............           2,000
NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA......................           1,922           1,922
NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL, CA           1,573           1,573
NEWPORT BAY HARBOR, CA..................              40              40
OAKLAND HARBOR, CA......................          10,127          10,127
OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA....................           1,270           1,270
PETALUMA RIVER, CA......................  ..............           2,500
PILLAR POINT HARBOR, CA.................  ..............  ..............
PINE FLAT LAKE, CA......................           2,443           2,443
PORT HUENEME, CA........................              40              40
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA...........           1,224           1,224
REDWOOD CITY HARBOR, CA.................  ..............           2,000
RICHMOND HARBOR, CA.....................           4,389           4,389
SACRAMENTO RIVER (30 FOOT PROJECT), CA..           1,964           1,964
SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (DEBRIS           1,766           1,766
 CONTROL), CA...........................
SACRAMENTO RIVER SHALLOW DRAFT CHANNEL,              132             132
 CA.....................................
SAN DIEGO HARBOR, CA....................             140             140
SAN DIEGO RIVER AND MISSION BAY, CA.....              40              40
SAN FRANCISCO BAY, DELTA MODEL                     1,700           1,700
 STRUCTURE, CA..........................
SAN FRANCISCO BAY LONG TERM MANAGEMENT    ..............             200
 STRATEGY, CA...........................
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY (DRIFT                2,366           2,366
 REMOVAL), CA...........................
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA................           2,501           2,700
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, CA...................             998           3,000
SAN RAFAEL CREEK, CA....................  ..............           1,800
SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA...............           3,537           3,537
SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA................           2,020           2,020
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CA.....           1,504           1,504
SUCCESS LAKE, CA........................           1,969           1,969
SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA..................           1,635           1,635
TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA...........           1,747           1,747
VENTURA HARBOR, CA......................           2,980           2,980
YUBA RIVER, CA..........................             102             102

                COLORADO

BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO.....................             420             420
CHATFIELD LAKE, CO......................             797           1,197
CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO...................             525             925
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO.......              70              70
JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO...............           3,454           3,454
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CO.....             249             249
TRINIDAD LAKE, CO.......................             733           1,133

               CONNECTICUT

BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT.....................             490             490
COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT................             454             454
HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT..................             221             221
HOP BROOK LAKE, CT......................             979             979
MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT...............             424             424
NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT...............             294             294
STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT..........             485             485
THOMASTON DAM, CT.......................             516             516
WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT..................             711             711

                DELAWARE

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE R TO              12,223          13,500
 CHESAPEAKE BAY, D......................
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, REHOBOTH BAY TO               888             888
 DELAWARE BAY, D........................
MISPILLION RIVER, DE....................             140             140
MURDERKILL RIVER, DE....................             140             140
WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE...................           2,985           2,985

          DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVERS (DRIFT                  928             928
 REMOVAL), DC...........................
WASHINGTON HARBOR, DC...................              48              48

                 FLORIDA

APALACHICOLA BAY, FL....................             300             300
CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL....................           3,966           3,966
CARRABELLA BAY HARBOR, FL...............  ..............  ..............
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL........          11,591          11,591
CLEARWATER PASS, FL.....................  ..............             500
EAST PASS CHANNEL, FL...................             700             700
FERNANDINA HARBOR, FL...................           3,037           3,037
FORT PIERCE HARBOR, FL..................              49           1,000
HORSESHOE COVE, FL......................             520             520
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL.......             100             100
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, JACKSONVILLE TO             2,173           2,173
 MIAMI, FL..............................
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL.................           4,040           4,040
JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE                    5,719           5,719
 SEMINOLE, FL, AL AND GA................
MANATEE HARBOR, FL......................              20              20
MIAMI HARBOR, FL........................           3,700           3,700
MIAMI RIVER, FL.........................  ..............           2,000
NEW PASS CHANNEL, FL....................  ..............  ..............
OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL.................           2,520           2,520
PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL...................           3,253           3,253
PANAMA CITY HARBOR, FL..................           1,000           1,000
PENSACOLA HARBOR, FL....................             500             500
PONCE DE LEON INLET, FL.................           2,032           2,032
PORT ST JOE HARBOR, FL..................             500             500
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL...........             600             600
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL...........           3,634           3,634
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, FL.....              50              50
SUWANEE RIVER, FL.......................  ..............  ..............
TAMPA HARBOR, FL........................           4,163           4,163
WITHLACOOCHIE RIVER, FL.................              34              34

                 GEORGIA

ALLATOONA LAKE, GA......................           5,427           5,427
APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT              1,237           8,173
 RIVERS, GA, AL &.......................
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GA......           2,172           2,172
BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA....................           3,902           3,902
BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GA...           7,525           7,525
CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA................           7,600           7,600
HARTWELL LAKE, GA AND SC................          11,876          11,876
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA.......              41              41
J STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA AND SC........          10,325          10,325
RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND             6,564           6,564
 SC.....................................
SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA.....................          12,911          12,911
SAVANNAH RIVER BELOW AUGUSTA, GA........             215             215
WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA AND AL......           4,865           4,865

                 HAWAII

BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI................             344             344
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI.......             122             122
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI...........             508             508

                  IDAHO

ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID....................           1,475           1,475
DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID..........           4,002           4,002
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID.......              75              75
LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID.....................           1,526           1,526
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ID.....             342             342

                ILLINOIS

CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL AND IN.....           3,709           3,709
CARLYLE LAKE, IL........................           4,962           4,962
CHICAGO HARBOR, IL......................           2,662           2,662
CHICAGO RIVER, IL.......................             362             362
FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL...............             170             170
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVR PORTION), IL AND           21,881          20,881
 IN.....................................
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVS PORTION), IL AND            1,610           1,610
 IN.....................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL.......             758             758
KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL..........           1,159           1,650
LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL.............           1,037           1,037
LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL....................           6,071           6,071
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS          42,431          42,431
 (MVR PORTION)..........................
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS          13,897          13,897
 (MVS PORTION)..........................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL...........              43              43
REND LAKE, IL...........................           4,760           4,760
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                     97              97
 WATERS, IL.............................
WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL.....................             770             770

                 INDIANA

BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN.....................             792             792
BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN...............           3,977           3,977
CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN....................             674             674
CECIL M HARDEN LAKE, IN.................             829             829
INDIANA HARBOR, IN......................              64              64
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN.......             102             102
J EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN.................             690             690
MICHIGAN CITY HARBOR, IN................           1,495           1,495
MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN...................             803             803
MONROE LAKE, IN.........................             819             819
PATOKA LAKE, IN.........................             757             757
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN...........              42              42
SALAMONIE LAKE, IN......................             710             710
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                     90              90
 WATERS, IN.............................

                  IOWA

CORALVILLE LAKE, IA.....................           2,735           2,735
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA.......             812             812
MISSOURI RIVER--KENSLERS BEND, NE TO                 148             148
 SIOUX CITY, IA.........................
MISSOURI RIVER--RULO TO MOUTH, IA, NE,             3,270           6,880
 KS AND MO..............................
MISSOURI RIVER--SIOUX CITY TO RULO, IA             2,263           2,263
 AND NE.................................
RATHBUN LAKE, IA........................           2,195           2,195
RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA......           3,356           5,182
SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA....................           3,887           3,887

                 KANSAS

CLINTON LAKE, KS........................           2,201           2,201
COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS..................           1,116           1,116
EL DORADO LAKE, KS......................             478             478
ELK CITY LAKE, KS.......................             526             526
FALL RIVER LAKE, KS.....................             973             973
HILLSDALE LAKE, KS......................           1,014           1,014
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KS.......              45              45
JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS......           1,100           1,100
KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS......................           1,507           1,507
MARION LAKE, KS.........................           1,422           1,422
MELVERN LAKE, KS........................           2,006           2,006
MILFORD LAKE, KS........................           1,997           1,997
PEARSON--SKUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS......             898             898
PERRY LAKE, KS..........................           2,055           2,055
POMONA LAKE, KS.........................           2,130           2,130
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, KS.....             185             185
TORONTO LAKE, KS........................             456             456
TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS...................           2,004           2,004
WILSON LAKE, KS.........................           2,069           2,069

                KENTUCKY

BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY AND TN.           6,896           6,896
BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY...................           1,900           1,900
BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY....................           1,099           1,099
BUCKHORN LAKE, KY.......................           1,440           1,440
CARR CREEK LAKE, KY.....................           1,656           1,656
CAVE RUN LAKE, KY.......................             834             834
DEWEY LAKE, KY..........................           1,371           1,371
ELVIS STAHR (HICKMAN) HARBOR............  ..............             460
FISHTRAP LAKE, KY.......................           2,095           2,095
GRAYSON LAKE, KY........................           1,332           1,332
GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY.............           1,079           1,079
GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY....................           2,107           2,107
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY.......              87              87
KENTUCKY RIVER, KY......................             913             913
LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY...................           1,311           1,311
MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY...................             617             617
MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KY..             106             106
NOLIN LAKE, KY..........................           1,808           1,808
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, IN             28,572          27,572
 AND OH.................................
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, IL, IN           5,180           5,180
 AND OH.................................
PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY....................           1,178           1,178
ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY....................           2,069           2,069
TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY...................             993             993
WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY.....           5,407           5,407
YATESVILLE LAKE, KY.....................           1,136           1,136

                LOUISIANA

ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE,               13,181          13,181
 BOEUF AND BLACK, L.....................
BARATARIA BAY WATERWAY, LA..............  ..............           1,000
BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA..............             652             652
BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP                   730             730
 WATERWAY, LA...........................
BAYOU PIERRE, LA........................              28              28
BAYOU SEGNETTE WATERWAY, LA.............  ..............             740
BAYOU TECHE, LA.........................  ..............           1,000
CADDO LAKE, LA..........................              92              92
CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA............          12,773          12,773
FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA....................           1,595           3,595
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA..........          18,195          19,500
HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA..............           3,343           3,343
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA.......             549             549
J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA.........           8,477          11,477
LAKE PROVIDENCE HARBOR, LA..............  ..............             592
MADISON PARISH PORT, LA.................  ..............             120
MERMENTAU RIVER, LA.....................             933           1,258
MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT VENICE, LA.           1,937           1,937
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE             55,831          53,331
 GULF OF MEXICO,........................
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, GULF OUTLET, LA......          13,111          15,111
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, LA...........              80              80
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA...........           2,000           2,000
WALLACE LAKE, LA........................             154             154
WATERWAY FROM IWW TO BAYOU DULAC, LA....  ..............             500

                  MAINE

PENOBSCOT HARBOR, ME....................  ..............             275
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME...........           1,130           1,130
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                     17              17
 WATERS, ME.............................
UNION RIVER, ME.........................             230             230

                MARYLAND

BALTIMORE HARBOR (DRIFT REMOVAL), MD....             464             464
BALTIMORE HARBOR (PREVENTION OF                      650             650
 OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS),.................
BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 FOOT),          22,568          21,568
 MD.....................................
CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV.........             157             157
HERRING BAY AND ROCKHOLD CREEK, MD......  ..............             500
HONGA RIVER AND TAR BAY--BACK CREEK, MD.  ..............             300
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD.......             330             330
JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD AND WV.......           2,074           2,174
NANTICOKE HARBOR, MD....................  ..............             700
NANTICOKE RIVER NORTHWEST FORK, MD......             865             865
NEALE SOUND, CHARLES COUNTY, MD.........  ..............             677
OCEAN CITY HARBOR AND INLET AND                    2,798           2,798
 SINEPUXENT BAY, MD.....................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD...........             459             459
RHODES POINT TO TYLERTON, MD............             736             736
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MD.....             142             142
TOLCHESTER CHANNEL, MD..................           1,901           1,901
TWITCH COVE AND BIG THOROFARE RIVER, MD.             742             742
WICOMICO RIVER, MD......................             450             450

              MASSACHUSETTS

ANDREWS RIVER, MA.......................  ..............             130
AUNT LYDIA'S COVE, MA...................  ..............             300
BARRE FALLS DAM, MA.....................             489             489
BIRCH HILL DAM, MA......................             511             511
BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA....................             427             427
CAPE COD CANAL, MA......................          10,150          10,150
CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY STORAGE                 294             294
 AREA, MA...............................
CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA...................             234             234
EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA.................             325             325
GREEN HARBOR, MA........................             378             378
HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA..................             416             416
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA.......             125             125
KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA.....................             648             648
LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA....................             476             476
NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET                   358             358
 HURRICANE BARRIER,.....................
PLYMOUTH HARBOR, MA.....................           3,356           3,356
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA...........           3,536           3,536
SCITUATE HARBOR, MA.....................  ..............           1,500
TULLY LAKE, MA..........................             665             665
WEST HILL DAM, MA.......................             607             607
WESTVILLE LAKE, MA......................             397             397

                MICHIGAN

CHANNELS IN LAKE ST CLAIR, MI...........             118             118
CHARLEVOIX HARBOR, MI...................             122             122
DETROIT RIVER, MI.......................           3,692           3,692
FRANKFORT HARBOR, MI....................              47              47
GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI..................           2,239           2,239
GRAND MARAIS HARBOR, MI.................  ..............             200
GRAND TRAVERSE BAY HARBOR, MI...........              10              10
HOLLAND HARBOR, MI......................             554             554
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI.......             205             205
KEWEENAW WATERWAY, MI...................             804             804
LELAND HARBOR, MI.......................             191             191
LUDINGTON HARBOR, MI....................             103             103
MANISTEE HARBOR, MI.....................              42              42
MARQUETTE HARBOR, MI....................             239             239
MENOMINEE HARBOR, MI AND WI.............             104             104
MONROE HARBOR, MI.......................              52              52
MUSKEGON HARBOR, MI.....................             451             451
ONTONAGON HARBOR, MI....................           1,544           1,544
PENTWATER HARBOR, MI....................             185             185
PORTAGE LAKE HARBOR, MI.................           2,518           2,518
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI...........             275             275
ROUGE RIVER, MI.........................              87              87
SAGINAW RIVER, MI.......................           1,587           1,587
SAUGATUCK HARBOR, MI....................           1,231           1,231
SEBEWAING RIVER (ICE JAM REMOVAL), MI...              10              10
SOUTH HAVEN HARBOR, MI..................           1,563           1,563
ST CLAIR RIVER, MI......................             759             759
ST JOSEPH HARBOR, MI....................             638             638
ST MARYS RIVER, MI......................          17,418          17,418
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                  3,295           3,295
 WATERS, MI.............................

                MINNESOTA

BIGSTONE LAKE WHETSTONE RIVER, MN AND SD             217             217
DULUTH--SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN AND WI......           2,692           2,692
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN.......             101             101
LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA RIVER, MN             573             573
MINNESOTA RIVER, MN.....................             130             130
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS          45,329          43,329
 (MVP PORTION)..........................
ORWELL LAKE, MN.........................             337             337
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN...........               7               7
RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN..................             146             146
RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF MISSISSIPPI            3,552           3,552
 RIVER, MN..............................
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                     94              94
 WATERS, MN.............................

               MISSISSIPPI

BILOXI HARBOR, MS.......................              30              30
CLAIRBORNE COUNTY PORT, MS..............  ..............             122
EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS..........             170             170
GULFPORT HARBOR, MS.....................           2,100           2,100
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS.......             126             126
OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS......................           1,584           1,584
PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS...................           4,200           4,200
PEARL RIVER, MS AND LA..................             250             250
ROSEDALE HARBOR, MS.....................  ..............             661
YAZOO RIVER, MS.........................  ..............             115

                MISSOURI

CARUTHERSVILLE HARBOR, MO...............  ..............             240
CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE,           6,196           6,196
 MO.....................................
CLEARWATER LAKE, MO.....................           2,184           3,819
HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO....           8,215           8,215
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO.......             142             142
LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO.............             800             800
LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO....................             876             876
MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS            13,068          13,068
 (REG WORKS), MO........................
NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO...................  ..............             290
POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO.................           2,204           2,204
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MO...........              10              10
SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO.....................           1,128           1,128
SOUTHEAST MISSOURI PORT, MISSISSIPPI      ..............             400
 RIVER..................................
STOCKTON LAKE, MO.......................           4,065           4,065
TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO.....................           6,826           8,826
UNION LAKE, MO..........................              10              10

                 MONTANA

FT PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT................           4,342           4,342
LIBBY DAM, LAKE KOOCANUSA, MT...........           1,791           1,791

                NEBRASKA

GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK LAKE,            6,495           6,745
 NE AND SD..............................
HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE..................           2,019           2,019
MISSOURI NATIONAL RECREATIONAL RIVER, NE  ..............             275
MISSOURI R MASTER WTR CONTROL MANUAL,                500             500
 NE, IA, KS, MO,........................
MISSOURI RIVER BASIN COLLABORATIVE WATER              80              80
 PLANNING (NWK..........................
MISSOURI RIVER BASIN COLLABORATIVE WATER             125             125
 PLANNING (NWO..........................
PAPILLION CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES LAKES,               611             611
 NE.....................................
SALT CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, NE..........             847             847
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NE.....             329             329

                 NEVADA

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV.......              43              43
MARTIS CREEK LAKE, NV AND CA............             576             576
PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV......             210             210

              NEW HAMPSHIRE

BLACKWATER DAM, NH......................             607             607
COCHECO RIVER...........................  ..............             300
EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH...............             460             460
FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH..................           1,104           1,104
HOPKINTON-EVERETT LAKES, NH.............           1,412           1,412
OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH....................             781             781
PORTSMOUTH HARBOR AND PISCATAQUA RIVER,              287             287
 NH.....................................
SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH.................             749             749

               NEW JERSEY

BARNEGAT INLET, NJ......................           1,400           3,200
COLD SPRING INLET, NJ...................             410             410
DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ............              19              19
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE SEA,          17,105          19,105
 NJ, PA AND DE..........................
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO                3,465           3,465
 TRENTON, NJ............................
NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NJ....           2,800           2,800
NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC                 2,900           2,900
 RIVERS, NJ.............................
PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD WARNING SYSTEMS, NJ.             425             425
SHARK RIVER, NJ.........................             100             100
SHREWSBURY RIVER, MAIN CHANNEL, NJ......  ..............  ..............

               NEW MEXICO

ABIQUIU DAM, NM.........................           1,556           3,056
COCHITI LAKE, NM........................           2,209           2,209
CONCHAS LAKE, NM........................           1,932           1,932
GALISTEO DAM, NM........................             368             468
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM.......              80              80
JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM....................             541             541
SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM.............           1,049           1,229
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NM.....             130             130
TWO RIVERS DAM, NM......................             328             328
UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS MODEL.  ..............           1,500

                NEW YORK

ALMOND LAKE, NY.........................             463             463
ARKPORT DAM, NY.........................             252             252
BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR,           2,795           2,795
 NY.....................................
BUFFALO HARBOR, NY......................             515             515
DUNKIRK HARBOR, NY......................             280             280
EAST RIVER, NY..........................             600             600
EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY.................             250             250
EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY....................             513             513
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY....           2,300           2,300
FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY..............           3,000           3,000
GREAT KILLS HARBOR, NY..................  ..............  ..............
GREAT SODUS BAY HARBOR, NY..............              50              50
GREAT SOUTH BAY, NY.....................             100             100
HUDSON RIVER, NY (MAINT)................           2,525           2,525
HUDSON RIVER, NY (O&C)..................           1,340           1,340
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY.......             509             509
JAMAICA BAY, NY.........................             250             250
JONES INLET, NY.........................             100             100
LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR, NY.................              80              80
LITTLE SODUS BAY HARBOR, NY.............              50              50
LONG ISLAND INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NY...              70              70
MORICHES INLET, NY......................              80              80
MT MORRIS LAKE, NY......................           2,616           2,616
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS, NY....           4,250           4,250
NEW YORK HARBOR (DRIFT REMOVAL), NY AND            5,030           5,030
 NJ.....................................
NEW YORK HARBOR (PREVENTION OF                       750             750
 OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS),.................
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY.....................           5,570           5,570
OSWEGO HARBOR, NY.......................              20              20
PLATTSBURGH HARBOR, NY..................  ..............  ..............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY...........           2,563           2,563
ROCHESTER HARBOR, NY....................              35              35
RONDOUT HARBOR, NY......................             475             475
SAG HARBOR, NY..........................             925             925
SHINNECOCK INLET, NY....................             100             100
SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL                      750             750
 PROJECTS, NY...........................
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                    479             479
 WATERS, NY.............................
WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY..................             564             564

             NORTH CAROLINA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NC......           2,391           4,000
B EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC.......           3,065           3,065
BEAUFORT HARBOR, NC.....................              35              35
BOGUE INLET AND CHANNEL, NC.............           1,267           1,267
CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC....             486             486
CAROLINA BEACH INLET, NC................           1,060           1,060
FALLS LAKE, NC..........................           1,516           1,516
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC.......              22              22
LOCKWOODS FOLLY RIVER, NC...............             895           1,895
MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC.............           4,863           4,863
MASONBORO INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS,           2,245           2,245
 NC.....................................
MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC................           4,450           4,450
NEW RIVER INLET, NC.....................           1,235           1,235
NEW TOPSAIL INLET AND CONNECTING                     940             940
 CHANNELS, NC...........................
PAMLICO AND TAR RIVERS, NC..............             139             139
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC...........              64              64
ROANOKE RIVER, NC.......................             100             100
W KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC......           2,253           2,253
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC...................           5,105           5,105

              NORTH DAKOTA

BOWMAN-HALEY LAKE, ND...................             210             210
GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND........           9,111           9,911
HOMME LAKE, ND..........................             164             164
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND.......              52              52
LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND.....           1,264           1,264
PIPESTEM LAKE, ND.......................             402             402
SOURIS RIVER, ND........................             385             385

                  OHIO

ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH.....................             799             799
ASHTABULA HARBOR, OH....................           2,051           2,051
BERLIN LAKE, OH.........................           1,872           1,872
CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH...................           1,142           1,142
CLARENCE J BROWN DAM, OH................             723             723
CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH....................           3,700           3,700
CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH.....................              30              30
DEER CREEK LAKE, OH.....................             903             903
DELAWARE LAKE, OH.......................             642             642
DILLON LAKE, OH.........................             527             527
FAIRPORT HARBOR, OH.....................           1,235           1,235
HURON HARBOR, OH........................           1,040           1,040
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH.......             166             166
LORAIN HARBOR, OH.......................           1,100           1,100
MASSILLON LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH..              25              25
MICHAEL J KIRWAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, OH..             809             809
MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH.................           1,054           1,054
MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH...............           6,284           6,284
NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, OH....             358             358
PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH....................             680             680
PORT CLINTON HARBOR, OH.................           1,080           1,080
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH...........              85              85
ROSEVILLE LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH..              30              30
SANDUSKY HARBOR, OH.....................             950             950
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                    190             190
 WATERS, OH.............................
TOLEDO HARBOR, OH.......................           3,211           3,211
TOM JENKINS DAM, OH.....................             229             229
TOUSSAINT RIVER, OH.....................              10              10
WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH........             476             476
WILLIAM H HARSHA LAKE, OH...............             816             816

                OKLAHOMA

ARCADIA LAKE, OK........................             429             429
BIRCH LAKE, OK..........................             572             572
BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK.....................           1,549           1,549
CANDY LAKE, OK..........................              18              18
CANTON LAKE, OK.........................           3,012           3,012
COPAN LAKE, OK..........................             824             824
EUFAULA LAKE, OK........................           6,277           6,277
FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK....................           4,144           4,144
FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK....................             879             879
GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK..............             234             234
HEYBURN LAKE, OK........................             572             572
HUGO LAKE, OK...........................           1,670           1,800
HULAH LAKE, OK..........................             406             406
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OK.......              91              91
KAW LAKE, OK............................           1,840           1,840
KEYSTONE LAKE, OK.......................           5,553           5,553
MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION           3,025           3,025
 SYSTEM, OK.............................
OOLOGAH LAKE, OK........................           1,843           1,843
OPTIMA LAKE, OK.........................              56              56
PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE                      32              32
 CHEROKEES, OK..........................
PINE CREEK LAKE, OK.....................           1,170           1,170
ROBERT S KERR LOCK AND DAM AND                     5,130           5,130
 RESERVOIRS, OK.........................
SARDIS LAKE, OK.........................             913             913
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OK.....             370             370
SKIATOOK LAKE, OK.......................             893             893
TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK................           3,228           3,228
WAURIKA LAKE, OK........................           1,426           1,426
WEBBERS FALLS LOCK AND DAM, OK..........           3,557           3,557
WISTER LAKE, OK.........................             602             672

                 OREGON

APPLEGATE LAKE, OR......................             720             720
BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR.....................             260             260
BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA......           5,430           5,880
CHETCO RIVER, OR........................             402             402
COLUMBIA AND LWR WILLAMETTE R BLW                 13,042          15,042
 VANCOUVER, WA AND PORTLA...............
COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR AND WA..           7,818           8,018
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA AND             352             352
 THE DALLES, O..........................
COOS BAY, OR............................           4,692           4,692
COQUILLE RIVER, OR......................             193             193
COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR..................             981             981
COUGAR LAKE, OR.........................             752             752
DEPOE BAY, OR...........................               3               3
DETROIT LAKE, OR........................             584             584
DORENA LAKE, OR.........................             649             649
FALL CREEK LAKE, OR.....................             722             722
FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR.....................             952             952
GREEN PETER-FOSTER LAKES, OR............           1,196           1,196
HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR....................             377             377
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR.......             176             176
JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA........           4,056           4,356
LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR..................           1,818           1,818
LOST CREEK LAKE, OR.....................           3,049           3,049
MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA..........           3,650           3,650
PORT ORFORD, OR.........................             631             631
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR...........             200             200
ROGUE RIVER AT GOLD BEACH, OR...........             674             674
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OR.....              69              69
SIUSLAW RIVER, OR.......................             781             781
SKIPANON CHANNEL, OR....................             161             161
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                    134             134
 WATERS, OR.............................
TILLAMOOK BAY AND BAR, OR...............              14             214
UMPQUA RIVER, OR........................             834             834
WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS, OR             291             291
WILLAMETTE RIVER BANK PROTECTION, OR....              68              68
WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR...................             830             830
YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR..............           2,354           2,454

              PENNSYLVANIA

ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA.....................           6,015           6,015
ALVIN R BUSH DAM, PA....................             622             622
AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA...............             229             229
BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA.....................           1,355           1,355
BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA.....................           2,285           2,285
CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA................             945             945
COWANESQUE LAKE, PA.....................           1,887           1,887
CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA..................           2,001           2,001
CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA...................             676             676
EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA......           1,322           1,322
ERIE HARBOR, PA.........................              70              70
FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA............             729             729
FRANCIS E WALTER DAM, PA................             797           1,097
GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND RESERVOIR,              365             365
 PA.....................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA.......              95              95
JOHNSTOWN, PA...........................           1,115           1,115
KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PA..           1,189           1,189
LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA.....................             977             977
MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA.................           1,093           1,093
MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA...................          14,203          14,203
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, PA, OH AND WV          19,321          19,321
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, PA, OH AND              58              58
 WV.....................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA...........              88              88
PROMPTON LAKE, PA.......................             482             482
PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA........................              15              15
RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA.......................           3,902           3,902
SCHUYLKILL RIVER, PA....................           1,315           1,315
SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA.................           2,252           2,252
STILLWATER LAKE, PA.....................             350             350
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                     65              65
 WATERS, PA.............................
TIOGA-HAMMOND LAKES, PA.................           2,501           2,501
TIONESTA LAKE, PA.......................           2,262           2,262
UNION CITY LAKE, PA.....................             221             221
WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA.................             761             761
YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA................             547             547
YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA AND MD......           1,871           1,871

              RHODE ISLAND

PROVIDENCE RIVER AND HARBOR, RI.........           2,110           2,110

             SOUTH CAROLINA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC......           1,575           2,000
CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC...................           5,171           5,171
COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC.....           3,201           3,201
FOLLY RIVER, SC.........................             748             748
GEORGETOWN HARBOR, SC...................           5,738           5,738
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC.......              26              26
MURRELLS INLET, SC......................  ..............             200
PORT ROYAL HARBOR, SC...................             169             500
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC...........              45              45
SHIPYARD RIVER, SC......................             486             486
TOWN CREEK, SC..........................             305             305

              SOUTH DAKOTA

BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD...........           6,136           6,386
COLD BROOK LAKE, SD.....................             433             433
COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD.............             197             197
FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS CASE, SD.           8,044           8,294
LAKE TRAVERSE, SD AND MN................             531             531
MISSOURI R BETWEEN FORT PECK DAM AND                 625             625
 GAVINS PT, SD, MT......................
OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD AND ND..........           9,480           9,730
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, SD.....             306             306

                TENNESSEE

CENTER HILL LAKE, TN....................           4,757           4,757
CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN...............           4,217           4,217
CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TN....................           2,315           2,315
CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN......           3,910           3,910
DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN....................           4,217           4,217
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN.......              97              97
J PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN....           3,222           3,222
OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN............           5,981           5,981
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TN...........              19              19
TENNESSEE RIVER, TN.....................          16,422          16,422
WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN...................  ..............             450

                  TEXAS

AQUILLA LAKE, TX........................             708             708
ARKANSAS-RED RIVER BASINS CHLORIDE                 1,267           1,267
 CONTROL--AREA VI.......................
BARBOUR TERMINAL CHANNEL, TX............             577             577
BARDWELL LAKE, TX.......................           1,499           1,499
BAYPORT SHIP CHANNEL, TX................           2,275           2,275
BELTON LAKE, TX.........................           2,578           2,578
BENBROOK LAKE, TX.......................           2,290           2,290
BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TX................           1,222           1,222
BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX.......           2,977           2,977
CANYON LAKE, TX.........................           2,743           2,743
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX.........           5,399           5,399
DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX............           5,532           5,532
ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT,                5               5
 TX.....................................
FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O' THE PINES,            2,554           2,554
 TX.....................................
FREEPORT HARBOR, TX.....................           6,950           6,950
GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX........             130             130
GIWW, CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX...........             585             585
GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX................           1,535           1,535
GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX......................           2,478           2,478
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX..........          19,994          19,994
HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX....................           1,190           1,190
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX................           7,555           7,555
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX.......             452             452
JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX....................           1,189           1,189
JOE POOL LAKE, TX.......................             784             784
LAKE KEMP, TX...........................             143             143
LAVON LAKE, TX..........................           2,485           2,485
LEWISVILLE DAM, TX......................           3,253           3,253
MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX..............           1,665           1,665
MOUTH OF THE COLORADO RIVER, TX.........           2,480           2,480
NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX..................           1,596           1,596
NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE                     1,748           1,748
 GEORGETOWN, TX.........................
O C FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX.............             893             893
PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX......................             976             976
PROCTOR LAKE, TX........................           1,659           1,659
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TX...........              15              15
RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX....................             821             821
SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX..............          14,272          14,272
SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX.......           4,417           4,417
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, TX.....             243             243
SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX.....................           2,555           2,555
STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX...............           1,719           1,719
TEXAS WATER ALLOCATION ASSESSMENT, TX...           1,500           1,500
TOWN BLUFF DAM, B A STEINHAGEN LAKE, TX.           1,748           1,748
TRINITY RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, TX.......           1,000           1,000
WACO LAKE, TX...........................           2,412           2,412
WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX....................           1,320           1,320
WHITNEY LAKE, TX........................           4,227           4,800
WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX..........           2,611           2,611

                  UTAH

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT.......              75              75
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, UT.....             390             390

                 VERMONT

BALL MOUNTAIN LAKE, VT..................             743             743
BURLINGTON HARBOR BREAKWATER, VT........             250           2,000
NARROWS OF LAKE CHAMPLAIN, VT AND NY....              95              95
NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT.................             635             635
NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT..............             700             700
TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT......................             764             764
UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT...................             506             651

                VIRGINIA

APPOMATTOX RIVER, VA....................             749             749
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--ACC, VA.           1,795           1,795
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--DSC, VA.             835             835
CHINCOTEAGUE BAY CHANNEL, VA............             430             430
CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA..................             898             898
GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA.......           1,535           1,535
HAMPTON RDS, NORFOLK AND NEWPORT NEWS              1,095           1,095
 HBR, VA (DRIFT REM.....................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA.......              59              59
JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA.................           3,680           3,680
JOHN H KERR LAKE, VA AND NC.............          10,013          10,013
JOHN W FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA..           1,387           1,387
LYNNHAVEN INLET, VA.....................             916             916
NORFOLK HARBOR (PREVENTION OF                        215             215
 OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS), V...............
NORFOLK HARBOR, VA......................           6,439           6,439
NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA......             328             328
PAGAN RIVER, VA.........................             145             145
PHILPOTT LAKE, VA.......................           3,865           3,865
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA...........             630             630
RUDEE INLET, VA.........................           1,053           1,053
WATERWAY ON THE COAST OF VIRGINIA, VA...           1,190           1,190
WINTER HARBOR, VA.......................  ..............           1,000
YORK RIVER, VA..........................             155             155

               WASHINGTON

CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA....................             848             848
COLUMBIA RIVER AT BAKER BAY, WA AND OR..              28              28
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN CHINOOK AND SAND               36              36
 ISLAND, WA.............................
EDIZ HOOK, WA...........................             718             718
EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WA..           1,345           1,345
GRAYS HARBOR AND CHEHALIS RIVER, WA.....          11,275          15,075
HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA...................           1,739           1,739
ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA.............           3,249           3,249
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA.......             243             243
LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA..........           7,200           7,200
LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, WA...........           1,290           1,590
LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, WA..........           6,114           6,114
LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA.......           2,230           2,230
MILL CREEK LAKE, WA.....................           3,016           3,016
MT ST HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA.......             319             319
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA....................           2,319           2,819
NEAH BAY, WA............................              30              30
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA...........             253             253
PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, WA....             938             938
QUILLAYUTE RIVER, WA....................           1,760           1,760
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WA.....             427             427
SEATTLE HARBOR, EAST WATERWAY CHANNEL                300             300
 DEEPENING, WA..........................
SEATTLE HARBOR, WA......................             620             620
STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA.................             240             240
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                     58              58
 WATERS, WA.............................
SWINOMISH CHANNEL, WA...................             515             515
TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA..............             123             123
THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM, WA AND OR......           2,961           3,261
WILLAPA RIVER AND HARBOR, WA............             435             885

              WEST VIRGINIA

BEECH FORK LAKE, WV.....................           1,074           1,074
BLUESTONE LAKE, WV......................           1,231           6,661
BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV.....................           1,783           1,783
EAST LYNN LAKE, WV......................           1,687           1,687
ELKINS, WV..............................              18              18
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV.......             211             211
KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV........           6,799           6,799
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY AND OH          16,738          20,053
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, WV, KY AND           2,407           2,407
 OH.....................................
R D BAILEY LAKE, WV.....................           1,582           1,582
STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV..............             888             888
SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV...................           1,458           1,458
SUTTON LAKE, WV.........................           2,016           2,016
TYGART LAKE, WV.........................           3,223           3,223
WHEELING CREEK, VA......................  ..............           2,000

                WISCONSIN

EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI................             736             736
FOX RIVER, WI...........................           4,004           9,004
GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI....................           1,641           1,641
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WI.......              17              17
KENOSHA HARBOR, WI......................           1,122           1,122
KEWAUNEE HARBOR, WI.....................             210             210
LAFARGE LAKE, WI........................              56              56
MANITOWOC HARBOR, WI....................             249             249
MILWAUKEE HARBOR, WI....................             603             603
PENSAUKEE HARBOR, WI....................             488             488
PORT WING HARBOR, WI....................             260             260
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WI...........               8               8
SHEBOYGAN HARBOR, WI....................              46              46
STURGEON BAY HARBOR AND LAKE MICHIGAN              2,625           2,625
 SHIP CANAL, WI.........................
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                     42              42
 WATERS, WI.............................
TWO RIVERS HARBOR, WI...................           1,102           1,102

                 WYOMING

JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY.................           1,198           1,198

              MISCELLANEOUS

AQUATIC NUISANCE CONTROL RESEARCH.......             700             700
COASTAL INLET RESEARCH PROGRAM..........           2,750           2,750
CULTURAL RESOURCES (NAGPRA/CURATION)....           1,500           1,500
DREDGE WHEELER READY RESERVE............           8,000           8,000
DREDGING DATA AND LOCK PERFORMANCE                 1,000           1,000
 MONITORING SYSTEM......................
DREDGING OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL              7,000           7,000
 RESEARCH (DOER)........................
DREDGING OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT              1,500           1,500
 (DOTS) PROGRAM.........................
EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS PROGRAM FOR BUILDINGS             500             500
 AND LIFELINES..........................
GREAT LAKES SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MODELS...             500           1,000
HARBOR MAINTENANCE FEE DATA COLLECTION..             575             575
INLAND WATERWAY NAVIGATION CHARTS.......  ..............  ..............
MANAGEMENT TOOLS FOR O&M................             500             500
MONITORING OF COASTAL NAVIGATION                   1,700           1,700
 PROJECTS...............................
NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM.............              40              40
NATIONAL DAM SECURITY PROGRAM...........              25              25
NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAMS           4,000           4,000
 (NEPP).................................
NATIONAL LEWIS AND CLARK COMMEMORATION               300             300
 COORDINATOR............................
PERFORMANCE BASED BUDGETING SUPPORT                  415             415
 PROGRAM................................
PROTECTING, CLEARING AND STRAIGHTENING                50              50
 CHANNELS(SEC 3)........................
RECREATION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT PROGRAM              1,500           1,500
 (RMSP).................................
REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT SEDIMENT              1,500           1,500
 DEMO PROGRAM...........................
RELIABILITY MODELS PROGRAM FOR MAJOR                 675             675
 REHABILITATION.........................
REMOVAL OF SUNKEN VESSELS...............             500             500
WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT                   700             700
 (WOTS) PROGRAM.........................
WATERBORNE COMMERCE STATISTICS..........           4,000           4,000
REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND            -16,457         -33,634
 SLIPPAGE...............................
                                         ===============================
      TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE..       1,745,000       1,833,263
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee continues to believe that it is essential to 
provide adequate resources and attention to operation and 
maintenance requirements in order to protect the large Federal 
investment. Yet, current and projected budgetary constraints 
require the Committee to limit the amount of work that can be 
accomplished in the fiscal year. In order to cope with the 
current situation, the Corps has had to defer or delay 
scheduled maintenance activities.
    Maintenance backlogs continue to grow, with much of the 
backlog being essential maintenance dredging needed to keep the 
Nation's ports, harbors, and waterways open and able to 
efficiently handle important national and international trade 
activities. Yet, the Committee is aware that out-year budget 
planning guidance for the Corps of Engineers projects that the 
current appropriations for their critical operation and 
maintenance activities will continue to decline for the 
foreseeable future. If additional resources are not made 
available, the Committee will be forced to cut back on 
services, and begin to terminate and close many projects and 
activities.
    The Committee is aware of the Corps' efforts to stretch the 
limited resources to cover all of its projects and to effect 
savings through a variety of means. With an increasing number 
of projects entering the inventory, and budgetary constraints 
increasing, it is clear that the Corps will have to find 
innovative ways of accomplishing required maintenance work, 
while reducing operational and other costs. Adjustments in 
lower-priority programs and noncritical work should optimize 
limited resources while maximizing the public benefit.
    The Committee agrees that centralized management of project 
funds is efficient and is allowed under current guidelines for 
multi-project-related activities. These activities include, but 
are not limited to, the program development system known as the 
Automated Budget System (WinABS) and certain activities such as 
the National Recreation Reservation Service; the provision of 
uniforms for those required to wear them; Volunteer 
Clearinghouse; the Water Safety Program; and the Sign Standards 
Program. However, the Committee expects the Chief of Engineers 
to properly account and disclose the costs of these activities.
    The Committee is concerned about efforts to place the 
dredge McFARLAND directly into active ready reserve status. In 
addition, the Committee is concerned about efforts preventing 
the McFARLAND from being scheduled to work outside the Delaware 
River in other navigation channels (especially the Mississippi 
River) as it has successfully done. Though the private dredging 
industry has constructed one new hopper dredge and has another 
in construction, it is not known if these two vessels can 
provide sufficient additional private industry equipment 
capacity to execute an average year of dredging. Hopper 
dredging requirements over the last 2 years have been below 
average. The Committee believes that, given the policy 
implications, the future status of the dredge McFARLAND or the 
recommendation of placing another dredge in ready reserve 
should be carefully reviewed and authorized by the appropriate 
authorizing committees of the Congress.
    The inland waterways infrastructure is an investment that 
tangibly benefits the nation's economy and all consumers. Based 
on analyses by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), the use of 
inland waterway transportation nationally saves an estimated 
average of $10.69 per ton over alternative modes (based on 1997 
waterborne commerce data). This represents a savings to 
American shippers, consumers and exporters of $7,000,000,000 
annually, or a 14 to 1 return on the $500,000,000 investment of 
Federal dollars in operating, maintaining and improving the 
inland waterways.
    Inland and intracoastal navigation operates as a system, 
much like highways. The Mississippi, Ohio, Illinois, Tennessee 
and Gulf Intracoastal Waterway are like interstates--the main 
arteries that carry most of the system traffic. Smaller 
tributary waterways act as secondary roads, or neighborhood 
streets, allowing commerce to feed on and off the main routes, 
and providing access to more remote communities and regions. 
These tributary waterways naturally carry far less traffic than 
the mainstem waterways, but, like neighborhood streets, they 
play a vital role in linking communities to the system as a 
whole. This allows shippers and consumers in communities on 
tributary waterways to take advantage of the huge economies of 
scale offered by large barge tows on the mainstem, resulting in 
lower transportation costs. It also allows millions of tons of 
cargo to remain on barges much closer to its final destination, 
rather than moving longer distances by highway or rail and 
adding to existing congestion.
    The tributary waterways naturally do not enjoy the same 
level of relative efficiencies as the mainstem waterways. The 
Mississippi and Ohio handle tremendous volumes of traffic over 
long distances and so generate impressive ton-mile statistics. 
Tributaries by nature provide generally short, smaller channels 
with lower traffic densities. Consequently, ``ton-mile'' 
statistics for tributary waterways are dwarfed by statistics 
for the mainstem waterways. But it is important to recognize 
that the commerce on the tributaries is usually only a small 
part of a total journey between producer and consumer. 
Tributary traffic joins the mainstem traffic and becomes a part 
of the impressive ton-mile statistics realized by the 
``interstates'' of waterways.
    Because of their very nature and function as tributaries, 
these waterways have much higher operation and maintenance 
costs per ton-mile than the mainstem waterways. However, as a 
return on investment, most tributary waterways in fact appear 
to ``pay their way''. Therefore, the Committee has restored 
funding to most of the low use waterways and port projects not 
included in the budget request. The Committee believes that 
cutting low-use waterway funding does a serious disservice to 
the public.
    Alabama-Coosa River, AL.--The Committee has included 
$4,710,000 for the Alabama-Coosa River navigation channel. 
Funds provided over the budget request are for annual 
maintenance dredging of the waterway.
    Naknek River, AK.--The Committee has provided $1,000,000 to 
prepare plans and specifications and to initiate a contract to 
remove obstructive boulders causing hazardous navigation 
conditions.
    Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbors, CA.--$2,200,000 has been 
provided to perform maintenance activities at the harbor 
project.
    Cherry Creek, Chatfield, and Trinidad Lakes, CO.--An 
appropriation of $1,200,000 has been provided above the budget 
request of $2,055,000 for these three lakes. Frequent 
inundation of recreation areas are causing health and safety 
concerns requiring repair or replacement of the facilities. It 
is the Committee's understanding that the State of Colorado has 
agreed to cost share in this project on a 50-50 basis. It is 
also the understanding of the Committee that the Secretary is 
not to assume, nor share in the future cost of the operation 
and maintenance of these recreation facilities. This action in 
no way is intended to alter the Corps of Engineers' lease and 
property accountability policies.
    Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, 
Delaware and Maryland.--The Committee recommendation is 
$13,500,000. A portion of the additional funds provided over 
the budget request of $12,223,000, are to be utilized to 
immediately reimburse the State of Delaware for normal 
operation and maintenance costs incurred by the State for the 
SR1 Bridge, from station 58+00 to station 293+00, between May 
12, 1997, and September 30, 2001. The reimbursable costs 
include electric lighting and associated late fees, power 
sweeping, drainage cleaning, snow removal, surface deicing, and 
periodic bridge inspections. Further, funds are provided to 
reimburse the State for costs associated with normal operation 
and maintenance of the SR1 Bridge for the period October 1, 
2001, through September 30, 2002. Reimbursable costs include 
electric lighting, power sweeping, drainage cleaning, snow 
removal, surface deicing, and periodic bridge inspections. The 
Corps shall initiate necessary repairs to the SR1 Bridge once 
repair recommendations from the bridge inspection are received.
    Apalachicola, Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers, GA, FL, & 
AL.--An appropriation of $8,173,000 is provided. Funds are to 
be used as follows: $1,237,000 for operation of the George W. 
Andrews Lock; $3,000,000 for system-wide annual maintenance 
dredging; $1,000,000 for maintenance of the disposal site; 
$600,000 to develop and implement a dredge material management 
plan; $1,200,000 to dredge spot shoals; $365,000 to perform 
annual lock maintenance; $231,000 to reestablish survey control 
points; and $540,000 to restore hydrologic connections and 
habitat values in three slough/tributary sites within the 
Apalachicola River System.
    Calumet Harbor and River, IL & IN.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $3,709,000 for the Calumet Harbor and 
River, IL & IN.
    Missouri River-Rulo to the Mouth, IA, NE, KS, & MO.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $6,880,000. In addition to 
maintenance activities included in the budget request, 
additional funding is provided for restoration of shallow water 
habitat and maintenance and repair of dike and revetment 
structures.
    Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, LA.--An appropriation of 
$19,500,000 is provided. Funds over the budget amount are for 
major repairs at Harvey Lock, painting emergency stoplogs at 
the INHC, and painting stiffleg derricks at Algiers Lock.
    J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, LA.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $11,477,000 to continue operation of 
the locks and dams and dredging within the waterway. Further, 
funds provided above the budget request are to be used to 
perform revetment repairs, lock and dam repairs, and to 
maintain the hydraulic connections to the oxbow lakes.
    Wolf and Jordan River, MS.--The Committee is aware that the 
authorized 7 foot deep and 100 foot wide Jordan River Channel 
is currently subject to draft restrictions due to shoaling, and 
has, therefore, directed the Corps of Enginers, within 
available funds, to perform maintenance dredging, or such 
activity as the Corps determines most effective, to ensure that 
project depth is maintained.
    Honga and Tar Bay-Back Creek, MD.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $300,000 for dredging the navigation 
channel.
    Missouri River Master Water Control Manual, NE, IA, KS, MO, 
MT, & ND.--The Committee recognizes that this continues to be a 
very contentious issue among all parties involved. Further, the 
Committee understands that the Corps is complying with 
provisions contained in the National Environmental Policy Act 
concerning development of reasonable and prudent alternatives 
to the biological opinion of the Fish and Wildlife Service. 
Therefore, the Committee has provided $1,000,000 to accomplish 
additional measures to complete the final EIS.
    Cocheco River, NH.--An appropriation of $300,000 is 
provided to continue coordination with the State and Federal 
agencies for an upland disposal site.
    Abiquiu Dam, NM.--The Committee has provided $3,056,000 for 
stabilization of the fractured rock walls on the north abutment 
of the dam which are threatening facilities and cause a hazard 
to project personnel.
    Upper Rio Grande Water Operations Model, NM.--The Committee 
has provided $1,500,000 continued development of the Upper Rio 
Grande Water Operations Model.
    Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea, ND.--The Committee has 
provided $9,911,000, an increase of $800,000 over the budget. 
The additional funds are provided for repair of damaged 
facilities and mosquito control activities.
    Wister Lake, OK.--The Committee has provided $70,000 above 
the budget request for land transfers on the Wister Lake, 
Oklahoma, project.
    Colombia River at the Mouth, OR & WA.--The Committee has 
provided $200,000 over the budget request for the Corps to 
study the impacts of alternate dredged material disposal 
methods. Specifically, the Corps is urged to examine the 
impacts of disposing of dredged material at Benson Beach. The 
Corps should report back to the Committee by September 30, 
2002, with its recommendations as to whether this alternative 
is technically sound, environmentally acceptable and cost 
effective.
    Tillamook Bay and Bar, OR.--The Committee recommendation 
contains $200,000 above the budget request for initiation of a 
major maintenance report for repairing the north and south 
jetties.
    Providence River and Harbor, RI.--The Committee has 
provided $2,110,000, the same as the budget request. These 
funds will be used for normal maintenance activities as well as 
necessary activities to develop both the interim and long-term 
dredge material disposal areas.
    Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, SC.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $2,000,000 to continue maintenance 
activities along the waterway from Little River, South 
Carolina, to Port Royal Sound.
    Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux, SD.--The 
Committee notes that Title VI of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999, as amended, requires that funding to 
inventory and stabilize cultural and historic sites along the 
Missouri River in South Dakota, and to carry out the 
terrestrial wildlife habitat programs, shall be provided from 
the Operations and Maintenance account. The Committee has 
provided $1,000,000 under the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin 
Program (Oahe, Big Bend, Fort Randall, and Gavins Point Dams) 
for this purpose, 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.
    Texas Water Allocation, TX.--The Committee has included 
$1,500,000, as proposed in the budget request, for the ongoing 
Corps' effort to determine the optimum allocation of existing 
water resources in Federal reservoirs in Texas.
    Burlington Harbor Breakwater, VT.--The Committee has 
provided $2,000,000 for normal O&M activities and to repair the 
south breakwater.
    North Springfield Lake and Union Village Dam, VT.--$145,000 
has been provided above the budget request for these two 
projects to update the project master plans.
    Little Goose Lock and Dam, WA, and The Dalles Lock and Dam, 
OR & WA.--$600,000 is provided above the budget request for 
these two projects to fund new requirements implementing the 
Federal Columbia River Power System biological opinion.
    Willapa River and Harbor, WA.--An additional $450,000 is 
provided to resume the navigation study.
    Bluestone Lake, WV.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$6,661,000. This is $5,430,000 above the budget request. The 
additional funds are for continued construction of the multi-
level release tower, the public awareness program, and to 
initiate the downstream clean-up.
    Wheeling Creek, WV.--The Bill includes $2,000,000 to 
continue the project.
    Fox River, WI.--The Committee has provided $5,000,000 above 
the budget request to transfer the navigation portion of the 
Federal project to the State of Wisconsin.

                           regulatory program

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $124,725,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     128,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     128,000,000

    An appropriation of $128,000,000 is recommended for the 
regulatory program of the Corps of Engineers.
    This appropriation provides for salaries and costs incurred 
administering regulation of activities affecting U.S. waters, 
including wetlands, in accordance with the Rivers and Harbors 
Act of 1899, the Clean Water Act of 1977, and the Marine 
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972.
    The appropriation helps maintain program performance, 
protects important aquatic resources, and supports partnerships 
with States and local communities through watershed planning 
efforts.

            formerly utilized sites remedial action program

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $139,692,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     140,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     140,000,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $140,000,000 
to continue activities related to the Formerly Utilized Sites 
Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) in fiscal year 2002.
    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.INSERT 78A
    The Committee notes that significant radiological 
contamination has been discovered in the past year that the 
former nuclear weapons facility at the Iowa Army Ammunition 
Plant in Middletown, Iowa, and understands that the Corps is 
currently conducting a Preliminary Assessment of the site for 
inclusion under FUSRAP. The Committee is disappointed that the 
Preliminary Assessment is not yet done. The Committee directs 
the Corps, in consultation with the State of Iowa, to report 
back to the Committee, by December 1, 2001, on their 
recommendations regarding a radiological survey of the entire 
plant site and to take all appropriate actions in accordance 
with rules and procedures governing the program.

                            general expenses

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $151,666,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     153,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     153,000,000

    This appropriation finances the expenses of the Office, 
Chief of Engineers, the Division Offices, and certain research 
and statistical functions of the Corps of Engineers.
    Executive direction and management.--The Office of the 
Chief of Engineers and 8 division offices supervise work in 37 
district offices.
    Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity.--This support 
center provides administrative services for the Office of the 
Chief of Engineers and other separate field operating 
activities, to include personnel, logistics, and finance and 
accounting.
    Institute for Water Resources.--This institute performs 
studies and analyses for meeting national objectives. It 
develops planning techniques for comprehensive management and 
development of the Nation's water resources.
    United States Army Corps of Engineers Finance Center.--This 
center was established in 1996 in Memphis, Tennessee, to 
centralize Corps finance and accounting sites.
    The Committee is concerned that the Army's Centralized 
personnel management system for worldwide military service and 
combat operations may not be meeting the Corps of Engineers 
hiring needs. The Committee urges the Army to evaluate the 
merits of extending this centralized system to an organization 
of distinctly regional civilian field operating agencies.
    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.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $153,000,000.

             General Provisions--Corps of Engineers--Civil

    Language included under Section 101 restates language 
contained in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Act, 2000, Public Law 106-60 which places a limit on credits 
and reimbursements allowable per project and annually.
    The bill includes language in Section 102 which directs 
that none of the funds made available in fiscal year 2002 may 
be used to carry out any activity relating to closure or 
removal of the St. Georges Bridge across the Intracoastal 
Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, Delaware and 
Maryland.
    Language is included in Section 103 that directs that the 
Secretary of the Army may not accelerate the schedule to 
finalize the Record of Decision for the revision of the 
Missouri River Master Water Control Manual and any related 
changes to the Missouri River Annual Operating Plan. The Corps 
of Engineers is undergoing an extensive process to revise the 
Missouri River Master Water Control Manual and the annual 
operating plan with regard to the Fish and Wildlife Service 
Biological Opinion and other views. The Corps' schedule calls 
for more than a 15 month period between the Secretary's release 
of the Implementation Plan, which has not yet occurred, and the 
finalization of the Record of Decision. So, under this 
provision and in accordance with this schedule, the Record of 
Decision will not occur in fiscal year 2002.

                  TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                Central Utah Project Completion Account

Appropriations, 2001....................................     $39,862,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      36,228,000
Committee recommendation................................      36,228,000

    The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2002 to carry 
out the provisions of the Central Utah Project Completion Act 
totals $36,228,000. An appropriation of $24,169,000 has been 
provided for Central Utah project construction; $10,749,000 for 
fish, wildlife, and recreation, mitigation and conservation. 
The Committee recommendation provides $1,310,000 for program 
administration and oversight.
    The Central Utah Project Completion Act (titles II-VI of 
Public Law 102-575) provides for the completion of the central 
Utah project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. 
The Act also authorizes the appropriation of funds for fish, 
wildlife, recreation, mitigation, and conservation; establishes 
an account in the Treasury for the deposit of these funds and 
of other contributions for mitigation and conservation 
activities; and establishes a Utah Reclamation Mitigation and 
Conservation Commission to administer funds in that account. 
The Act further assigns responsibilities for carrying out the 
Act to the Secretary of the Interior and prohibits delegation 
of those responsibilities to the Bureau of Reclamation.
    The Committee notes that the requirement under the 
Completion Act to make an annual Federal contribution of 
$5,000,000 to the principal of the Utah Reclamation Mitigation 
and Conservation Account ended in 2001.
    It is the intent of the Committee that funds previously 
appropriated for the Uinta Basin Replacement Project, which was 
authorized by Section 203 of the Central Utah Project 
Completion Act (Public Law 102-575), shall be immediately 
available to proceed with construction of the Project as 
described in the 2001 Feasibility Study and Environmental 
Assessment.

                         Bureau of Reclamation

                      Water and Related Resources

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $678,953,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     647,997,000
Committee recommendation................................     732,496,000

    An appropriation of $732,496,000 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 amounts recommended by the Committee are shown on the 
following table along with the budget request.

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

                             ARIZONA

AK CHIN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT.....................  ............  ............  ............          6,282   ............          6,282
CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT, COLORADO RIVER BASIN...................     4,359,206     3,437,832        31,392             50         31,392             50
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT, TITLE I..........       449,596       411,038           725          9,355            725          9,355
COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE SYSTEM......................       147,873       102,490         3,103  ..............         3,103  ..............
NORTHERN ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.........................  ............  ............           575  ..............           575  ..............
PHOENIX METROPOLITAN WATER REUSE PROJECT........................        20,000           475           250  ..............           250  ..............
SOUTHERN ARIZONA WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT............        64,983        24,424         4,055  ..............         4,055  ..............
SOUTH/CENTRAL ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM....................  ............  ............           685  ..............           685  ..............
TRES RIOS WETLANDS DEMONSTRATION................................         6,040         4,788           200  ..............           200  ..............
TUCSON AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE STUDY...................         1,000           759           100  ..............           100  ..............
YUMA AREA PROJECTS..............................................  ............  ............         1,658         18,037          1,658         18,037

                           CALIFORNIA

CACHUMA PROJECT.................................................        36,605        36,605           640            426            640            426
CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...............................  ............  ............         1,000  ..............         1,000  ..............
CALLEGUAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT RECYCLING PLANT..............        20,000         2,272         1,800  ..............         1,800  ..............
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT:
    AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION.....................................       202,014       165,661         2,387         10,996          2,387         10,996
    AUBURN-FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT....................................     2,723,655       376,856         1,947  ..............         1,947  ..............
    DELTA DIVISION..............................................       425,681       227,531        12,182          5,053         27,432          5,053
    EAST SIDE DIVISION..........................................  ............  ............           604          3,630            604          3,630
    FRIANT DIVISION.............................................           519           400         2,103          2,923          4,603          2,923
    MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS..............................       745,537       402,932        12,637            879         28,387            879
    REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND EXTRAORDINARY MAINT............  ............  ............  ............         11,000   ............         11,000
    SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION...................................       520,329       405,241         4,071          1,682          5,071          1,682
    SAN FELIPE DIVISION.........................................       362,463       311,500           447  ..............           697  ..............
    SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION........................................       530,566        98,531         1,280  ..............         1,280  ..............
    SHASTA DIVISION.............................................       301,019       292,284         2,456          7,025          7,706          7,025
    TRINITY RIVER DIVISION......................................       355,515       332,404         7,751          5,380          7,751          5,380
    WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS..................................  ............  ............           900          7,322            900          7,322
    WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS UNIT....................     1,599,810       585,638         4,735          6,417          4,735          6,417
    YIELD FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION.............................  ............  ............         1,500  ..............         1,500  ..............
LAKE TAHOE REGIONAL WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT........................  ............  ............           200  ..............         2,000  ..............
LONG BEACH AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROJECT.............        15,411         3,396         1,800  ..............         1,800  ..............
LONG BEACH DESALINATION PROJECT.................................  ............  ............  ............  ..............  ............  ..............
LOS ANGELES AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROJECT............  ............  ............  ............  ..............  ............  ..............
MISSION BASIN BRACKISH GROUNDWATER DESALTING DEMO...............  ............  ............  ............  ..............  ............  ..............
NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY AREA WATER RECYCLING PROJECT.............        20,000         6,140         1,800  ..............         1,800  ..............
NORTH SONOMA COUNTY WATER REUSE STUDY...........................  ............  ............  ............  ..............  ............  ..............
GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM................................        20,000         3,396         1,800  ..............         1,800  ..............
ORLAND PROJECT..................................................  ............  ............  ............            410   ............            410
SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT.....................................        13,675         8,665           800  ..............           800  ..............
SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVERSION STUDY................................  ............  ............  ............  ..............  ............  ..............
SAN DIEGO AREA WATER RECYCLING PROGRAM..........................       172,590        57,534         6,000  ..............         6,000  ..............
SAN GABRIEL BASIN PROJECT.......................................        38,090        26,714         1,800  ..............         1,800  ..............
SAN JOSE WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM....................       109,959        19,117         2,500  ..............         2,500  ..............
SOLANO PROJECT..................................................  ............  ............         1,210          1,149          1,210          1,149
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM......................  ............  ............           875  ..............           875  ..............
VENTURA RIVER PROJECT, CASITAS DAM..............................  ............  ............  ............  ..............  ............  ..............

                            COLORADO

ANIMAS-LA PLATA PROJECT, CRSP SECTION 5 AND 8...................  ............        79,178        12,000  ..............        16,000  ..............
COLLBRAN PROJECT................................................  ............  ............           127          1,202            127          1,202
COLORADO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.................................  ............  ............  ............  ..............  ............  ..............
COLORADO--BIG THOMPSON PROJECT..................................  ............  ............            49          7,913             49          7,913
COLORADO--BIG THOMPSON PROJECT--HORSETOOTH DAM..................        90,606        10,000  ............         26,000   ............         26,000
FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT........................................  ............  ............            74             17             74             17
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT......................................  ............  ............             9          4,472              9          4,472
GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II.............................  ............  ............           427            573            427            573
LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY PROJECT.......................  ............  ............           421          1,787            421          1,787
LOWER COLORADO RIVER INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.....................  ............  ............  ............  ..............  ............  ..............
LOWER GUNNISON BASIN UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II.....................  ............  ............  ............            332   ............            332
MANCOS PROJECT..................................................  ............  ............            49             23             49             23
PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II...........................  ............  ............  ............          2,119   ............          2,119
PINE RIVER PROJECT..............................................  ............  ............            88             62             88             62
SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT.........................................  ............  ............           326          4,021            326          4,021
UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT.............................................  ............  ............           368             27            368             27

                             HAWAII

HAWAII WATER RESOURCES STUDY, HI................................  ............  ............  ............  ..............           300  ..............

                              IDAHO

BOISE AREA PROJECTS.............................................  ............  ............         1,526          6,071          1,526          6,071
COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY PROJECT................  ............        53,040        11,000  ..............        11,000  ..............
DRAIN WATER MANAGEMENT STUDY, BOISE PROJECT.....................         1,073           723           165  ..............           165  ..............
FORT HALL EROSION CONTROL STUDY.................................  ............  ............  ............  ..............  ............  ..............
IDAHO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM....................................  ............  ............           509  ..............           509  ..............
MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS..........................................  ............  ............         1,968          3,272          1,968          3,272
MINIDOKA NORTHSIDE DRAIN WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM...............         1,830           768           262  ..............           262  ..............

                             KANSAS

KANSAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...................................  ............  ............           594  ..............           594  ..............
WICHITA PROJECT.................................................  ............  ............  ............            269   ............            269

                             MONTANA

FORT PECK DRY PRAIRIE RURAL WATER SYSTEM........................  ............  ............  ............  ..............  ............  ..............
HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT............................................  ............  ............  ............            294   ............            294
MILK RIVER PROJECT..............................................  ............  ............           440            541            440            541
MONTANA INVESTIGATIONS..........................................  ............  ............           321  ..............           321  ..............
ROCKY BOYS INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT.......................  ............  ............         8,000  ..............         8,000  ..............

                            NEBRASKA

MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT............................................  ............  ............            23             32             23             32
NEBRASKA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.................................  ............  ............  ............  ..............  ............  ..............

                             NEVADA

HALFWAY WASH, NV................................................  ............  ............  ............  ..............           120  ..............
LAHONTAN BASIN PROJECT..........................................  ............  ............         6,347          2,089          6,347          2,089
LAKE MEAD/LAS VEGAS WASH PROGRAM................................  ............  ............         1,000  ..............         1,400  ..............
NEWLANDS PROJECT WATER RIGHTS FUND..............................         7,000         3,200  ............  ..............         2,000  ..............
SOUTHERN NEVADA WATER RECYCLING PROJECT.........................  ............  ............  ............  ..............         1,500  ..............
STEAMBOAT CREEK RENO, NV........................................  ............  ............  ............  ..............           100  ..............
WALKER RIVER BASIN PROJECT......................................  ............  ............  ............  ..............           200  ..............

                           NEW MEXICO

ALBUQUERQUE METRO AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE..............  ............  ............  ............  ..............         7,500  ..............
CARLSBAD PROJECT................................................  ............  ............         1,689            742          1,689            742
EASTERN NEW MEXICO WATER SUPPLY.................................  ............  ............  ............  ..............           250  ..............
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT.......................................  ............  ............         2,684          8,967         14,884          8,967
NAVAJO GALLUP WATER SUPPLY......................................         2,000           909           300  ..............           500  ..............
PECOS RIVER BASIN WATER SALVAGE PROJECT.........................  ............  ............  ............             50   ............             50
RIO GRANDE PROJECT..............................................  ............  ............         1,001          2,591          1,001          2,591
RIO JEMEZ (ABOUSELMAN) INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT...........         1,200  ............  ............  ..............         1,200  ..............
SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.....................  ............  ............           214  ..............           214  ..............
SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO/WEST TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...........  ............  ............           200  ..............           200  ..............
TUCUMCARI PROJECT...............................................  ............  ............            26  ..............            26  ..............
UPPER RIO GRANDE BASIN INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...................  ............  ............           217  ..............           217  ..............

                          NORTH DAKOTA

DAKOTAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM..................................  ............  ............           354  ..............           354  ..............
DAKOTAS TRIBES INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...........................  ............  ............           250  ..............           250  ..............
GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT.........................................     1,484,000       675,205        21,011          4,228         24,000          4,228

                            OKLAHOMA

ARBUCKLE PROJECT................................................  ............  ............  ............            186   ............            186
MCGEE CREEK PROJECT.............................................  ............  ............  ............            569   ............            569
MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT...........................................  ............  ............  ............            276   ............            276
NORMAN PROJECT..................................................  ............  ............  ............            183   ............            183
OKLAHOMA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.................................  ............  ............           263  ..............           263  ..............
WASHITA BASIN PROJECT...........................................  ............  ............  ............            731   ............            731
W.C. AUSTIN PROJECT.............................................  ............  ............  ............            280   ............            280

                             OREGON

BEND FEED CANAL PIPELINE PROJECT................................  ............  ............  ............  ..............           300  ..............
CROOKED RIVER PROJECT...........................................  ............  ............           278            418            278            418
DESCHUTES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT.........................        15,000         2,285           500  ..............           500  ..............
DESCHUTES PROJECT...............................................  ............  ............           360            138            360            138
DESCHUTES PROJECT--WICKUP DAM...................................        38,279        11,500  ............         12,000   ............         12,000
EASTERN OREGON PROJECTS.........................................  ............  ............           340            267            340            267
GRANDE RONDE WATER OPTIMIZATION STUDY...........................         1,871         1,271           150  ..............           150  ..............
KLAMATH PROJECT.................................................  ............  ............        12,277            483         17,777            483
OREGON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...................................  ............  ............           457  ..............           457  ..............
ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT DIVISION......................  ............  ............           317            162            317            162
TUALATIN PROJECT................................................  ............  ............           149            107            149            107
TUALATIN VALLEY WATER SUPPLY FEASIBILITY STUDY..................           275           100           100  ..............           100  ..............
UMATILLA BASIN PROJECT, PHASE III STUDY.........................           804           704            50  ..............            50  ..............
UMATILLA PROJECT................................................  ............  ............           409          2,227            409          2,227

                          SOUTH DAKOTA

CROW CREEK TRIBE RESERVATION WIDE M AND I WATER SUPPLY..........  ............  ............  ............  ..............           100  ..............
LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM..............................       213,888         1,534  ............  ..............         2,000  ..............
MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT..................................       136,325        70,424        10,000             40         15,500             40
MNI WICONI PROJECT..............................................       372,640       178,923        20,511          7,489         26,000          7,489
RAPID VALLEY PROJECT, DEERFIELD DAM.............................  ............  ............  ............             30   ............             30

                              TEXAS

BALMORHEA PROJECT...............................................  ............  ............            30  ..............            30  ..............
CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT..........................................  ............  ............  ............            104   ............            104
EL PASO WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE.............................  ............  ............  ............  ..............  ............  ..............
HASKELL STREET RECLAIMED WATER PROJECT, TX......................         8,328         6,232  ............  ..............  ............  ..............
NAVAJO GALLUP WATER SUPPLY PROJECT..............................  ............  ............           300  ..............           300  ..............
NUECES RIVER....................................................  ............  ............  ............            421   ............            421
PALMETTO BEND PROJECT...........................................  ............  ............  ............            688   ............            688
SAN ANGELO PROJECT..............................................  ............  ............  ............            335   ............            335
TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM....................................  ............  ............           197  ..............           197  ..............

                              UTAH

HYRUM PROJECT...................................................  ............  ............           310              8            310              8
MOON LAKE PROJECT...............................................  ............  ............            39              6             39              6
NAVAJO SANDSTONE AQUIFER RECHARGE STUDY.........................           875           524           250  ..............           250  ..............
NEWTON PROJECT..................................................  ............  ............            46              7             46              7
NORTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM............................  ............  ............           305  ..............           305  ..............
OGDEN RIVER PROJECT.............................................  ............  ............           111             51            111             51
PROVO RIVER PROJECT.............................................  ............  ............           465            363            465            363
SCOFIELD PROJECT................................................  ............  ............            56             25             56             25
SOUTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM............................  ............  ............           300  ..............           300  ..............
STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT.......................................  ............  ............            82              7             82              7
WEBER BASIN PROJECT.............................................        19,639        16,593         1,704            290          1,704            290
WEBER RIVER PROJECT.............................................  ............  ............           356             32            356             32

                           WASHINGTON

COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT..........................................  ............  ............         4,044          9,119          4,044          9,119
WASHINGTON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...............................  ............  ............           425  ..............           425  ..............
YAKIMA PROJECT..................................................  ............  ............           516          6,753            516          6,753
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT....................       194,034        25,234        10,600  ..............        10,600  ..............

                             WYOMING

KENDRICK PROJECT................................................  ............  ............             8          4,654              8          4,654
NORTH PLATTE PROJECT............................................  ............  ............            40          1,412             40          1,412
SHOSHONE PROJECT................................................  ............  ............            54            925             54            925
WYOMING INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM..................................  ............  ............            55  ..............            55  ..............

                             VARIOUS

COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL, TITLE II: PROGRAM AND           175,000        46,793        10,929  ..............        10,929  ..............
 COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT.......................
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, SECTION 5.......................  ............  ............         5,349          1,821          5,349          1,821
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, SECTION 8, R&F&WL...............       103,876        55,633         4,677             61          4,677             61
COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM................        60,000        40,905           150  ..............           150  ..............
DAM SAFETY PROGRAM:
    DEPARTMENT DAM SAFETY PROGRAM...............................  ............  ............  ............          1,700   ............          1,700
    INITIATE SOD CORRECTIVE ACTION..............................  ............  ............  ............         16,400   ............         16,400
    SAFETY EVALUATION OF EXISTING DAMS..........................  ............  ............  ............         17,900   ............         17,900
    SAFETY OF DAMS CORRECTIVE ACTION STUDIES....................  ............  ............  ............            624   ............            624
DEPARTMENTAL IRRIGATION DRAINAGE PROGRAM........................  ............  ............         2,620  ..............         2,620  ..............
DROUGHT EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE....................................  ............  ............           582  ..............           582  ..............
EFFICIENCY INCENTIVES PROGRAM...................................  ............  ............         3,738  ..............         3,738  ..............
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND DISASTER RESPONSE PROGRAM................  ............  ............  ............            330   ............            330
ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION......................  ............  ............        13,522  ..............        13,522  ..............
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION............................  ............  ............         1,882  ..............         1,882  ..............
ENVIRONMENTAL AND INTERAGENCY COORDINATION ACTIVITIES...........  ............  ............         1,661  ..............         1,661  ..............
EXAMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES..............................  ............  ............            32          5,110             32          5,110
FEDERAL BUILDING SEISMIC SAFETY PROGRAM.........................  ............  ............  ............            950   ............            950
GENERAL PLANNING STUDIES........................................  ............  ............         1,861  ..............         1,861  ..............
LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM...............................  ............  ............         7,690  ..............         7,690  ..............
LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM..............................  ............  ............         2,000  ..............  ............  ..............
LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM.........................  ............  ............        13,103  ..............        13,103  ..............
MISCELLANEOUS FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS..........................  ............  ............  ............            509   ............            509
NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION...........................  ............  ............         1,000  ..............         1,000  ..............
NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM.................................  ............  ............         8,400  ..............         8,400  ..............
NEGOTIATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF WATER MARKETING...............  ............  ............         1,709  ..............         1,709  ..............
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT....................  ............  ............           180            950            180            950
PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN--OTHER PROJECTS.......................  ............  ............         3,183         29,747          3,183         29,747
POWER PROGRAM SERVICES..........................................  ............  ............           590            345            590            345
PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY PROGRAM................................  ............  ............           463  ..............           463  ..............
RECLAMATION LAW ADMINISTRATION..................................  ............  ............         5,130  ..............         5,130  ..............
RECLAMATION RECREATION MANAGEMENT--TITLE XXVIII.................  ............  ............         1,922  ..............         1,922  ..............
RECREATION & FISH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION...........  ............  ............         2,694  ..............         2,694  ..............
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY:
    ADVANCED WATER TREATMENT DESALINATION PROGRAM...............  ............  ............         1,150  ..............         1,150  ..............
    APPLIED SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT..................  ............  ............         3,290  ..............         3,290  ..............
    DESALINATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM...............  ............  ............           300  ..............         5,000  ..............
    HYDROELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION/ENHANCEMEN..........  ............  ............           660  ..............           660  ..............
    TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT......................................  ............  ............           300  ..............           300  ..............
    WATERSHED/RIVER SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM..................  ............  ............           940  ..............           940  ..............
SITE SECURITY...................................................  ............  ............  ............          1,755   ............          1,755
SOIL AND MOISTURE CONSERVATION..................................  ............  ............           314  ..............           314  ..............
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO STATES..................................  ............  ............         1,894  ..............         1,894  ..............
TITLE XVI, WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM..................  ............  ............         1,650  ..............         1,650  ..............
UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER ISSUES--TECHNICAL SUPPORT...........  ............  ............            70  ..............            70  ..............
WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PROGRAM.......................  ............  ............         7,507  ..............         7,507  ..............
WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT............................................  ............  ............         3,836  ..............         3,836  ..............
UNDISTRIBUTED REDUCTION BASED ON ANTICIPATED DELAYS.............  ............  ............       -33,840  ..............       -45,989  ..............
                                                                 =======================================================================================
      TOTAL, WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES........................  ............  ............       343,599        304,698        427,798        304,698
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Central Valley Project, CA.--Additional funding for this 
project is included over the budget request for activities in 
support of the Bay Delta Restoration. These activities are 
described more fully under the heading for the California Bay 
Delta Restoration.
    Lake Tahoe Regional Wetlands Development, California.--The 
Committee has provided $2,000,000 to continue the environmental 
restoration project for the Upper Truckee River in the vicinity 
of the airport at South Lake Tahoe, California.
    Animas LaPlata Project, Colorado.--The bill contains 
$16,000,000 for the Animas LaPlata, Colorado Project. While 
this is $4,000,000 over the budget request, the Committee 
recognizes that with constrained resources it will be difficult 
to maintain the schedule established by the Colorado Ute 
Settlement Act Amendments of 2000.
    Halfway Wash, NV.--The Committee recommendation has 
provided $120,000 for prefeasibility studies of Halfway Wash in 
Mesquite, County, NV.
    Steamboat Creek, Reno, NV.--An appropriation of $100,000 
has been provided for the Bureau to initiate feasibility 
studies for flood control and environmental restoration 
improvements for Steamboat Creek.
    Middle Rio Grande Project, NM.--The Committee recommends 
$12,200,000 in additional funding for the Bureau of Reclamation 
to continue the efforts of the Middle Rio Grande Collaborative 
Program Workgroup and its support activities to water users and 
species along the Middle Rio Grande. These efforts are intended 
to promote long and short term activities to benefit species 
and water users along the Middle Rio Grande, pursuant to a 
Memorandum of Understanding signed among the relevant agencies 
and interested parties. Funded activities will include: 
$4,700,000 for modifications to river habitat; $2,180,000 for 
silvery minnow population management; $1,100,000 for monitoring 
of stream effects on the silvery minnow; $120,000 to combat 
non-native species; $640,000 for Bureau of Reclamation's 
repayment obligations; $950,000 for water quality studies and 
improvements; and $2,500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation's 
purchase of water. The Committee directs the Bureau of 
Reclamation to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
on the silvery minnow monitoring and habitat efforts. In 
addition, the Bureau of Reclamation is directed to collaborate 
with Universities in geographical proximity to the silvery 
minnow and possessing established experience and expertise in 
working with the silvery minnow. Finally, the Committee has 
included statutory language which requires the Bureau to submit 
a report on the status and results of fiscal year 2001 funding 
and, to submit to the Committee for approval, a detailed 
spending plan for fiscal year 2002 within 60 days of enactment 
of this Act.
    Garrison Diversion Unit, ND.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $24,000,000. While this is an increase over the budget 
request of $21,011,000, it is still far below the amount needed 
to fund the project at an optimum level.
    Klamath Project, OR.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$17,777,000, an increase of $5,000,000 over the budget request. 
The additional funds are for continued construction of the A-
Canal.
    Mni Wiconi Project, SD.--The Committee has provided 
$26,000,000 for the Mni Wiconi Project. While this is an 
increase over the budget request of $20,511,000, it is still 
far below the amount needed to fund the project at an optimal 
level.
    Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program.--The 
Committee supports the WateReuse Research Foundation program to 
provide important research into the science and technological 
aspects of water reclamation. The Committee further notes that 
the Foundation has secured its cost shared portion for this 
program as directed in last year's spending bill. Accordingly, 
the Committee urges the Bureau of Reclamation, within available 
funds, to continue support of the Foundation's research 
program.
    Science and Technology, Desalination Research and 
Development Program.--Within the funds provided $500,000 is for 
research of brine disposal alternatives in ``land locked'' 
areas such as Phoenix, Arizona, and Las Vegas, Nevada and 
$1,000,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation to complete a study to 
determine the most effective and efficient manner of, and to 
develop a technology progress plan to be used in, the 
development of a desalination research and development facility 
in the Tularosa Basin in New Mexico. The Committee recognizes 
that effective desalination cost reduction is the key to wider 
use of desalination for improving the quality of life in water-
scarce regions. The Secretary of the Interior shall consult 
with the Secretary of Energy and the Director of the Sandia 
National Laboratories in the development of the technology and 
implementation plan and will submit a report by the end of 
fiscal year 2002 to the Senate Committee on Appropriations 
outlining the development of desalination technology for the 
basin.
    Within available funds, the Committee directs the Bureau to 
work with other Federal and State agencies, including the 
National Academy of Sciences, universities, and non-government 
entities to act as a national clearinghouse for desalination 
technologies. The Bureau shall establish a peer review process 
to validate the efficacy of the multitude of desalination 
techniques available.

                   Budget Limitations and Reductions

    Constrained spending limits imposed by the Congressional 
Budget Resolution have made it difficult for the Committee to 
formulate a balanced Energy and Water Development 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. In order to adhere to 
the subcommittee's allocations, address the critical ongoing 
activities, correct program imbalances contained in the 
President's fiscal year 2002 budget, and respond to the 
numerous requests of the Members, the Committee finds it 
necessary to recommend numerous adjustments to funding levels 
proposed in the budget. Finally, the Committee regrets that 
many worthwhile projects could not be recommended for funding 
because of the lack of authorization and the shortfall in 
resources.
    The Committee received numerous requests to include project 
authorizations in the Energy and Water Development 
appropriations bill. However, in an effort to support and honor 
the congressional authorizing committees' jurisdiction, the 
Committee has not included new project authorizations.

               bureau of reclamation loan program account

Appropriations, 2001....................................      $9,348,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................       7,495,000
Committee recommendation................................       7,495,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,495,000, 
the same as the budget request, for the small reclamation 
program of the Bureau of Reclamation.
    Under the Small Reclamation Projects Act (43 U.S.C. 422a-
422l), loans and/or grants can be made to non-Federal 
organizations for construction or rehabilitation and betterment 
of small water resource projects.
    As required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this 
loan program account records the subsidy costs associated with 
the direct loans obligated in 1992 and beyond, as well as 
administrative expenses of this program. The subsidy amounts 
are estimated on a present value basis; the administrative 
expenses are estimated on a cash basis.
    The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 
shown on the following table:

                                       BUREAU OF RECLAMATION--LOAN PROGRAM
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Total
                      Project title                          Federal     Allocated      Budget       Committee
                                                               cost       to date      estimate   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       LOAN PROGRAM

                        CALIFORNIA

CASTROVILLE IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLY PROJECT..............       14,403       13,164        1,239          1,239
SALINAS VALLEY WATER RECLAMATION.........................        9,401        9,000          401            401
SAN SAVAINE CREEK WATER PROJECT..........................       28,100       22,525        5,575          5,575

                         VARIOUS

LOAN ADMINISTRATION......................................  ...........  ...........          280            280
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, LOAN PROGRAM................................  ...........  ...........        7,495          7,495
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                central valley project restoration fund

Appropriations, 2001....................................     $38,360,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      55,039,000
Committee recommendation................................      55,039,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $55,039,000, 
the same as the budget request for the Central Valley Project 
Restoration Fund.
    The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund was authorized 
in the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, title 34 of 
Public Law 102-575. This fund was established to provide 
funding from project beneficiaries for habitat restoration, 
improvement and acquisition, and other fish and wildlife 
restoration activities in the Central Valley project area of 
California. Revenues are derived from payments by project 
beneficiaries and from donations. Payments from project 
beneficiaries include several required by the Act (Friant 
Division surcharges, higher charges on water transferred to 
non-CVP users, and tiered water prices) and, to the extent 
required in appropriations acts, additional annual mitigation 
and restoration payments.

               California bay-delta ecosystem restoration

Appropriations, 2001....................................................
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     $20,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................

    The CALFED Program was established in May 1995, for the 
purpose of developing a comprehensive, long-term solution to 
the complex and inter-related problems in the San Francisco 
Bay-Delta area of California. The program's focus is on the 
health of the ecosystem and improving water management. In 
addition, this program addresses the issues of uncertain water 
supplies, aging levees, and threatened water quality.
    The Committee has consistently expressed concern regarding 
the duplication and overlap of CALFED activities with Central 
Valley Project Improvement Act programs and other activities 
funded under various other programs within the Bureau of 
Reclamation. In addition the Committee believes that the 
appropriate authorizing committees of Congress should 
thoroughly review and specifically reauthorize the CALFED 
program. The committees of jurisdiction in these complicated 
matters should have the opportunity to develop legislation to 
address these issues.
    The Committee is aware that legislation has been introduced 
in the House and Senate to reauthorize the comprehensive 
program. Absent this legislation, the Committee has recommended 
no funding under the California Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration 
Project. In order to support the efforts of the State of 
California to provide a safe, clean water supply and improve 
the environment, the Committee has provided funds for 
previously authorized studies under the Central Valley Project. 
These studies will support and further the goals of the overall 
CALFED Program until such time as the California Bay-Delta 
Ecosystem Restoration Project is reauthorized.
    The Committee has provided an additional $40,000,000 over 
the budget request for the Central Valley Project. Additional 
funds to support the goals of CALFED are provided as follows:

                         CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT

                      ENVIRONMENTAL WATER ACCOUNT

    Miscellaneous Project Programs.--$14,250,000 to acquire 
water and ground water storage and conduct NEPA analysis.

                   PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

    Delta Division Oversight.--$7,500,000 to continue 
coordination, administration, planning, performance tracking 
and science activities in coordination with CALFED Program 
Implementation Plan.

                                STORAGE

    Shasta Division.--$5,250,000 to continue evaluating the 
potential impacts of the proposed Shasta raise.
    Delta Division.--$250,000 to continue evaluations of the 
Delta Wetlands project and other in-delta storage proposals. 
$1,000,000 for Reclamation to continue participating in 
planning activities associated with enlarging Los Vaqueros 
reservoir.
    Friant Division.--$2,500,000 to continue developing a plan 
of study for a feasibility level investigation for storage in 
the Upper San Joaquin Watershed.
    Sacramento River Division.--$500,000 to continue planning 
activities as agreed to in the Sites MOU.

                               CONVEYANCE

    Delta Division.--$250,000 for the DMC Intertie with the 
California Aqueduct to continue evaluation studies on systems 
and environmental impacts. $250,000 to evaluate operations 
alternatives for the Delta Cross Channel Reoperation.

                          WATER USE EFFICIENCY

    Miscellaneous Project Programs.--$1,000,000 for pilot 
studies.

                         WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM

    Miscellaneous Project Programs.--$500,000 to conduct NEPA 
analysis and operate clearinghouse.

                               CONVEYANCE

    Delta Division.--$6,000,000 to construct the Tracy Test 
Fish Facility.
    Sacramento River Division.--$500,000 to continue 
engineering and design work for the Red Bluff Diversion Dam 
Fish Passage Improvement Project.
    San Felipe Division.--$250,000 to provide technical 
assistance to Santa Clara Valley Water District in conducting 
operational appraisal studies.

                       policy and administration

Appropriations, 2001....................................     $50,114,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      52,968,000
Committee recommendation................................      52,968,000

    The Committee recommendation for general administrative 
expenses is $52,968,000. This is the same as the budget 
request.
    The policy and administrative expenses program provides for 
the executive direction and management of all reclamation 
activities, as performed by the Commissioner's offices in 
Washington, DC, Denver, CO, and five regional offices. The 
Denver office and regional offices charge individual projects 
or activities for direct beneficial services and related 
administrative and technical costs. These charges are covered 
under other appropriations.

             General Provisions--Department of the Interior

    Section 201 of the Bill includes language that States 
requirements for purchase or lease of water from the Middle Rio 
Grande or Carlsbad Projects, New Mexico.
    Section 202 of the Bill includes language concerning 
Drought Emergency Assistance.
    Section 203 of the Bill includes language concerning 
refunds of fees assessed for failure to file certain 
certification or reporting forms under the Reclamation Act.

                    TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Title III provides for the Department of Energy's defense 
and nondefense functions, the power marketing administrations, 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

                           contractor travel

    The Committee believes that earlier statutory restrictions 
on contractor travel established new appreciation by 
contractors for propriety and cost effectiveness in their 
travel expenditures. For fiscal year 2002, no statutory travel 
restrictions are included. Nevertheless, the Committee directs 
the Department to maintain contractor travel summaries adequate 
for periodic reviews of programmatic relevance and costs of 
contractor travel.

              laboratory directed research and development

    The Committee believes that Laboratory Directed Research 
and Development (LDRD) is essential to maintaining scientific 
and engineering excellence in the technical areas of effort 
undertaken by the laboratories in support of the Department's 
missions. The Committee therefore directs that no more than 6 
percent of funding to the laboratories be made available for 
LDRD.
    In fiscal year 2001, the Committee established at the 
nuclear weapons production plants a program analogous to the 
LDRD program at the laboratories. This provision for the 
production plants is provided to attract and retain the highest 
quality work force through investments in new production and 
design concepts and the establishment of intern and cooperative 
student programs. The Committee recognizes the value derived 
from this activity and directs the Department to permit similar 
investment for the future by the Nevada Test Site. All of these 
efforts will be critical to maintaining the Department's most 
valuable assets--its people.

                             Energy Supply

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $659,918,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     544,245,000
Committee recommendation................................     741,139,000

                       renewable energy resources

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $375,785,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     276,653,000
Committee recommendation................................     435,600,000

    The Committee recommendation provides $435,600,000, for 
renewable energy resources, an increase of $59,815,000 over the 
current year appropriation, and $158,947,000 over the 
administration's request.
    The recommendation for Renewable Energy Resources reflects 
the Committee's strong belief that only a balanced portfolio of 
production and distribution technologies and strategies will 
fulfill our Nation's long-term needs and goals for both energy 
and the environment. For that reason, the Committee 
recommendation includes substantial investments in renewable 
energy resources above the Administration's request. While the 
Administration's Report of the National Energy Policy 
Development Group recognized the importance of a clean and 
diverse portfolio of renewable domestic energy supplies, the 
Administration's budget, even as amended, provides inadequate 
resources to accomplish these goals.
    The Committee agrees that the Secretaries of Energy and 
Interior need to re-evaluate access limitations to Federal 
lands in order to increase renewable energy production, such as 
geothermal, solar, wind, and biomass. The Committee is 
encouraged by the interdepartmental cooperation demonstrated by 
these Departments in facilitating the privately-funded large 
wind turbine project at the Nevada Test Site. Our Nation's vast 
holdings of public land are, in many cases, ideally suited to 
the deployment of renewable technologies. The Administration is 
encouraged to enhance these opportunities.
    The Committee has modified the request for low emission 
energy technologies; including hydro, renewable, and nuclear, 
with the view toward post 2010 application of new technologies. 
As a result, with few exceptions, the Committee recommends 
basic research that will provide significant improvements over 
existing technologies. The Committee is well aware of the 
proposition that appropriated funds can demonstrate the 
reliable operation of low emission technologies before they 
become commercially attractive. In a few cases, the Committee 
has provided funds for just such demonstrations. However, in 
general, the Committee expects non-Federal financing to support 
the final stages of product development and all stages of 
market development.
    Solar building technology research.--The Committee 
recommends $7,000,000 to fund solar building technology 
development.
    Photovoltaic energy systems.--The Committee recommends 
$70,000,000 for photovoltaic energy systems. The Committee 
recommendation includes $3,000,000 for continuation of the 
Million Solar Roofs program at current year levels and 
$2,500,000 for the Southeast and Southwest photovoltaic 
experiments stations. Additionally, the Committee recommends 
$3,000,000 for the Navajo electrification project.
    Concentrating solar power.--The Committee recommends 
$15,300,000 for concentrating solar power. Within these amounts 
the Department is directed to continue with deployment of the 
1.0 MW dish engine and to continue activities associated with 
the 25 kW dish system. Additionally, the Committee directs the 
Department to develop and scope out an initiative to fulfill 
the goal of having 1,000 MW of new solar capacity supplying the 
Southwestern United States by the year 2006. A report is due to 
the House and Senate Committees by March 1, 2002.
    Biomass/biofuels--power systems.--The Committee recommends 
$53,000,000 for biomass/bio-fuels--power systems.
    The Iowa switch grass project is funded at $4,000,000 in 
fiscal year 2002.
    The recommendation includes $4,000,000 for the McNeil 
biomass plant in Burlington, Vermont, and $1,000,000 for the 
for methane energy and agriculture development project in 
Tillamook Bay, Oregon.
    Biomass/biofuels--transportation.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $50,000,000 for biomass/biofuels 
transportation. Within available funds, $300,000 is provided 
for the continuation and expansion of the on-going 
demonstration of the oxygenated diesel fuel particulate matter 
emission reduction project in Clark County, Nevada; $3,000,000 
for the Michigan Biotechnogy Initiative; $3,000,000 for the 
Prime LLC, of South Dakota integrated ethanol complex, 
including an ethanol unit, waste treatment system, and enclosed 
cattle feed lot; $300,000 for the Biomass Energy Resource 
Center project in Vermont; $2,000,000 to continue the Sealaska 
ethanol project (subject to a non-federal match) at the fiscal 
year 2001 level; $3,000,000 for the Biomass Gasification 
Research Center in Birmingham, Alabama; and $3,000,000 for the 
Winona, Mississippi, biomass project. Additionally, the 
Committee directs the Department to continue funding for the 
Energy and Environment Research Center at last year's level.
    Biomass demonstration projects may be funded from within 
the totals available under biomass/biofuels energy systems 
account. The Committee recommendation includes $18,000,000 to 
continue the Integrated Biomass Research and Development 
Program.
    Wind.--The Committee recommendation includes $45,000,000 
for wind. Within this amount, $500,000 is provided for the 
Turtle Mountain Community College project in North Dakota; 
$1,000,000 is provided for the Kotzebue project in Alaska; 
$250,000 is provided to the Wind Technology Center for a 
feasibility study for a wind power generation facility to serve 
St. Paul and Unalaska, Alaska. The Wind Powering America 
initiative is to be continued at last year's funding level. The 
Committee continues to recognize the need for a set-aside for 
small wind programs, such as the one being developed by the 
Vermont Department of Public Service and the Department, in the 
Federal wind energy research and development budget. The 
Committee recommends $500,000 for this project.
    Renewable energy production incentive.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $4,000,000 for the renewable energy 
production incentive.
    Renewable program support.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $3,000,000 for technical analysis and assistance 
within renewable program support.
    Departmental Energy Management.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $1,000,000 for departmental energy 
management. The Committee directs the Department to provide a 
report by January 1, 2002, detailing the potential energy 
savings to be derived from this program, if fully implemented.
    International renewable programs.--The Committee strongly 
supports the U.S. international joint implementation program 
funded in this account and recommends $3,000,000 for that 
purpose. The Committee supports efforts to increase 
international market opportunities for the export and 
deployment of advanced clean energy technologies--end-use 
efficiency, fossil, renewable, and nuclear energy technologies.
    National Renewable Energy Laboratory.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $12,000,000, for capital equipment and 
general plant projects at the National Renewable Energy 
Laboratory. Of this amount, $1,000,000 is provided to reduce 
the maintenance backlog. The Committee recommendation includes 
$5,000,000 for technical analysis, technical assistance, and 
the harmonization of multi-program activities that address the 
resource opportunities and electric power needs in the 
Southwest United States. The expertise of the National 
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is to be made available 
through a site office in Nevada. NREL will provide expertise 
through a virtual laboratory concept, serving as a portal for 
electronic communications, information sharing, data 
warehousing, and partnerships among universities, researchers, 
technology developers, and those interested in deployment.
    Geothermal.--The Committee recommends $32,000,000 for 
geothermal technology development, including $2,500,000 for 
GeoPowering the West. The Committee is concerned that the 
Department appears to be cutting funds for these important 
research efforts prematurely. The Committee has provided a 
substantial increase and expects the Department to use the 
additional funds, in part, to foster university research and 
public private partnerships. Within available funds, the 
Committee provides $1,000,000 for the UNR Geothermal Energy 
Center's demonstration project.
    Hydrogen research.--The Committee strongly supports 
research and development of hydrogen technology and recognizes 
it to be a highly promising and cost effective energy carrier. 
The Committee recommends $35,000,000. The recommendation 
includes $350,000 for the Montana Trade Port Authority in 
Billings, MT to continue the ongoing resource inventory, 
feasibility study, and development of a Solid Waste Hydrogen 
Fuel Cell manufacturing capability, $1,000,000 for the 
gasification of Iowa switch grass and its use in fuel cells, 
$1,500,000 for the ITM Syngas project, $1,500,000 for the fuel 
cell installation project at Gallatin County, Montana, and 
$2,000,000 for continued demonstration of the hydrogen 
locomotive and front-end loader projects.
    The Committee continues to encourage demonstration of a 
dedicated fleet of vehicles, including buses, powered by 
hydrogen.
    Hydropower.--The Committee recommends $9,300,000 for 
hydropower. The Committee commends the Department of Energy for 
recognizing the benefits of and developing advanced ``fish-
friendly'' turbines for hydro-electric generation. The 
Committee recommendation includes $7,000,000 for that effort. 
Within available funds, the Committee recommends $400,000 to 
plan a hydroelectric power generation facility at Gustavus, 
Alaska, subject to a local match for construction. 
Additionally, the Committee recommends $1,900,000 for the 
completion of the Power Creek hydroelectric project in Alaska. 
No additional funds will be made available for this project.
    Renewable Indian energy resources.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $4,000,000 for Indian renewable energy 
resource development. The Committee expects these funds to be 
administered as competitively awarded grants to federally-
recognized tribes throughout the United States.
    Electric energy systems and storage.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $71,000,000 for electric energy systems 
and storage.
    This program provides funding for transmission reliability, 
energy storage systems and high temperature superconductivity 
research and development.
    Within available funds under electric energy systems and 
storage, the Committee recommends $1,000,000 to initiate 
development of a bipolar wafer-cell nickel metal hydride 
battery storage system; $2,000,000 for Glenallen power 
generation upgrades, including extension of electricity to 
residents of Lake Louise; and $2,000,000 for the Kachemak Bay 
Power System to extend and upgrade marine power cabling to 
provide power to the villages of Seldovia, Nanwalek, and Port 
Graham, Alaska. The Committee also recommends $3,000,000 for 
the Swan Lake-Lake Tyee electrical intertie pursuant to the 
Southeast Alaska intertie authorization enacted into law last 
year. Additionally, the Committee recommends $3,000,000 to 
complete the Prince of Wales Island electrical intertie. The 
Committee notes that $20,000,000 has been provided in State and 
local funds and this Federal amount represents the final 
installment needed to complete the project. The Committee 
recommendation also includes $3,000,000, within available 
funds, for NREL for research, development, and demonstration of 
advanced thermal energy storage technology integrated with 
renewable thermal energy technology.
    In view of the Department's goal of obtaining a minimum of 
20 percent of new generation through distributed generation 
technologies by 2010, the Committee supports the joint effort 
between New Mexico Tech and the Natural Energy Laboratory of 
Hawaii to integrate, demonstrate, and ultimately deploy 
distributed energy systems that make full use of conventional 
and renewable technologies and recommends $1,000,000 for this 
purpose.
    The Committee urges the Department of expand its 
partnership with and funding support to the University of 
California-Irvine's Advanced Power and Energy Program (APEP), 
the only nationally university-based public-private 
collaborative involving major gas turbine, micro turbine, fuel 
cell and renewable manufacturers, California utilities and 
Federal, regional and State government agencies. APEP's energy 
and information related technology demonstrations are 
accelerating the deployment of affordable and reliable energy 
products and systems, essential to helping the nation and 
Western States respond to current and future energy 
requirements.
    Renewable program direction.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $21,000,000 for program direction within this account.

                        nuclear energy programs

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $259,925,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     223,122,000
Committee recommendation................................     264,069,000

    The Committee recommendation provides $264,069,000 for 
nuclear energy, an increase of $4,144,000 from the current year 
appropriation.
    Nuclear energy presently contributes about 21 percent of 
our nation's electrical power and emits no atmospheric 
pollutants. The United States has not yet determined how to 
handle spent nuclear fuel, and the Committee does not 
underestimate the technical and social challenges entailed in 
this challenge. Although geologic repository characterization 
activities continue at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, this ``bury and 
forget'' concept for dealing with spent nuclear fuel continues 
to encounter obstacles to its implementation, both domestically 
and internationally. While the Committee supports continued 
nuclear power research and development activities as part of a 
balanced approach to meeting our Nation's energy needs, 
industry and the Department are strongly encouraged to focus 
their research efforts on a broader array of disposal options, 
including reprocessing, transmutation, and dry cask storage, 
all of which reduce or eliminate the need for a geologic 
repository.
    Advanced radioisotope power systems.--The Committee 
recommends $29,094,000 for advanced radioisotope power systems.
    Isotopes.--The Committee recommends $24,683,000 for isotope 
support and production. Within this amount, the Committee 
recommends an additional $1,000,000 for medical applications. 
Additionally, the Committee recommends $2,494,000 for the 
Isotope Production Facility at LANSCE. The amount recommended 
is reduced by offsetting collections of $9,000,000 to be 
received in fiscal year 2002, resulting in a net recommended 
appropriation of $18,177,000.
    University reactor fuel assistance and support.--The 
Committee recommends a total of $19,000,000, an increase of 
$7,206,000 over the budget request, for university reactor fuel 
assistance and support. University nuclear engineering programs 
and university research reactors represent a fundamental and 
key capability in supporting our national policy goals in 
health care, materials science and energy technology.
    The Committee strongly supports both the University Reactor 
Fuel Assistance and Support program's efforts to provide 
fellowships, scholarships, and grants to students enrolled in 
science and engineering programs at U.S. universities, as well 
as efforts to provide fuel assistance and reactor upgrade 
funding for university-owned research reactors, such as the 
TRIGA reactor at Oregon State University.
    The Committee is very concerned about the long-term 
viability of nuclear engineering programs in the United States 
and the continued loss of university research reactors. In 
1988, the United States had 40 university reactors. Today, only 
27 exist, and of those, several are under consideration for 
closing. To address this growing problem, the additional 
resources shall be used to initiate the establishment of (1) 
geographically distributed regional university research reactor 
user facilities, and (2) geographically distributed training 
and education reactor facilities in a manner consistent with 
the Final Report of the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory 
Committee University Research Reactor Task Force. The program 
should also include substantial financial support from the 
nuclear industry.
    Nuclear energy plant optimization.--The Committee 
recommends a total of $9,000,000, an increase of $4,500,000 
over the budget request. The Department is encouraged to expand 
this cost-shared research and development program to improve 
the reliability, availability, and productivity of existing 
nuclear power plants.
    Nuclear Energy Research Initiative.--The Committee 
recommends a total of $38,000,000, an increase of $19,921,000 
over the budget request and $3,000,000 over the current year 
enacted level. The Department's budget request would only 
marginally support existing NERI projects and would not allow 
for any new projects in the coming year. The proposed increase 
is necessary to grow the scope of the technology and the people 
for a growing nuclear industry. The recommendation includes 
$4,000,000 for the Department to pursue reactor-based 
transmutation in coordination with studies of accelerator-based 
transmutation.
    Nuclear Energy Technologies.--The Committee recommends a 
total of $14,000,000, an increase of $9,500,000 over the budget 
request and $6,500,000 over the current year level. The 
Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000 for completion of 
the Generation IV Technology Roadmap; $7,000,000 for advanced 
reactor development consistent with the longer term 
recommendations of the Generation IV Technology Roadmap and to 
continue research begun in the current fiscal year on small, 
modular nuclear reactors; and $3,000,000 to support, on a cost-
shared basis, the generic/industry-wide proposals from the 
report of the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee's 
Near-Term Deployment Group.
    Infrastructure.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$81,279,000 for infrastructure, the amount of the request.
    ANL-West Operations.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$34,107,000, the amount of the request and $5,043,000 less than 
the current year, for ANL-West operations.
    Fast flux test facility.--The Committee has provided the 
budget request of $38,439,000 for the FFTF. Since the FFTF was 
shut down in 1992, the Department has spent a total of 
$473,700,000 to begin deactivation and then to maintain it in a 
safe standby condition while seeking other missions. Had this 
amount of funding been spent to decontaminate and decommission 
(D&D) the reactor, the job would have been finished.
    In April, the Secretary of Energy granted a 90-day delay in 
shutdown for yet another review of possible missions. The 
Committee is not optimistic that the results of this review 
will be any different than previous reviews. If the review 
determines that the reactor should be shut down, the Department 
is directed to immediately submit to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations a plan detailing how the 
Department intends to shut down and begin the decommissioning 
and decontamination of the FFTF. If the review determines that 
the reactor should be restarted, the Department must submit a 
detailed project plan with a validated baseline cost, scope and 
schedule for restart to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations. No funds may be obligated for restart 
activities until 60 days after submission of this report and 
approval by the Committees on Appropriations.
    Nuclear facilities management.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $30,457,000 for nuclear facilities 
management, the amount of the request. Within this amount, the 
Committee directs that $4,200,000 be used to complete 
deactivation of EBR-II.
    Program direction.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$25,062,000 for program direction, the amount of the request.

                    environment, safety, and health

Appropriations, 2001....................................     $35,998,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      35,500,000
Committee recommendation................................      33,500,000

    The Committee recommendation includes $33,500,000 for non-
defense environment, safety, and health which includes 
$19,527,000 for program direction.

                       energy support activities

Appropriations, 2001....................................      $8,600,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................       8,970,000
Committee recommendation................................       7,970,000

    Technical information management.--The Committee 
recommendation for the technical information management program 
is $1,600,000.
    Program direction.--The Committee recommendation for 
program direction is $6,370,000.
    General reduction.--The Committee recommendation includes a 
general reduction of $5,000,000, to be applied uniformly across 
Nuclear Energy.

                        Environmental Management

                              (nondefense)

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $277,200,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     228,553,000
Committee recommendation................................     228,553,000

    The Committee recommendation provides $228,553,000 for non-
defense environmental management.
    The non-defense environmental management program is 
responsible for managing and addressing the environmental 
legacy resulting from nuclear energy and civilian energy 
research programs, primarily the Office of Science within the 
Department of Energy. Research and development activities of 
DOE and predecessor agencies generated waste and other 
contaminants which pose unique problems, including 
unprecedented volumes of contaminated soils, water and 
facilities. The funding requested and provided here supports 
the Department's goal of cleaning up as many of its 
contaminated sites as possible by 2006 in a safe and cost-
effective manner. The Committee is concerned that a growing 
number of projects within the closure account will not, in 
fact, be closed out by 2006. The closure accounts were created 
to focus attention and resources on clean-up projects that were 
considered the most likely candidates for timely closure. To 
the extent that several projects now appear likely to miss the 
2006 deadline, the Department should consider moving them back 
to the post-2006 list. The Committee directs the Department to 
provide to the Committee by March 1, 2002, a report that aligns 
projects appropriately among site closure, site completion, and 
post-2006 completion.
    Site Closure.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$43,000,000 for site closure.
    Site completion.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$64,119,000 for site completion. Within available funds, the 
Committee recommends $1,800,000 to support accelerating clean-
up along the Columbia River in Hanford's 300 Area.
    Post 2006 completion.--The Committee recommendation 
provides $120,053,000, the amount of the request.
    Excess Facilities.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$1,381,000 for the transfer of excess facilities at the 
Brookhaven National Laboratory and Oak Ridge from other DOE 
organizations.

             Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $392,502,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     363,425,000
Committee recommendation................................     408,725,000

    Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning.--
The Committee recommendation provides $286,941,000 for the 
uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund, an 
increase of $45,300,000 above the requested level. Of this 
amount, $14,300,000 is provided for continued critical soil 
remediations at East Tennessee Technology Park and $30,000,000 
is provided for continued clean-up at Paducah, Kentucky. Within 
the amount provided to Paducah, the Committee directs that 
$3,000,000 be set aside for the purpose of depleted uranium 
cylinder yard contruction. Total funding for Paducah under the 
Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation account for 
fiscal year 2002 is $102,982,000.
    The Committee directs the Secretary to provide a detailed 
accounting of the $373,000,000 fund created under Public Law 
105-204 and reserved exclusively for DUF6 activities. The 
report is due to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations on or before January 31, 2002, and should cover 
all activities since the fund's inception in 1998. The uranium 
enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund was 
established in accordance with title XI of Public Law 102-486, 
the National Energy Policy Act of 1992. The funds provided for 
the environmental cleanup of the Department's uranium 
enrichment plants, two of which are currently leased to the 
USEC, and the cleanup of uranium mill tailings and thorium 
piles resulting from production and sales to the Federal 
Government for the Manhattan Project and other national 
security purposes.
    The Committee remains concerned by the growing backlog and 
gap between the amount of claims approved for payment and the 
funding requested by the Department to pay those claims. Since 
these payments go to reimburse operating uranium and thorium 
licensees for their costs of cleanup related to Federal 
activities, the Committee continues to believe the Department 
should be doing more to ensure additional funds are available 
to make timely payments for approved claims.
    Within the funds provided, the Committee recommends 
$800,000 for the Secretary to contract with the nation's sole 
remaining uranium converter for the purpose of performing 
research and development to improve the environmental and 
economic performance of U.S. uranium conversion operations. The 
Committee is aware of a December 2000 report to Congress--
``Report to Congress on Maintenance of Viable Domestic Uranium, 
Conversion and Enrichment Industries''--that documents the 
negative impact of the privatization of the U.S. Enrichment 
Corporation on the U.S. conversion industry. Although the 
Department recommended a more ambitious proposal to assist the 
industry involving price supports, the Committee finds a modest 
research and development program to be more appropriate at this 
time.
    Other Uranium Activities.--The Committee recommends 
$120,784,000, an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget 
request. The additional funds reflect the transfer of 
DUF6 activities from the Uranium Enrichment 
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund subaccount to the 
Other Uranium Activities subaccount.

                      Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $190,654,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     134,979,000
Committee recommendation................................      25,000,000

    The Committee recommendation includes $275,000,000 for 
nuclear waste disposal. Of that amount, $25,000,000 is derived 
from the nuclear waste fund, and $250,000,000 shall be 
available from the ``Defense nuclear waste disposal'' account.
    The Committee is concerned about the failure of the 
Nation's nuclear waste policy to define an acceptable solution 
to the problem of disposing of the growing inventories of spent 
nuclear fuel and other high level radioactive waste. More than 
two decades ago, the Nation determined that permanent disposal 
in a geologic repository was the only acceptable path. That 
decision was based, in part, on another policy that prohibited 
the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel into its constituent 
materials, each of which represents different hazardous 
properties and raises nuclear non-proliferation issues. The 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, further 
restricted disposal options by prohibiting the characterization 
of any potential repository site other than Yucca Mountain, 
Nevada, because the technical investigation was more costly 
than anticipated.
    These efforts to accelerate the disposal of spent nuclear 
fuel and high level radioactive waste appear to have 
accomplished just the opposite. The decision to prohibit the 
consideration of any sites other than Yucca Mountain, Nevada, 
engendered strong and unified opposition by the State of Nevada 
and its citizens, with obvious consequence. The decision to 
pursue only a ``bury it all and forget it'' policy at a single 
site closed off many avenues of investigation and research into 
alternative disposal concepts that might better serve our 
Nation's needs.
    Since the enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the 
Department has spent $8,000,000,000 on investigating a geologic 
repository for the nation's nuclear waste. However, the 
Department still has not demonstrated that the proposed site at 
Yucca Mountain will be suitable. There are still many 
significant unresolved technical and socioeconomic issues that 
may prevent the site from being developed as a repository. The 
Committee expects the Department to focus all its resources on 
resolving the remaining technical issues prior to site 
recommendation and initiating any actions on performance 
confirmation or license application.
    The Committee is also concerned with what is apparently 
unwarranted confidence on the part of the Office of Civilian 
Radioactive Waste Management that its current concept for the 
repository will stand the tests of time and inquiry. For 
example, surface water was assumed to take thousands of years 
to penetrate to the repository level, assuring a ``dry and non-
corrosive'' environment for repository canisters containing 
millions of tons of spent nuclear fuel. The earliest studies 
making use of the excavated test facility disproved this 
assumption. Subsequently, it was assumed that radioactivity 
that escaped the canisters because of the corrosive effects of 
water would be ``immobilized'' within the rock, would not 
penetrate to the ground water, and even if it did, would move 
with excruciating slowness through the ground water matrix. 
Observations of migration of radioactive contaminants from 
underground nuclear test cavities disproved these assumptions.
    Until quite recently, the repository operational concept 
entailed backfilling and sealing chambers within the repository 
that had been filled with waste canisters. The concept relied 
on the assumption that the heat generated by radioactive decay 
would prevent surface water from entering the repository level. 
Subsequent studies suggested that the repository levels could 
become wet as the radioactivity (heat) decreased over time. So 
the latest current concept is to ventilate the repository to 
prevent the accumulation of liquid water as the waste decays. 
Presently, the repository concept appears to be a ``monitored, 
retrievable'' storage site with the possibility of transition 
to a sealed permanent repository some time in the future. Such 
significant variance with founding assumptions of geologic 
disposal is damaging to public confidence in site 
characterization findings, especially when these changes are 
made so close to the expected decision on site suitability.
    The Department has an ambitious schedule to complete action 
this year on the site suitability determination. The Committee 
is concerned that work which should be completed as part of the 
site characterization of Yucca Mountain is being postponed for 
the performance confirmation period between site recommendation 
and closure. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires the 
Department to apply for a license within 90 days of the 
finalization of site recommendation. The expectation is that 
the Department will have all necessary science and technical 
information for the license application. To guide the program, 
the Department has agreed on nine Key Technical Issues that 
must be addressed or planned to be addressed to ensure the 
completeness of the Department's license application. To 
restore confidence in the site characterization process, the 
Committee recommends that the Department fulfill commitments 
pursuant to all Key Technical Issue agreements prior to a 
decision about site suitability.
    Furthermore, the Committee is concerned that the 
performance assessment, the Total System Performance 
Assessment, used by the Department suffers from poor quality 
assurance. An independent review of the program by the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission found technical errors and/or 
inconsistencies. Since the performance assessment will provide 
important information for a decision about site suitability, 
the Committee recommends the Department place a greater 
emphasis on identifying and fixing these problems. The 
Committee recommends the Department review the Quality 
Assurance Requirements Description document and its 
implementing procedures. The Committee recommends including the 
results of this review with the material the Secretary prepares 
for a decision about site suitability.
    The Committee is concerned the Department intends to 
finalize proposed changes to the regulations that prescribe the 
criteria for a decision about site suitability. The Nuclear 
Waste Policy Act directs the Department to establish these 
criteria in the Site Characterization Plan developed pursuant 
to section 112(a) of the Act. The proposed rule changes would 
eliminate the specific factors to qualify or disqualify the 
site contrary to the requirements of the Nuclear Waste Policy 
and replace them with a single performance evaluation. The 
Committee is concerned that the Department has no statutory 
authority for modifying these regulations. In addition, these 
changes would place a greater emphasis on the expected 
performance of engineered barriers over the natural barriers. 
The Committee notes that the existing regulations allow for a 
performance assessment in addition to the other qualifying and 
disqualifying factors. With significant site characterization 
activities remaining to be completed and budget resources 
limited, the Committee recommends the Department use existing 
regulations to determine site suitability.
    The Committee is concerned that the program suffers from 
poor management and as a result has had significant cost 
overruns and has postponed necessary site characterization 
work. The Committee understands the General Accounting Office 
is investigating allegations of waste, fraud and abuse in the 
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management made in an 
anonymous letter to the Inspector General. The Committee 
expects to receive the results of the GAO investigation later 
this year and intends to reexamination the allocation for the 
Office in light of the findings of that investigation.
    The draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the 
Department indicates thousands of shipments of commercial spent 
nuclear fuel and Department of Defense waste would be made to 
the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain. The Committee is 
concerned that communities in at least 43 States would be near 
the transportation routes. The Committee recommends the 
Department determine the specific shipment methods and routes, 
make that information available to the communities along those 
routes, and holds hearings in the affected communities. These 
hearings should allow a reasonable period for public comment 
for the affected communities. The comments should be included 
in the information the Secretary provides to the President for 
a decision about site suitability.
    The Committee also believes the massive interstate 
transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive 
waste constitutes a major Federal action significantly 
affecting the quality of the human environment for purposes of 
the National Environmental Policy Act. According to the Nuclear 
Waste Policy Act, the final environmental impact statement and 
any associated comments must be included with the Secretary's 
determination of site recommendation. The Committee is 
concerned that the Department has not dedicated sufficient 
resources to address this issue. Furthermore, the Committee is 
concerned that a failure to incorporate this information into a 
possible decision about site suitability will lead to 
additional delays and cost overruns in the Yucca Mountain site 
characterization program. The Committee recommends the 
Department allocate appropriate funds to complete the 
environment impact statement on transportation of nuclear 
waste.
    Finally, the Committee is concerned that the costs of the 
repository, which have clearly escalated, are still not well 
understood by the Department. To say the least, it is 
disturbing that overall costs have nearly doubled (from 
$30,000,000,000 to $58,000,000,000) since the early 1990's. 
More troubling is the $12,000,000,000 increase in costs during 
just the last 3 years. It is difficult, for example, to 
understand the implications to design, licensing, construction, 
and operational costs of such dramatic differences in concepts 
as represented by the change from a sealed repository to a 
monitored, retrievable storage facility. The Department is 
encouraged to maintain current construction and operational 
cost assessments for the proposed repository that provide 
comparable costs of the design and operational concepts that 
remain viable options as the site characterization and 
performance assessments proceed.
    The Committee has provided $2,500,000 for the State of 
Nevada and $6,000,000 for affected units of local government in 
accordance with the statutory restrictions contained in the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

                                Science

Appropriations, 2001....................................  $3,180,341,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................   3,159,890,000
Committee recommendation................................   3,268,116,000

    The Committee recognizes that the relatively small funding 
increases provided to the Office of Science are inadequate. 
While most programs are funded above the Administration's 
request, the severe non-defense spending constraints that the 
Committee operates under have made it impossible to to do 
justice to many of these outstanding programs and initiatives. 
Unlike the Administration's request, the Committee 
recommendation is sufficient to avoid any staff reductions at 
labs or universities.

                          high energy physics

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $726,130,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     716,100,000
Committee recommendation................................     725,100,000

    The Committee recommendation includes $725,100,000 for high 
energy physics, an increase of $9,000,000 over the request. 
Within the amounts provided, the Committee recommends 
$2,000,000 for materials development of low temperature 
superconductors to support future high energy physics 
requirements; and an additional $7,000,000 for university 
support. Within available funds, the Committee recommends 
$1,000,000 for research, development, and initial demonstration 
in support of an experiment, to be conducted underground at the 
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, to evaluate the mass of the 
neutrino through study of double beta decay of xenon-136. These 
funds may be used for extraction of the xenon-136 in a Russian 
nuclear city in coordination with the NNSA/Non-Proliferation 
programs.

                            nuclear physics

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $369,890,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     360,510,000
Committee recommendation................................     373,000,000

    The Committee recommends $373,000,000 for nuclear physics, 
an increase of $12,490,000 above the request and an increase of 
$3,110,000 above current year levels. The Committee recommends 
that the additional funds be used to enhance operation of the 
Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National 
Laboratory and the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator 
Facility at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility 
in Virginia.

                 biological and environmental research

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $501,260,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     442,970,000
Committee recommendation................................     490,000,000

    The Committee recommendation includes $490,000,000 for 
biological and environmental research, including $10,000,000 
for construction of the laboratory for Comparative and 
Functional Genomics at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The 
recommendation includes an additional $16,000,000 above the 
requested level for the Genomes to Life program and $10,000,000 
in additional funding above the requested level for the low 
dose effects program. Within the recommended amount, the 
Committee also recommends $7,000,000 in additional funding for 
computer upgrades and capital equipment costs at the 
Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL); $11,500,000 
to complete the positron emission tomography facility at West 
Virginia University; and funding to continue the following on-
going projects: the Natural Energy Laboratory in Hawaii, and 
the biological effects of exposure to low-level radioactivity. 
The recommendation also continues the free air carbon dioxide 
experiments at the current year level.

                         basic energy sciences

Appropriations, 2001....................................  $1,013,370,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................   1,004,705,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,040,705,000

    The Committee recommendation includes $1,040,705,000, an 
increase of $36,000,000 above the request and an increase of 
$27,335,000 over current year levels. For purposes of 
reprogramming in fiscal year 2002, the Department may allocate 
funding among all operating accounts within basic energy 
sciences upon written notice to the appropriate Congressional 
Committees.
    The Committee recommendation includes $12,000,000 for the 
Department's Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive 
Research and $4,000,000 for programmatic activities at the 
National Center of Excellence in Photonics and Microsystems. 
The Committee's recommendation also includes $8,300,000 for the 
SPEAR 3 upgrade at the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation 
Laboratory.
    Additionally, the Committee recommends that the additional 
funds be used to support the following important activities: 
facility operations user support; completion of the Nanoscience 
Research Center project engineering and design; and additional 
work in computational sciences in materials and chemistry.
    Nanoscale Science Research Centers.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $4,000,000 for project engineering 
design work for three of five planned user centers for 
nanoscale science, engineering, and technology research. The 
Committee strongly supports this new initiative.
    Construction.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$291,000,000 to continue the Spallation Neutron Source, 
including $276,300,000 for construction (under Project 99-E-
334) and $15,100,000 for other activities related to the 
project. The amount represents a $23,000,000 increase over 
current year funding. The Committee recommends $4,000,000 in 
project engineering and design funding at various locations 
(under Project 02-SC-002). The Committee also authorizes 
construction of the Nanoscience Research Center upon completion 
of the project engineering and design.
    The Committee recognizes the importance the SNS offers in 
advancing the frontiers of science and technology and the 
opportunities it will provide for future scientific and 
industrial research and development for the United States. The 
design and construction of this next-generation, accelerator-
based, neutron scattering facility, located at the Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory, is a collaborative effort involving six 
DOE national laboratories (Argonne, Brookhaven, Jefferson, 
Lawrence Berkeley, Los Alamos, and Oak Ridge).

                        Safeguards and Security

    The Committee recommendation provides $49,818,000 for 
safeguards and security. This is the amount of the current year 
level and $5,594,000 less than the Administration's request. 
The Committee remains unconvinced that such a large 1-year 
increase is warranted.

                       Science Program Direction

    The Committee recommendation provides $142,385,000 for 
science program direction, the amount of the request and 
$3,140,000 above the current year.

                     other energy research programs

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $171,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     164,050,000
Committee recommendation................................     163,050,000

    The Committee recommendation provides $163,050,000 for 
other energy research programs, an increase of $18,050,000 over 
the current year appropriation.
    Advanced Scientific Computing Research.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $163,050,000 for advanced scientific 
computing research. This amount is the amount of the request. 
The Committee directs that $15,000,000 of available funds be 
used to support the Scientific Discovery Through Advanced 
Computing (SciDAC) program and that $10,000,000 of available 
funds be used for terascale operating systems development.

          MULTI-PROGRAM ENERGY LABORATORIES FACILITIES SUPPORT

    The Committee recommends $30,175,000, the amount of the 
request, for multi-program energy laboratories facilities 
support. The amount recommended is $3,755,000 less than the 
current year. The program supports infrastructure activities at 
the five national labs under the direction of the Office of 
Science.
    The recommendation includes construction funding for two 
projects, 02-SC-001 and MEL-001, at the level of the request.

                         fusion energy sciences

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $255,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     248,495,000
Committee recommendation................................     248,495,000

    The Committee recommendation for fusion energy sciences is 
$248,495,000, the amount of the request.

                      Departmental Administration

                                (gross)

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $225,942,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     221,618,000
Committee recommendation................................     208,948,000

                        (miscellaneous revenues)

Appropriations, 2001....................................   -$151,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................    -137,810,000
Committee recommendation................................    -137,810,000

    The Department recommends $208,948,000 for departmental 
administration, a decrease of $12,670,000 from the 
Administration's request.

                           Inspector General

Appropriations, 2001....................................     $31,430,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      31,430,000
Committee recommendation................................      30,000,000

    The Committee has provided $30,000,000 for the Office of 
the Inspector General.

                         recommendation summary

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

                    ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

    Atomic energy defense activities of the Department of 
Energy are provided for in two categories--the National Nuclear 
Security Administration and Other Defense Related Activities. 
Appropriation accounts under the National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA) are weapons activities, defense nuclear 
non-proliferation, naval reactors, and the Office of the 
Administrator. Other defense related activities include 
appropriation accounts for defense environmental restoration 
and waste management, defense facilities closure projects, 
defense environmental management privatization, other defense 
activities and defense nuclear waste disposal.

                National Nuclear Security Administration

                           Weapons Activities

Appropriations, 2001....................................  $5,006,153,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................   5,300,025,000
Committee recommendation................................   6,062,891,000

    Weapons activities provide for the continuing assurance of 
safety, reliability, and security of the nuclear weapons in our 
enduring nuclear weapons stockpile while adhering to the terms 
of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Necessary ingredients for 
success in this important mission include a highly skilled and 
motivated workforce, advanced experimental and computational 
facilities and equipment, adequately invested and maintained 
physical plants and supporting infrastructure, and 
exceptionally focused and dedicated management.
    The Committee is concerned about several of these necessary 
ingredients for success. Whereas significant progress can be 
cited with respect to the development of advanced experimental 
and computational capabilities, the Committee notes that the 
capability to certify the safety and reliability of new 
components for our aging nuclear weapons stockpile is still 
many years in the future. Moreover, the initial emphasis on 
developing these new computational and experimental 
capabilities has contributed to an unacceptable decline in the 
physical plants and supporting infrastructure of the nuclear 
weapons enterprise. Finally, the Committee is deeply concerned 
with the lack of progress toward the definition and 
establishment of an enduring production complex capable of 
providing cost-effective, scalable production of all necessary 
nuclear weapon components. In response to the Committee's 
concerns, recommended appropriations in many categories exceed 
the amounts requested by the President.

                        directed stockpile work

    An appropriation of $1,081,337,000 is recommended for 
directed stockpile work of the NNSA, an increase of $37,546,000 
over the budget request.
    Directed stockpile work encompasses all activities that 
directly support specific weapons in the nuclear stockpile as 
directed by the Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Plan. These 
activities include current maintenance and day-to-day care of 
the stockpile as well as planned refurbishments as outlined by 
the stockpile life extension program (SLEP). This category also 
includes research, development and certification activities in 
direct support of each weapon system, and long-term future-
oriented research and development to solve either current or 
projected stockpile problems.
    Stockpile research and development.--The Committee 
recommends $365,145,000, an increase of $59,685,000 over the 
request, providing for assessment, certification, surveillance 
and maintenance research and development for systems comprising 
our enduring nuclear weapons stockpile. The increased 
appropriation above the requested amount is meant to support 
acceleration in stockpile life extension research and 
development activities for the W80 and W76 weapons systems, and 
necessary additional sub-critical experiments at the Nevada 
Test Site.
    Stockpile maintenance.--The Committee recommends 
$367,223,000, an increase of $4,730,000 over the request, to 
provide for stockpile maintenance and production and exchange 
of limited life components in the enduring stockpile, as well 
as major refurbishment activities to extend the stockpile life 
of the W87, W76, W80, and B61 weapons systems.
    Stockpile evaluation.--The Committee recommends 
$178,589,000, a reduction of $2,245,000 over the request, to 
support the implementation of changes recommended by the 150-
day study, reduction of the surveillance backlogs at the 
Savannah River Site and the Y-12 Plant, and reinstatement of 
the shelf life program at the Pantex and Y-12 Plants.
    Dismantlement/disposal.--The Committee recommends 
$29,066,000, a decrease of $6,348,000 below the request. From 
the funds provided, a single combined line at the Pantex Plant 
servicing dismantlement of the W56 and W79 weapons systems will 
be expanded to one full line for the W56 and two full lines for 
the W79.
    Production Support.--The Committee recommends $134,896,000, 
a decrease of $17,994,000 from the request, for production 
support.

                               campaigns

    An appropriation of $2,259,505,000 is recommended for the 
campaigns of the NNSA, an increase of $263,092,000 over the 
budget request.
    The stockpile stewardship campaigns program establishes and 
applies a number of highly focused and integrated scientific 
and technical capabilities to maintain indefinitely the safety, 
security, and reliability of the Nation's nuclear weapons 
stockpile without nuclear testing. The present structure of the 
campaigns program reflects the current investment in developing 
advanced facilities and capabilities while simultaneously 
applying existing and developing capabilities to important 
stewardship tasks.
    Primary certification.--The Committee recommends 
$52,661,000, a decrease of $2,869,000 from the request, to 
support sub-critical experiments and other activities necessary 
to support the required delivery date for a certified pit.
    Dynamic materials properties.--The Committee recommends 
$93,644,000, a decrease of $4,166,000 above the request. Within 
the available funds, the Administration is directed to make 
full use of existing and developing capabilities for materials 
properties studies, including the Joint Actinide Shock Physics 
Experimental Research facility at the Nevada Test Site, and the 
High Pressure Collaborative Access Team facility at the 
synchrotron light source at Argonne National Laboratory.
    Advanced radiography.--The Committee recommends 
$85,803,000, an increase of $25,293,000 over the request. The 
recommendation includes $25,000,000 to continue research, 
development, and conceptual design for an advanced hydrodynamic 
test facility, including further development and evaluation of 
proton radiography techniques. It is the intent of the 
Committee to continue this important effort even though any 
decision on whether to proceed to construction is still several 
years away. Additional funds are provided to fund other 
experiments that might be conducted in the Contained Firing 
Facility, the U1-A tunnel complex, or other appropriate 
experimental facilities.
    Secondary certification and nuclear systems margins.--The 
Committee recommends $44,524,000, a decrease of $2,746,000 over 
the budget request for radiation source development, radiation 
case dynamics studies, radiation transport and the effects of 
aging and refurbishment on secondary performance. From the 
funds available, the Administration is encouraged to continue, 
and expand as appropriate, its investments in high energy 
density physics research through university grants and 
partnerships.
    Enhanced surety.--The Committee recommends $39,298,000, an 
increase of $4,501,000 over the request, to develop and 
demonstrate advanced initiation concepts and enhanced use 
denial concepts, and to enhance efforts to establish high 
precision, micro system technologies for enhanced surety of 
future weapon systems.
    Weapons systems engineering certification.--The Committee 
recommends $26,665,000, an increase of $2,622,000 over the 
request, to accelerate the acquisition of experimental data 
necessary to validate new models and simulation tools being 
developed in the Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign.
    Nuclear survivability.--The Committee recommends 
$23,694,000, an increase of $4,644,000 over the request, to 
develop and validate tools to simulate nuclear environments for 
survivability assessments and certification; restore the 
capability to provide nuclear-hardened microelectronics and 
microsystem components for the enduring stockpile; and 
accelerate the qualification and certification of the neutron 
generator and the arming, fusing and firing system for the 
refurbished W76.
    ICF ignition and high yield, Project 96-D-111 National 
Ignition Facility.--The Committee recommends $492,443,000, an 
increase of $24,500,000 over the budget request.
    Within the available funds, the Committee provides 
$59,259,000 for ICF/NIF Experimental Support Activities, an 
increase of $24,500,000 over the budget request. Of this 
increase, $10,000,000 is provided to enhance NIF diagnostics 
and cryogenic target activities; and $7,000,000 is provided to 
supplement the base program.
    The Committee understands that a ``National Petawatt Laser 
Strategic Plan'' has been commissioned by the Administration. 
The Administrator is encouraged to pursue this initiative, 
including, within the strategic planning, the research and 
development of supporting technologies necessary to ensure that 
the Nation retains and maintains its leadership in ultra-short 
pulse laser technology. Guided by the strategic plan, and from 
available funds within the ICF/NIF Experimental Support 
Activities, $3,000,000 is provided for conceptual and 
preliminary engineering design studies for the realization of a 
petawatt-class laser at the Sandia National Laboratory's Z-
Machine, and $2,000,000 is provided to initiate development of 
critical short-pulse laser technologies, like damage resistant 
gratings.
    The Committee recommendation provides $7,886,000 for 
University Grants/Other ICF Support, an increase of $2,500,000 
above the budget request, to complete the transfer and initiate 
operations of a petawatt laser or high-power, short-pulse laser 
at the University of Nevada-Reno. The Committee believes that 
early access to an operating petawatt-class laser will provide 
valuable opportunities for exploring technology options for 
incorporation in the next generation of petawatt lasers. 
Accordingly, the Committee directs the Department to complete 
this primary activity before undertaking next-generation 
petawatt laser development at other universities.
    The Committee is aware of interest in next-generation 
short-pulse laser technology expresssed by the University of 
Rochester and the University of Texas. Within available funds, 
the Committee recommends the support of conceptual and 
engineering design studies of the capabilities proposed by the 
University of Rochester and the University of Texas. Finally, 
the Administrator is encouraged to promote and facilitate 
access by university scientists and others to short-pulse laser 
facilities for research and exploration of high density physics 
phenomena.
    The Committee recommendation includes $33,450,000, the 
amount of the budget request, for the Omega laser at the 
University of Rochester and $10,000,000 for the Naval Research 
Laboratory.
    The Committee recommendation provides $245,000,000 for NIF 
construction, Project 96-D-111, the same as the budget request. 
While the Administrator has certified continued fidelity with 
the re-structured cost and deliverable schedule, the Committee 
notes that a high level of vigilance and extraordinary 
management attention is warranted to maintain confidence in 
satisfactory progress of this important project. The Committee 
agrees with a recent General Accounting Office review that 
highlighted, among other things, persistent DOE oversight 
problems. The Committee continues to be concerned that the same 
individuals who have performed oversight of NIF since 1999, 
when costs and schedules grew unnoticed, continue to have that 
role.
    Advanced simulation and computing.--The Committee 
recommends $711,185,000, the amount of the budget request. The 
Committee recommends the following amounts for ASCI 
construction projects:
    Project 01-D-101 Distributed information systems 
laboratory, SNL, Livermore, CA.--The Committee recommends 
$12,400,000, an increase of $7,000,000 over the request.
    Project 00-D-103 Terascale simulation facility, LLNL, 
Livermore, CA.--The Committee recommends $22,000,000, an 
increase of $17,000,000 over the request.
    Project 00-D-107 Joint computational engineering 
laboratory, SNL, Albuquerque, NM.--The Committee recommends 
$15,377,000, an increase of $10,000,000 over the request.
    Pit manufacturing and certification.--The Committee 
recommends $237,713,000, an increase of $109,168,000 over the 
budget request, to fully fund all activities necessary for 
engineering certification and subcritical experiments that 
maintain the revised certification schedule.
    The Committee notes that the Administration's schedule of 
accomplishments proposed under the recommended increase would 
delay the availability of a certified pit until fiscal year 
2009. Circumstances make such a delay unacceptable. The 
Administrator shall carefully reconsider his pit-manufacturing 
plan to reestablish the full capability to manufacture all pit 
types before successful certification of a manufactured pit 
validates the manufacturing process.
    The Committee notes that in spite of repeated encouragement 
to accelerate the acquisition of essential certification data 
by making use of subcritical experiments at the Nevada Test 
Site, the originally promised average of 4 subcritical 
experiments per year has never been achieved. The Administrator 
shall direct his new pit manufacturing and certification 
oversight office to ensure that the most productive and cost 
effective means are emphasized as the program attempts to 
reduce the intervening period between pit manufacturing 
capability and pit certification.
    High explosives manufacturing and weapons assembly/
disassembly readiness.--The Committee recommends $6,846,000, an 
increase of $2,886,000 above the request, to establish 
production-scale high explosives manufacturing and 
qualification; to deploy and validate technologies and 
facilities for production re-qualification; and, to demonstrate 
and validate Enterprise Integration and Collaborative 
Manufacturing.
    Non-nuclear readiness.--The Committee recommends 
$18,187,000, an increase of $5,983,000 above the request, to 
deploy commercial products and processes for components 
supporting the B61, W80, and W76 stockpile life extension 
programs; to modify existing tritium loading and cleaning 
facilities to support stockpile life extension programs; and, 
to support neutron target loading and detonator production.
    Materials readiness.--The Committee recommends $1,209,000, 
the same as the budget request.
    Secondary Readiness.--The Committee recommends $68,445,000, 
an increase of $45,276,000 over the request, to support 
modernization of secondary manufacturing facilities and 
infrastructure at Y-12 and to ensure readiness to meet near-
term stockpile life extension requirements.
    Tritium readiness.--The Committee recommends $138,475,000, 
an increase of $14,000,000 above the request, to provide 
funding required for establishing commercial light water 
reactor production of tritium, construction of the Tritium 
Extraction Facility at Savannah River Site, and to complete the 
APT demonstration and design preparatory to its close out. The 
Committee recommends $42,350,000 for tritium readiness and 
$81,125,000 for construction of the tritium extraction facility 
at Savannah River.
    Cooperative agreements.--The Committee recognizes that 
cooperative agreements with universities are important 
resources for developing essential technical data for stockpile 
stewardship. Additionally, such long-term relationships with 
universities allow considerable opportunity for promoting 
advanced studies and recruiting the future workforce in 
technical areas that are critical to the continuing stewardship 
enterprise. The Committee understands that the NNSA is 
establishing a new office to be responsible for administering 
university partnerships, cooperative agreements and/or other 
long-term university relationships. The Committee applauds this 
initiative and encourages the Administrator to review the 
benefits to the program and the Department of delegating much 
of the day-to-day management and administration to offices in 
the regions containing the participating universities.

               readiness in technical base and facilities

    An appropriation of $1,607,716,000 is recommended for 
readiness in technical base and facilities, an increase of 
$160,728,000 over the original budget request. Readiness in 
technical base and facilities encompasses efforts to provide 
for the physical infrastructure and operational readiness 
required to conduct the directed stockpile work and campaign 
activities at the laboratories, the test site and the 
production plants.
    Operations of facilities.--The Committee recommends 
$939,479,000, an increase of $109,052,000 over the budget 
request, to maintain warm standby readiness for all RTBF 
facilities with some allowance for inflation. The 
recommendation includes an additional $10,000,000 for the 
operation of pulsed-power facilities at Sandia National 
Laboratory and an additional $10,000,000 for the Z machine 
refurbishment.
    Technology transfer and industrial partnerships.--The 
Committee recognizes that partnerships with industry may enable 
the weapons complex to accomplish its mission more efficiently. 
Such partnership can provide access to new technologies, 
processes and expertise that improve NNSA's mission 
capabilities. One of the most successful technology transfer 
and commercialization efforts in the Department of Energy has 
occurred around Sandia National Laboratories, resulting in over 
30 start-up ventures and thousands of jobs created. The 
Committee has included an additional $3,000,000 and directs the 
NNSA to follow this successful public/private partnership model 
at the other NNSA laboratories and the Nevada Test Site.
    Uranium 233.--The Committee commends the Department for 
issuing a draft Request for Proposal to process Uranium 233 
stored in building 3019 in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to obtain 
Thorium-229 needed for cancer treatment and recommends a total 
program funding of $21,000,000 in fiscal year 2002. This should 
fully support the scope necessary to meet the quality, cost, 
and schedule requirements associated with providing for the 
medical use of the extremely short half-life Actinium-225 and 
includes $6,000,000 to address necessary security at building 
3019. The Department should limit the scope of the Request for 
Proposal to the processing of U-233 already in Oak Ridge, or 
provide additional resources for expanded scope. The Committee 
recommends that the Department assign responsibility as soon as 
possible for Actinium-25 production to a contractor clearly 
capable of achieving the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 
required Good Manufacturers Practice (GMP). The Committee 
further recommends that the expanded scope of the Request for 
Proposal include the shutdown of building 3019 making it read 
for decontamination by the Department.
    Program readiness.--The Committee recommends $197,220,000, 
an increase of $9,094,000 above the budget request, to enhance 
Nevada Test Site readiness and maintain materials processing 
and component manufacturing readiness.
    Special projects.--The Committee recommends $60,385,000, a 
decrease of $4,108,000 over the request.
    Within funds available from the appropriation: $2,000,000 
is provided to the Remote Sensing Laboratory to enhance pilot 
proficiency, aircraft safety, and to enhance aviation support 
elements that have experienced greater operational demands than 
earlier expected; $1,000,000 is provided for improvements to 
the Tumor Registry in the State of Nevada to improve the 
accuracy and completeness of health records of a population 
with significant potential radiation exposure; $2,500,000 to 
implement Departmental strategy to preserve the history of the 
Manhattan Project at sites to be determined by the Secretary in 
consultation with the Federal Preservation Office within the 
Department; and, $2,000,000 for the installation of exhibits at 
the Atomic Testing History Institute.
    Material recycle and recovery.--The Committee recommends 
$90,310,000, a decrease of $11,001,000 below the budget 
request.
    Nuclear weapons incident response.--The Committee 
recommends $88,923,000, a decrease of $202,000 below the 
request, to enhance the state of response readiness at various 
locations. Within the available funds, the Administrator is 
directed to conduct a study and report to the Committee by 
March 1, 2002, on the status of planning for remediation and 
disposition of a weapon in various states of disrepair that 
could result from credible accidents or incidents.
    Construction projects.--The Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $212,557,000, an increase of $57,893,000, for 
construction projects under Readiness in Technical Base and 
Facilities.
    The following list details changes in appropriations for 
construction projects under Readiness in Technical Base and 
Facilities:
    Project 02-D-101 Microsystems and engineering science 
applications, SNL.--The Committee recommends $67,000,000, an 
increase of $65,000,000 above the budget request.
    Project 02-D-103 Project engineering and design, various 
locations.--The Committee recommends $31,130,000, an increase 
of $21,950,000 above the budget request. Of this amount, 
$4,000,000 is provided for architecture and engineering 
services (Title I and Title II) for modernization of the 
surface support facilities for the U1A complex.
    Project 02-D-105 Engineering technology complex upgrade, 
LLNL.--The Committee recommends $4,750,000, an increase of 
$4,750,000 above the budget request.
    Project 02-D-107 Electrical power systems safety, 
communications, and bus upgrades, NV.--The Committee recommends 
$6,200,000, and increase of $2,693,000 above the budget 
request.
    Project 01-D-103 Preliminary project engineering and 
design, various locations.--The Committee recommends 
$16,379,000, a decrease of $29,000,000 below the budget 
request.
    Project 99-D-108 Renovate existing roadways, Nevada Test 
Site.--The Committee recommends $2,000,000, an increase of 
$2,000,000 above the budget request.

                     Facilities and infrastructure

    The Committee recommends $300,000,000, an increase of 
$300,000,000 above the request, to establish a new program line 
dedicated to re-capitalization of existing operational 
facilities to halt their deterioration and restore the robust 
and enduring mission readiness that relies on them.
    The Committee is aware of the need for funding a facilities 
and infrastructure program, but is concerned the Administration 
has not established a facilities management structure adequate 
to ensure the funds are used to address those items that will 
be most effective in reducing long-term costs and risk. The 
Committee directs the Administrator to provide a semi-annual 
report to the Committee on the status of the facilities and 
infrastructure program. The report should include the current 
priority list of proposed facilities and infrastructure 
projects, including cost and schedule requirements. For each 
site, the report should include: a current 10-year site plan 
that demonstrates the reconfiguration of its facilities and 
infrastructure to meet its missions and to address its long-
term operational costs and return on investment; the current 
budget for all facilities and infrastructure funding in this 
program as well as all funding for maintenance and 
infrastructure upgrades funded through other parts of the 
budget; and the current status of each facilities and 
infrastructure project compared to the original baseline cost, 
schedule, and scope.

                      Secure transportation asset

    The Committee recommends $123,300,000, an increase of 
$1,500,000 over the budget request. Of the amount appropriated, 
$79,071,000 is provided for operations and equipment, and 
$44,229,000 is provided for program direction.

                        Safeguards and security

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $448,881,000, 
an increase of $71,285,000 over the current year enacted level.
    The security budget request has increased dramatically over 
the last several years and again this year. The Committee 
recommendation includes $364,323,000 for physical security, an 
increase of $33,783,000 over the current year enacted level; 
$58,000,000 for cyber security, an increase of $29,156,000 over 
the current year enacted level; and $16,958,000 for personnel 
security, an increase of $2,338,00 over the current year 
enacted level.
    The Committee has provided the full budget request but 
remains very concerned about the safeguards and security 
operations at the NNSA and the relevant imbalance of physical 
verses cyber security. The Committee strongly urges the 
Administrator to find more efficient and effective ways to 
conduct physical security operations in order to free-up 
resources to address the evolving cyber security threats.
    The Congress provided $20,000,000 in supplemental 
appropriations in fiscal year 2000 for the NNSA to perform 
planning, analysis, testing and evaluation necessary to develop 
the highest value alternatives for improving cyber security 
throughout the nuclear weapons complex. Congress further 
directed that NNSA should submit to Congress by January 15, 
2001, a detailed plan with an estimated cost and schedules for 
a reasonable program that defends the highest value targets. On 
February 22, the Integrated Cyber Security Initiative plan was 
submitted to Congress. The plan did not have an estimated cost 
but indicated that the cost estimates for each of the 4 years 
in the implementation phase would be developed and validated by 
a panel of cyber security and network experts. The Committee 
looks forward to receiving this information and considering a 
request in the future for resources to support the initiative.

                           PROGRAM DIRECTION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $271,137,000 
for program direction, the amount of the budget request.

                    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $872,273,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     773,700,000
Committee recommendation................................     880,500,000

    The Committee recommendation provides $880,500,000, an 
increase of $106,800,000 over the original budget request.
    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation activities of the NNSA are 
directed to reducing the serious global danger of weapons of 
mass destruction (WMD). The NNSA utilizes the highly 
specialized scientific, technical, analytical, and operational 
capabilities of the NNSA and its national laboratories as well 
as other Department of Energy laboratories. Its mission is to 
prevent the spread of WMD materials, technology and expertise; 
detect the proliferation of WMD worldwide; reverse the 
proliferation of nuclear weapons capabilities; dispose of 
surplus materials in accordance with terms set forth in 
agreements between the United States and Russia; and store 
surplus fissile materials in a safe manner pending disposition. 
The Committee continues to strongly support these important 
national security programs.
    The Committee is concerned that the proposed budget would 
seriously erode progress made at great expense to assure the 
Nation's capability to detect and mitigate global proliferation 
activities. Accordingly, the Committee recommends restoration 
of much of the funds, especially in the accounts supporting 
research and development, arms control activities, and 
materials protection and accountability. The Committee supports 
the proposed increases in surplus nuclear materials disposition 
and safe storage.
    Nonproliferation and verification research and 
development.--The Committee recommends $222,355,000, an 
increase of $52,059,000 over the original budget request.
    The recommended increase is provided to continue the 
important remote sensing and verification technology research, 
development and deployment, and to continue to invest in the 
development of essential technologies for responding to the 
growing threat of chemical or biological terrorism.
    The Nonproliferation and Verification, Research and 
Development program is essential for stable long-term research 
and the development of unique science and technology 
competencies needed for the increasing demands of arms control, 
nonproliferation, domestic nuclear safeguards and security, 
energy security, and emergency management. Within available 
funds, $5,000,000 is provided to establish the Remote Systems 
Test and Engineering Center at the Remote Sensing Laboratory 
(RSL) to provide Department-wide support for prototype 
engineering design, development, test, and evaluation of remote 
sensing and data acquisition missions of the Department. The 
Committee recommends $2,500,000 in support for the 3-year 
research effort by the Caucasus Seismic Information Network. 
The Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000 for the 
Incorporate Research Institutions for Seismology PASSCAL 
Instrument Center.
    Project 00-D-192 Nonproliferation and international 
security center (NISC), Los Alamos National laboratory.--The 
Committee recommends $35,806,000, the same as the budget 
request.
    Arms Control.--The Committee recommends $138,000,000 for 
arms control and nonproliferation, an increase of $36,500,000 
over the original budget request.
    The Arms Control and Nonproliferation program is the focal 
point within the Department of Energy which supports the U.S. 
arms control and nonproliferation policies, and provides 
leadership and representation within the Department in the 
international arms control and nonproliferation community. The 
goal is to reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation by 
integrating the Department's assets and efforts, including 
those of the national laboratories and contractors, to provide 
technical support to the U.S. Government's foreign policy and 
national security objectives.
    The increase recommended by the Committee is meant to 
continue important activities that would be curtailed or 
significantly reduced under the budget request. From within the 
additional funds recommended, the Committee restores 
$14,500,000 for the Nuclear Cities Initiative (NCI), 
$15,000,000 for Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP), 
$7,000,000 for continuing the efforts for disposition of spent 
nuclear fuel in Kazakhstan, and $1,000,000 to continue 
activities in support of spent nuclear fuel storage and a 
geologic repository in Russia. The Committee directs that a 
portion of the additional resources recommended for IPP be 
expended in projects within the Russian nuclear cities in 
coordination with the Nuclear Cities Initiative.
    International materials protection, control, and 
accounting.--The recommendation provides $143,800,000 for 
international material protection, control, and accounting 
[MPC&A] activities, an increase of $5,000,000 over the original 
budget request. The Committee continues to consider these 
activities extremely important to reducing the threat created 
by the breakup of the former Soviet Union. The increased 
funding will allow for additional material consolidation and 
control work, an expanded program of MPC&A at several Russian 
Navy sites, and expanded MPC&A efforts within defense-related 
and important civilian and regulatory sites in Russia. The 
Committee continues to believe that these activities are 
critical elements of the United States non-proliferation 
efforts.
    HEU (Highly Enriched Uranium) Transparency 
Implementation.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$13,950,000, the amount of the budget request for the HEU 
Transparency Implementation program of the Department of 
Energy. This program is responsible for ensuring that the non-
proliferation aspects of the February 1993 agreement between 
the United States and the Russian Federation are met. This 
Agreement covers the purchase over 20 years of low enriched 
uranium [LEU] derived from at least 500 metric tons of HEU 
removed from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons. Under the 
Agreement, conversion of the HEU components into LEU is 
performed in Russian facilities. The purpose of this program is 
to put into place those measures agreed to by both sides, that 
permit the United States to have confidence that the Russian 
side is abiding by the Agreement.
    International nuclear safety.--The Committee recommends 
$19,500,000, and increase of $5,700,000 above the budget 
request, to implement permanent improvements in Russian nuclear 
safety culture as well as improvements in the regulatory 
framework for Soviet-design reactor operations in nine former 
Soviet Union countries.
    Fissile materials disposition.--The Committee recommends 
$299,089,000, an increase of $9,000,000 above the budget 
request, to maintain operations in the United States and in 
Russia according to the plan under the budget request. Planned 
construction projects are slowed to accommodate the shortfall 
in the disposition account.
    Excess weapons grade plutonium in Russia is a clear and 
present danger to the security of the United States because of 
the possibility that it will fall into the hands of non-Russian 
entities or provide Russia with the ability to rebuild its 
nuclear arsenal at a rate the United States may be unable to 
equal. For that reason, the Committee considers the 
Department's material disposition program of comparable 
importance to weapons activities; both are integral components 
of our national effort to reduce any threat posed to the United 
States and to deter the threat that remains.
    The Committee recommendation includes $130,089,000 for U.S. 
surplus materials disposition, the same as the original budget 
request.
    The Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 to 
support the joint United States-Russian program to develop an 
advanced reactor to consume large quantities of excess weapons 
plutonium. The primary purpose of the joint United States-
Russian program for the development of an advanced reactor is 
the design and eventual construction of a demonstration reactor 
in Russia for the purpose of surplus weapons plutonium 
disposition. However, the United States must take full 
advantage of the development of this attractive technology for 
a possible next generation nuclear power reactor for United 
States and foreign markets. Therefore, the Committee directs 
the Department to explore opportunities to develop and exploit 
this technology for commercial purposes.

                           program direction

    The Committee recommendation includes $50,000,000 for 
program direction within Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, a 
decrease of $1,459,000 below the budget request

                             Naval Reactors

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $688,645,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................    $688,045,000
Committee recommendation................................    $688,045,000

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

    The Naval Reactors Program within the NNSA provides for the 
design, development, testing, and evaluation of improved naval 
nuclear propulsion plants and reactor cores having long fuel 
life, high reliability, improved performances, and simplified 
operating and maintenance requirements. The nuclear propulsion 
plants and cores cover a wide range of configurations and power 
ratings suitable for installation in naval combat vessels 
varying in size from small submarines to large surface ships. 
The Committee recommendation is $688,045,000, the amount of the 
budget request.

                      Office of the Administrator

Appropriations, 2001....................................      $9,978,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      15,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      15,000,000

    The Committee has included $15,000,000 to cover the 
expenses of the Office of the Administrator of the National 
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).

                        recommendation summaries

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

                    OTHER DEFENSE RELATED ACTIVITIES

         Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management

Appropriations, 2001....................................  $4,963,533,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................   4,548,708,000
Committee recommendation................................   5,389,868,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,389,868,000 
for Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management 
programs for fiscal year 2002. This is $841,160,000 over the 
budget request.
    The Department's environmental management program is 
responsible for identifying and reducing health and safety 
risks, and managing waste at sites where the Department carried 
out defense nuclear energy or weapons research and production 
activities which resulted in radioactive, hazardous, and mixed 
waste contamination. The environmental management program goals 
are to eliminate and manage the urgent risk in the system; 
emphasize health and safety for workers and the public; 
establish a system that increases managerial and financial 
control; and establish a stronger partnership between DOE and 
its stakeholders. The ``Defense environmental restoration and 
waste management'' appropriation is organized into two program 
accounts, site/project completion and post-2006 completion to 
reflect the emphasis on project completion and site closures.
    Fiscal year 1999 budget request was the first fiscal year 
that the environmental management program structure was aligned 
with DOE's 2006 plan. All activities have been organized into 
projects, which have more defined scopes, schedules, and costs 
that support a defined end state at each specific site. In 
addition, the environmental management budget is organized into 
program decision units that focus on the end-date of the 
project. Those decision units are site closure, site/project 
completion, post-2006 completion; science and technology; and 
program direction.
    The Committee believes that the environmental management 
program of the Department of Energy is beginning to turn the 
corner in the cleanup effort. Leadership within the Department 
has put in place initiatives which have produced greater 
efficiencies, reduced cost growth on many projects, and 
resulted in moving the program from the study phase to the 
cleanup of facilities. The Committee believes that the program 
recommended for fiscal year 2002 is within the acceptable range 
and will meet all legal requirements and other agreements.
    Budget constraints will check future large increases and 
additional efficiencies will be required. However, even with 
these constraints, tremendous progress continues to be made 
both in tangible, on-the-ground results and in the business 
practices within the program. The Committee expects the 
Department to continue to seek every opportunity to bring about 
more efficiencies and tough businesslike approaches to program 
execution. The Department should continue the critical review 
of the need and requirement for each individual support service 
contract, and duplicative and overlapping organizational 
arrangements and functions.
    While it is imperative that the Department's cleanup costs 
be brought down, there are instances where relatively small 
amounts of additional funding invested in the near-term offer 
the potential for significant reductions in long-term budgetary 
requirements. The Committee continues to be concerned with 
growing landlord costs required to maintain buildings and 
facilities that are ready for demolition, and the high costs 
associated with temporarily storing and monitoring wastes that 
are ready for permanent disposal. In order to reduce these 
costs in the future, it is important that the Department 
expedite demolition work, waste shipments, and permanent 
storage whenever possible.
    Finally, the Committee notes that the Department's budget 
request is not sufficient to satisfy both the existing State-
imposed legal requirements in place at several sites and 
maintain prompt and efficient cleanup at other sites not 
subject to such requirements. The effect of these budget 
shortcomings will be to force States to seek legally binding 
agreements with the Department. The Department should recognize 
that these legal agreements, while negotiated with the best 
information available to all parties at the time of their 
finalization, may lock the Department into cleanup paths that 
are not optimized as further information and technologies 
become available. For this reason, it is strongly in the 
Government's interest to avoid imposition of additional legal 
requirements by States. The Committee strongly urges the 
Department to request budget levels that maintain significant 
annual progress at each site and thus avoid the need for States 
to seek new legal requirements to ensure that sites within 
their borders are adequately considered in budget requests.

                      Site and Project Completion

    An appropriation of $1,003,646,000 is recommended for site 
and project completion activities, including $979,480,000 for 
operation and maintenance, and $24,166,000 for construction.
    This account will provide funding for projects that will be 
completed by fiscal year 2006 at sites or facilities where a 
DOE mission (for example, environmental management, nuclear 
weapons stockpile stewardship, or scientific research) will 
continue beyond 2006. These activities are focused on 
completing projects by 2006 and distinguishes these projects 
from the long-term projects or activities at the sites, such as 
high level waste vitrification or the Department's other 
enduring missions. The largest amount of funding requested is 
for activities at the Hanford, WA, Savannah River, SC, and 
Idaho sites. A significant amount of work is expected to be 
completed at these sites by 2006, although environmental 
management and other stewardship activities will continue 
beyond 2006.
    For construction, the Committee recommendation includes all 
requested projects except for Project 92-D-140, the F and H 
canyon exhaust upgrades at Savannah River. The Committee 
reduces the recommendation for this project by $15,790,000 due 
to the Department's decision to eliminate some activities and 
defer others.
    The Committee recommendation includes additional funding 
for the following activities above the level of the 
Administration's request: $34,300,000 for clean-up activities 
at Hanford; $20,000,000 in additional funding at Idaho to 
ensure Settlement Agreement and legal requirements for the 
shipping of waste out-of-state are met; $28,500,000 in 
additional funding for clean-up activities at Savannah River; 
$10,000,000 in enhanced funding for remediation at South 
Valley, Kansas City, Pantex, and Sandia; and $5,100,000 in 
enhanced funding for remediation at ETEC and Lawrence Livermore 
National Laboratory.
    The Committee is aware that the Department provides 
approximately $500,000 per year to the State of Oregon each 
year to cover costs of its clean-up effort, including emergency 
drills, planning activities, technical review of DOE's waste 
management and clean-up plans, participation in the Hanford 
Advisory Board meetings and other meetings at Hanford. The 
Committee recommends that this DOE contribution be increased to 
$1,000,000 to pay for increased costs.
    The Committee is aware of a pending MOU between the 
University of Georgia and the University of South Carolina with 
respect to the Savannah River Ecology Lab and expects the 
Department of Energy to provide adequate funding to support 
this long-term partnership. Within available funds, the 
Committee also recommends that the Department's on-going 
relationship with the University of South Carolina's Center for 
Water Resources be continued at $800,000, an increase of 
$50,000 over last year's level.
    The Committee understands the Department is prepared to 
transfer up to 2,000 acres for the use of Pueble of San 
Ildefonso and approximately 100 acres to the County of Los 
Alamos. The Committee recommendation includes an additional 
$9,000,000 to expedite the remediation and conveyance of the 
land consistent with the direction of section 632 of Public Law 
105-119.

                          Post-2006 Completion

    The Committee recommendation for post-2006 completion 
activities is $3,574,001,000, which includes $2,133,779,000 in 
operating expenses for post-2006 completion, $1,033,468,000 in 
operating expenses for the Office of River Protection, a 
$420,000,000 contribution to the UED&D fund, and $705,317,000 
for construction.
    The Post-2006 completion request supports projects that are 
projected to continue well beyond 2006. As cleanup is 
completed, it will be necessary for environmental management to 
maintain a presence at most sites to monitor, maintain, and 
provide information on the continued residual contamination. 
These activities are required to ensure the reduction in risk 
to human health is maintained.
    Post-2006 construction.--The Committee recommends the 
amount of the Administration's request.
    Post-2006 operation and maintenance.--The Committee 
recommendation includes additional funding for the following 
activities above the level of the Administration's request: 
$125,200,000 for clean-up activities at Hanford; $146,500,000 
for clean-up activities at Savannah River; $100,000,000 for 
clean-up activities at Idaho; $4,400,000 in restored funding 
for the Nevada Test Site; $4,000,000 to continue the 
Underground Test Area groundwater flow characterization 
drilling program at an accelerated pace; $14,300,000 to 
continue remediation, waste management, and nuclear materials 
stewardship activities at Los Alamos National Lab in New 
Mexico; $14,000,000 to continue remediation, waste management, 
and nuclear materials stewardship at Lawrence Livermore 
National Lab in California. Within available funds, the 
Hazardous Waste Worker Training Program and the HAMMER program 
are to be funded at current year levels.
    The Committee expects that portions of the additional 
$105,200,000 for Hanford will support the River Corridor 
Initiative, including the continued cocooning of the four 
former plutonium production reactors and the removal and 
disposal of hazardous and radiologically contaminated soil 
along the shoreline of the Hanford Reach portion of the 
Columbia River.
    Additionally, the Committee expects that, within the 
additional $100,000,000 provided for Idaho, $15,000,000 will be 
used to initiate activities associated with the demonstration 
of waste retrieval at the subsurface disposal area at the Idaho 
National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory.
    The Committee recommends that the current cooperative 
agreement with the Waste-management Education and Research 
Consortium be extended for a 5 year period at a level of 
$2,500,000 annually to continue its support for environmental 
education and technology development.
    Carlsbad Field Office.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $201,170,000, an increase of $36,600,000 above the 
budget request and $10,284,000 above the current year level. 
The recommendation includes and additional $21,600,000 for 
operations of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). The 
additional resources are required in order increase the 
transportation capabilities required to meet the Department's 
commitments at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site 
and to correct for unjustified regulatory assumptions used in 
the development of the Department's budget request. The 
recommendation includes an additional $5,000,000 to continue 
the U.S. Mexico Border Health Commission/Materials Corridor 
Partnership Initiative. The Committee recommendation includes 
$10,000,000 to begin implementing program-wide best practices 
to optimize waste processing, developing new technology 
solutions, and developing a mobile/modular approach for small 
quantity sites.
    Regulatory requirements dictate that characterization data 
for each drum of waste shipped to WIPP must be reviewed 
multiple times to insure compliance. The Committee recognizes 
that the process could be streamlined and improved with more 
comprehensive and timely data review and reporting. The 
Committee encourages the Department to work through the 
Carlsbad Field Office to implement a standardized, automated 
program for TRU waste characterization throughout the DOE 
complex using a secure web-based system that allows user access 
and regulatory transparency without regard to the location of 
the user, and includes interfaces between all existing site 
operation databases.
    Office of River Protection.--The Committee recommendation 
includes additional funding for the following activities above 
the level of the President's request: $165,000,000 for the 
Hanford Waste Treatment Plant and $56,000,000 for tank farm 
operations. Total recommended fiscal year 2002 funding for the 
waste treatment plant construction is $665,000,000. The 
Department is expected to continue making PILT payments to 
counties that have the Hanford reservation within their 
boundaries at last year's level.

                         Science and Technology

    An appropriation of $271,700,000 is recommended for science 
and technology activities related to the environmental waste 
cleanup program, an increase of $75,700,000 over the original 
budget request.
    The Science and Technology Program provides new or improved 
technologies and research results that reduce risks to workers, 
the public and the environment; reduce cleanup costs; and/or 
provide solutions to environmental problems that currently have 
no solutions. New and improved technologies have the potential 
to reduce environmental restoration and cleanup costs by an 
estimated several billion dollars. The Committee continues to 
be impressed with the ability of the Department's Deactivation 
and Decommisioning Focus Area Program to deploy cost effective 
new technologies that both help to reduce the overall D&D 
mortgage and protect workers, communities, and the environment. 
The Committee provides $27,100,000 in total funding to the D&D 
focus area program, the same as the current year. The Committee 
also provides total funding of $33,800,000 for the Industry and 
University programs managed by the National Energy Technology 
Laboratory.
    The Committee recommendation includes additional funding 
for the following activities above the level of the 
Administration's request: $20,000,000 for Idaho Environmental 
Systems research and analysis; $5,000,000 for work within the 
University Involvement in Science and Technology program; 
$7,000,000 for the Western Environmental Technology Office; 
$4,000,000 for new basic science awards; and $6,000,000 for new 
research and development projects; $6,000,000 to continue 
evaluation, development, and demonstration of the Advanced 
Vitrification System; $3,000,000 to continue the engineering, 
development, and deployment of prototypical monitoring systems 
and microsensor systems for the remote monitoring of the 
Underground Test Area; $5,000,000 for the Diagnostic 
Instrumentation and Analysis Laboratory (DIAL); and $4,350,000 
for the university robotics research program.
    Within available funds, $4,000,000 is provided for the 
Subsurface Science Research Institute, operated by the Inland 
Northwest Research Alliance and the Idaho National Engineering 
and Environmental Laboratory. Within available funds, $350,000 
above the level of the Administration's request is provided to 
complete the conceptual design of the Subsurface Geosciences 
Laboratory in Idaho.

                           EXCESS FACILITIES

    The Committee recommendation for excess facilities is 
$1,300,000, which is the same as the budget request. These 
funds are provided to manage the transfer for the final 
disposition of excess contaminated physical facilities leading 
to significant risk and cost reductions. In fiscal year 2002 
these funds are to be used for the transfer of excess 
facilities at the Pantex Plant, Savannah River Site, and the Y-
12 Plant from other DOE organizations.

                        SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

    The Committee recommendation for safeguards and security is 
$205,621,000, which is the same as the budget request.

                           Program Direction

    The Committee recommendation for program direction totals 
$355,761,000, which is the same as the budget request.
    Program direction provides the overall direction and 
administrative support for the environmental management 
programs of the Department of Energy.

                   Defense Facility Closure Projects

Appropriations, 2001....................................  $1,080,331,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................   1,050,538,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,080,538,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,080,538,000 
for the site closure program, an increase of $30,000,000 over 
the request.
    The ``Site closure'' account includes funding for sites 
where the environmental management program has established a 
goal of completing the cleanup mission by the end of fiscal 
year 2006. After the cleanup mission is complete at a site, no 
further DOE mission is envisioned, except for limited long-term 
surveillance and maintenance. This account provides funding to 
cleanup the Rocky Flats, Fernald, Mound, Ashtabula, and 
Battelle Columbus sites. The additional $30,000,000 is provided 
for clean-up activities at the Fernald, Ashtabula, and Columbus 
sites.
    The Committee continues to believe that a closure fund, 
which targets funding at specific facilities whose accelerated 
closure in the near-term results in significantly reduced out-
year costs, is important in freeing up budgetary resources in 
the longer term. However, the Committee remains concerned that 
several projects in both the defense and non-defense closure 
accounts are in danger of not meeting 2006 closure goals. Once 
it becomes clear that a closure deadline cannot be met prior to 
2006, the Department should propose moving the project into a 
post-2006 account. Such a move would ensure adequate attention 
and resources for the projects that remain in the closure 
account.

             Defense Environmental Management Privatization

Appropriations, 2001....................................     $65,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     141,537,000
Committee recommendation................................     157,537,000

    An appropriation of $157,537,000 is recommended for the 
environmental management privatization initiative. The 
Committee recommendation includes $10,826,000 for a 
construction contingency fund for the Transuranic Waste 
Treatment Facility at Oak Ridge in Tennessee; $49,332,000 for 
Spent Nuclear Fuel Dry Storage in Idaho; $26,050,000 for 
environmental/waste management at Oak Ridge in Tennessee; 
$13,329,000 for the privatization of the Paducah Disposal 
Facility in Kentucky; and $2,000,000 for the on-site disposal 
cell at Portsmouth, Ohio.
    The Committee recommendation also includes $56,000,000 for 
the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project, an increase of 
$16,000,000 over the budget request. This recommended amount, 
together with the expected fiscal year 2001 supplemental 
appropriation of $29,600,000, is sufficient to cover the 
Department's obligations on this project in fiscal year 2002. 
The Committee notes the existence of an ongoing Defense 
Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) audit to review the project 
contractor's cost management to date and whether the Department 
is meeting its obligation requirements. If the DCAA audit 
indicates the Department is not meeting its obligation 
responsibilities, the Committee will expect an appropriate 
supplemental appropriation request in fiscal year 2002.

                        recommendation summaries

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

                        Other Defense Activities

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $582,466,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     527,614,000
Committee recommendation................................     564,168,000

                              Intelligence

    The Committee recommendation totals $40,844,000, an 
increase of $4,785,000 over the current year appropriation.
    The Office of Intelligence provides information and 
technical analysis on international arms proliferation, foreign 
nuclear programs, and other energy-related matters to 
policymakers in the NNSA, the Department and other U.S. 
Government agencies. The focus of the Department's intelligence 
analysis and reporting is on emerging proliferant nations, 
nuclear technology transfers, foreign nuclear materials 
production, and proliferation implications of the breakup of 
the former Soviet Union.

                   security and emergency operations

    The Committee recommendation for security and emergency 
operations is $247,565,000, a decrease of $21,685,000 from the 
current year appropriation.
    Nuclear Safeguards.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$121,188,000 for nuclear safeguards, an increase of $4,779,000 
from the current year appropriation.
    Security Investigations.--The Committee recommendation 
provides $44,927,000, the amount of the budget request.
    Corporate Management Information Program.--The Committee 
recommendation includes no funding for the corporate management 
information program. If the Department wishes to undertake the 
activities envisioned for this program in fiscal year 2002, the 
Committee directs that they be paid for using available funds 
within the Departmental Administration account or from program 
direction accounts of beneficiary programs. The Committee sees 
no apparent connection to the specific mission of the Security 
and Emergency Operations program or even the broader mission of 
Other Defense Activities. The Committee is concerned that the 
Department is attempting to disguise large increases in 
departmental administration costs by dispersing department-wide 
activities to individual program offices.
    Self-Protecting Data.--The Committee is aware of self-
protecting data software that allows for the encryption, 
control and management of any electronic document, web page or 
e-mail message even after distribution. The Committee strongly 
urges the Department to use available funds in fiscal year 2002 
to review such capabilities and incorporate them into the 
Department's cyber security activities.
    Program Direction.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$81,450,000 for program direction, a decrease of $1,685,000 
from the budget request.

            independent oversight and performance assurance

    The Committee recommendation provides $14,904,000 for 
independent oversight and performance assurance, the amount of 
the budget request.
    The independent oversight and performance assurance program 
provides independent evaluation and oversight of safeguards, 
security, emergency management and cyber security for the 
Department at the Secretary's direction.

                          Counterintelligence

    An appropriation of $46,389,000, the amount of the request, 
is provided for the counterintelligence activities of the 
Department of Energy. This is an increase of $1,189,000 over 
the current years appropriation.
    The Counterintelligence program has the mission of 
enhancing the protection of sensitive technologies, 
information, and expertise against foreign intelligence, 
industrial intelligence, and terrorist attempts to acquire 
nuclear weapons information or advanced technologies from the 
National Laboratories.

                   Advanced accelerator applications

    The Committee recommendation includes a total of 
$70,000,000 for Advanced Accelerator Applications, including 
$15,000,000 provided in Project 98-D-126 Accelerator Production 
of Tritium. The recommended amount includes $6,000,000 for 
research and development of technologies for economic and 
environmentally-sound refinement of spent nuclear fuel at the 
University of Nevada-Las Vegas; and $2,000,000 for the Idaho 
Accelerator Center.
    The Department provided the Report to Congress: The 
Advanced Accelerator Applications Program Plan as required by 
House Report 106-988 accompanying the Fiscal Year 2001 Energy 
and Water Development Appropriations Act. This Report outlined 
a program plan to build an Accelerator-Driven Test Facility 
(ADTF) as part of achieving four central objectives: (1) 
providing proof-of-principle demonstration of an accelerator-
driven sub-critical multiplier; (2) conducting research on the 
viability of transmutation for waste and spent fuel management; 
(3) enhancing the Nation's nuclear science and technology 
education infrastructure; and (4) providing a more robust back-
up tritium production capability for national security. The 
cost estimate for the ADTF, plus additional information now 
available to the Committee, leads to the Committee's 
recommendation that the Advanced Accelerator Applications 
program should not move towards construction of the ADTF in the 
near future.
    The Committee directs the Department to instead broaden the 
program's research efforts into optimized waste management 
strategies leading towards combination of reprocessing with 
transmutation and energy extraction involving both a new 
generation of reactors (either liquid-metal or helium cooled) 
with safety features comparable to Generation IV reactors and 
an accelerator-based system. The Department is directed to 
explore research and development for comprehensive spent fuel 
management strategies, which emphasize avoidance of 
proliferation issues and have minimal environmental impact, 
along with reasonable economic projections that include 
efficient utilization of the energy resource of the spent fuel. 
The Department should develop goals for the overall program 
that combine these attributes with final waste forms that 
significantly decrease the long-term toxicity to levels far 
below that of spent fuel. As part of the program, the 
Department should evaluate the benefits and costs realized from 
only reprocessing as well as each additional treatment step. 
Finally, the Department is directed to close-out the 
Accelerator Production of Tritium project in fiscal year 2002 
and document all information pertinent to its utility as a 
back-up source of tritium for the stockpile.
    The Department is directed to utilize existing facilities 
to accomplish short-term research and demonstrations. The 
Committee anticipates that test facilities added to the LANSCE 
facility and/or the Fast Flux Test Facility may provide 
opportunities for the most rapid progress, and is encouraged to 
consider such facilities. In addition, the Department is 
directed to seek out and utilize cooperation with international 
partners who share common goals. Utilization of international 
research facilities is encouraged where it advances program 
goals.
    The Department is directed to prepare a report for Congress 
by March 1, 2003, outlining a long-term program plan which may 
include construction of new facilities required by the program.
    The Committee is encouraged by the possibilities for 
leveraging the work accomplished thus far in the accelerator 
production of tritium (APT) program to accomplish a wide range 
of science and technology missions. Importantly, advanced, 
high-energy accelerators could be central to a future strategy 
to transmute spent nuclear fuel into less toxic, shorter-lived 
materials, thereby ensuring greater public confidence in a 
national strategy to manage spent nuclear fuel of a nuclear 
waste repository.
    In order to pursue these important technology opportunities 
while still completing necessary design work for a facility 
capable of producing tritium to meet possible future defense 
requirements, the Committee directs the Department to establish 
an Office of Advanced Accelerator Applications (AAA) within the 
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology. The mission 
of the AAA program shall include conducting scientific, 
engineering research, development and demonstrations on: (1) 
accelerator production of tritium as a back-up technology; (2) 
transmutation of spent nuclear fuel and waste; (3) material 
science; and (4) other advanced accelerator applications. The 
Committee further directs that the Department transfer the APT 
program from the Office of Defense Programs within the NNSA to 
the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology for 
integration into the AAA office. The AAA program shall assure 
the accelerator-based back-up capability of producing tritium 
for the Nation's nuclear stockpile, based on requirements 
defined by the Office of Defense Programs. The Committee 
encourages the participation of international collaborators, 
industrial partners, and support for new graduate engineering 
and science students and professors at U.S. universities.

                     environment, safety and health

    The Committee recommendation provided $122,285,000 for 
Environmental, Safety and Health activities including 
$23,293,000 for program direction. The mission of the Office of 
Environmental, Safety and Health is to protect the health and 
safety of Department of Energy workers, the public, and the 
environment and is to be the Department's independent advocate 
for safety, health and the environment.
    The Committee notes that the effective management, storage, 
retrieval, and integration of environmental, scientific and 
medical records is important to ensuring public health and 
safety throughout the Department of Energy complex. Current 
Department record keeping is managed at local offices using a 
variety of methods and formats. Furthermore, current approaches 
to digitization contain overlapping functions, are not 
standardized, and may result in records with a very short 
useful life. Integrated management of these records would 
ensure data preservation and access, and may result in 
substantial savings through reduced information technology 
operations and maintenance costs. Therefore, the Committee 
recommendation includes $6,000,000 to establish a program at 
the University of Nevada-Las Vegas for Department-wide 
management of electronic records.
    The Committee is concerned that the Department's current 
program of medical screening and education at the gaseous 
diffusion plants will not be sufficient to complete all 
necessary screening and evaluation under the current contract 
period. Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to 
ensure that all necessary screening and evaluation of workers, 
both current and former, is adequate and that those workers 
with an elevated risk of lung cancer will receive a lung scan. 
The Committee recommendation also provides $2,500,000 for the 
University of Louisville and the University of Kentucky to 
undertake epidemiological studies of workers to identify 
exposure pathways; and $1,000,000 to provide medical screening 
for workers employed at the Amchitka Nuclear Weapons Test Site; 
and not less than $1,000,000 for health studies of workers at 
the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant.
    Energy Employees Compensation Initiative.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $15,000,000, the amount of the request, 
for the Energy Employees Compensation Initiative. Title 36 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act of 2001 (Public Law 106-
398) established the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 
Compensation Program to provide benefits to DOE contractor 
workers made ill as a result of exposures from nuclear weapons 
production. The Department is responsible for establishing 
procedures to assist workers in filing compensation claims.

                    Worker and Community Transition

    The Committee has provided an appropriation of $20,000,000 
for these activities for fiscal year 2002. This is the same as 
the budget request.
    The Worker and Community Transition budget provides funding 
for activities associated with enhanced benefits beyond those 
required by contract, existing company policy or collective 
bargaining agreements at defense nuclear facilities. The goals 
of the program are to mitigate the impacts on workers and 
communities from contractor work force restructuring, and to 
assist community planning for all site conversions, while 
managing the transition to the reduced work force that will 
better meet ongoing mission requirements through the 
application of best business practices.
    The Committee urges the Department to improve the manner in 
which it deals with the communities the Worker and Community 
Transition program serves. The Committee reminds the Department 
that the communities and community re-use organizations that 
rely on these funds are generally small. Slow release of funds 
or, worse, reneging on previously promised funding, can be 
devastating to these communities and organizations.

           NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

    The Committee recommendation includes $25,000,000 for 
national security programs administrative support. This is the 
amount of the request and the same as the current year. This 
fund pays for departmental services that are provided in 
support of the National Nuclear Security Administration.

                     Office of Hearings and Appeals

    An appropriation of $2,893,000 is recommended for the 
Office of Hearings and Appeals. The Office of Hearings and 
Appeals conduct all of the Department's adjudicative process 
and provides various administrative remedies as may be 
required. The goal is to promote successful and uninterrupted 
DOE operations through the deliberate, expeditious and 
equitable resolution of all claims of adverse impact emanating 
from the operations of the Department.

                     Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $200,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     310,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     250,000,000

    The Committee recommends $250,000,000 for defense nuclear 
waste disposal.

                        RECOMMENDATION SUMMARIES

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

                    Power Marketing Administrations

    Public Law 95-91 transferred to the Department of Energy 
the power marketing functions under section 5 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1944 and all other functions of the Department 
of the Interior with respect to the Bonneville Power 
Administration, Southeastern Power Administration, Southwestern 
Power Administration, and the power marketing functions of the 
Bureau of Reclamation, now included in the Western Area Power 
Administration.
    All power marketing administrations except Bonneville are 
funded annually with appropriations, and related receipts are 
deposited in the Treasury. Bonneville operations are self-
financed under authority of Public Law 93-454, the Federal 
Columbia River Transmission System Act of 1974, which 
authorizes Bonneville to use its revenues to finance operating 
costs, maintenance and capital construction, and sell bonds to 
the Treasury if necessary to finance any remaining capital 
program requirements.
    The fiscal year 2002 budget request provides authority for 
the use of offsetting collections from the sale of electricity 
to finance purchase of power and wheeling expenses previously 
funded by direct appropriations.

                  bonneville power administration fund

    The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) is the Federal 
electric power marketing agency in the Pacific Northwest, a 
300,000-square-mile service area that encompasses Oregon, 
Washington, Idaho, western Montana, and small portions of 
adjacent Western States in the Columbia River drainage basin. 
Bonneville markets hydroelectric power from 31 Corps of 
Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation projects, as well as 
thermal energy from non-Federal generating facilities in the 
region. Bonneville also markets and exchanges surplus electric 
power interregionally over the Pacific Northwest-Pacific 
Southwest Intertie with California, and in Canada over 
interconnections with utilities in British Columbia.
    Bonneville constructs, operates, and maintains the Nation's 
largest high-voltage transmission system, consisting of over 
15,000 circuit-miles of transmission line and 324 substations 
with an installed capacity of 21,500 megawatts. BPA is the 
largest power wholesaler in the northwest and provides about 46 
percent of the region's electric energy supply and about three-
fourths of the region's electric power transmission capacity.
    Public Law 93-454, the Federal Columbia River Transmission 
System Act of 1974, placed Bonneville on a self-financed basis. 
With the passage in 1980 of Public Law 96-501, the Pacific 
Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act, 
Bonneville's responsibilities were expanded to include meeting 
the net firm load growth of the region, investing in cost-
effective, regionwide energy conservation, and acquiring 
generating resources to meet these requirements.
    The Committee is aware that BPA and many of its 
transmission customers have agreed to form a technical review 
committee to assure that BPA's transmission investments are 
prioritized to ensure cost-effective and reliable service for 
the consumers of the Northwest. The Committee fully supports 
the formation of this committee.
    Borrowing authority.--A total of $3,750,000,000 has been 
made available to Bonneville as permanent borrowing authority. 
Each year the Committee reviews the budgeted amounts Bonneville 
plans to use of this total and reports a recommendation on 
these borrowing requirements. For fiscal year 2002, the 
Committee recommends an additional increment of $374,500,000 in 
new borrowing authority, the same as the budget request, for 
transmission system construction, system replacement, energy 
resources, fish and wildlife, and capital equipment programs.
    The Committee recommendation includes language that 
provides Bonneville with a $2,000,000,000 increase in borrowing 
authority to address critical infrastructure needs arising from 
anticipated increases in generation within Bonneville's service 
area. Bonneville is not permitted to obligate any funds from 
this additional obligation authority in fiscal year 2002 and, 
as previously noted, may not obligate more than $374,500,000 of 
its permanent borrowing authority in fiscal year 2002.
    Limitation on direct loans.--The Committee recommends that 
no new direct loans be made in fiscal year 2002.
    Budget revisions and notification.--The Committee expects 
Bonneville to adhere to the borrowing authority estimates 
recommended by the Congress and promptly inform the Committee 
of any exceptional circumstances which would necessitate the 
need for Bonneville to obligate borrowing authority in excess 
of such amounts.

      operation and maintenance, southeastern power administration

Appropriations, 2001....................................      $3,891,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................       4,891,000
Committee recommendation................................       4,891,000

    The Southeastern Power Administration markets hydroelectric 
power produced at Corps of Engineers projects in 11 
Southeastern States. There are 23 projects now in operation 
with an installed capacity of 3,092 megawatts. Southeastern 
does not own or operate any transmission facilities and carries 
out its marketing program by utilizing the existing 
transmission systems of the power utilities in the area. This 
is accomplished through transmission arrangements between 
Southeastern and each of the area utilities with transmission 
lines connected to the projects. The utility agrees to deliver 
specified amounts of Federal power to customers of the 
Government, and Southeastern agrees to compensate the utility 
for the wheeling service performed.
    The Committee concurs with the financing of purchased power 
and wheeling costs as proposed in the fiscal year 2002 budget 
request.

      operation and maintenance, southwestern power administration

Appropriations, 2001....................................     $28,038,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      28,038,000
Committee recommendation................................      28,038,000

    The Southwestern Power Administration is the marketing 
agent for the power generated at Corps of Engineers' 
hydroelectric plants in the six-State area of Kansas, Oklahoma, 
Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana with a total installed 
capacity of 2,158 megawatts. It operates and maintains some 
1,380 miles of transmission lines, 24 generating projects, and 
24 substations, and sells its power at wholesale primarily to 
publicly and cooperatively owned electric distribution 
utilities.
    The Committee concurs with the financing of purchased power 
and wheeling costs as proposed in the fiscal year 2002 budget 
request.

 construction, rehabilitation, operation and maintenance western area 
                          power administration

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $165,465,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     169,465,000
Committee recommendation................................     169,465,000

    The Western Area Power Administration is responsible for 
marketing electric power generated by the Bureau of 
Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers, and the International 
Boundary and Water Commission which operate hydropower 
generating plants in 15 Central and Western States encompassing 
a 1.3-million-square-mile geographic area. Western is also 
responsible for the operation and maintenance of almost 17,000 
miles of high-voltage transmission lines with 258 substations. 
Western distributes power generated by 55 plants with a maximum 
operating capacity of 10,576 megawatts.
    Western, through its power marketing program, must secure 
revenues sufficient to meet the annual costs of operation and 
maintenance of the generating and transmission facilities, 
purchased power, wheeling, and other expenses, in order to 
repay all of the power investment with interest, and to repay 
that portion of the Government's irrigation and other nonpower 
investments which are beyond the water users' repayment 
capability. Under the Colorado River Basin power marketing 
fund, which encompasses the Colorado River Basin, Fort Peck, 
and Colorado River storage facilities, all operation and 
maintenance and power marketing expenses are financed from 
revenues.
    Of the total resources available to the Western Power 
Administration, $6,092,000 shall be transferred to the Utah 
Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission.
    The Committee concurs with the financing of purchased power 
and wheeling costs as proposed in the fiscal year 2002 budget 
request.

           falcon and amistad operating and maintenance fund

    Creation of the Falcon and Amistad operating and 
maintenance fund was directed by the Foreign Relations 
Authorization Act, fiscal years 1994-95. This legislation also 
directed that the fund be administered by the Administrator of 
the Western Area Power Administration for use by the 
Commissioner of the United States Section of the International 
Boundary and Water Commission to defray operation, maintenance, 
and emergency costs for the hydroelectric facilities at the 
Falcon and Amistad Dams in Texas.
    The Committee recommendation is $2,663,000, the same as the 
budget request.

                        recommendation summaries

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

                  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

                         salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $175,200,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     181,155,000
Committee recommendation................................     181,155,000

                salaries and expenses--revenues applied

Appropriations, 2001....................................   -$175,200,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................    -181,155,000
Committee recommendation................................    -181,155,000

    The Committee recommendation provides $181,155,000, the 
amount of the budget request, for the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission (FERC). Revenues are established at a rate equal to 
the amount provided for program activities, resulting in a net 
appropriation of zero.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulates key 
interstate aspects of the electric power, natural gas, oil 
pipeline, and hydroelectric industries.

                        committee recommendation

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

                                                                  DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Committee recommendation
                                                                                                                                   compared to--
                              Project title                                Current year       Budget         Committee   -------------------------------
                                                                              enacted        estimate     recommendation   Current year       Budget
                                                                                                                              enacted        estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              ENERGY SUPPLY

                       RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

Renewable energy technologies:
    Biomass/biofuels energy systems:
        Power systems...................................................         40,800          37,754          53,000         +12,200         +15,246
        Transportation..................................................         46,160          44,201          50,000          +3,840          +5,799
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Biomass/biofuels energy systems.....................         86,960          81,955         103,000         +16,040         +21,045

    Geothermal technology development...................................         27,000          13,900          32,000          +5,000         +18,100
    Hydrogen research...................................................         27,000          26,881          35,000          +8,000          +8,119
    Hydropower..........................................................          5,000           4,989           9,300          +4,300          +4,311
    Solar energy:
        Concentrating solar power.......................................         13,800           1,932          15,300          +1,500         +13,368
        Photovoltaic energy systems.....................................         75,775          39,000          70,000          -5,775         +31,000
        Solar building technology research..............................          3,950           2,000           7,000          +3,050          +5,000
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Solar energy........................................         93,525          42,932          92,300          -1,225         +49,368

    Wind energy systems.................................................         40,000          20,500          45,000          +5,000         +24,500
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Renewable energy technologies..............................        279,485         191,157         316,600         +37,115        +125,443
                                                                         ===============================================================================
Electric energy systems and storage:
    High temperature superconducting R&D................................         37,000          36,819          43,000          +6,000          +6,181
    Energy storage systems..............................................          6,000           5,987          12,000          +6,000          +6,013
    Transmission reliability............................................          9,000           8,940          16,000          +7,000          +7,060
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Electric energy systems and storage........................         52,000          51,746          71,000         +19,000         +19,254
                                                                         ===============================================================================
Renewable support and implementation:
    Departmental energy management......................................          2,000           1,000           1,000          -1,000   ..............
    International renewable energy program..............................          5,000           2,500           3,000          -2,000            +500
    Renewable energy production incentive program.......................          4,000           3,991           4,000   ..............             +9
    Renewable Indian energy resources...................................          6,600   ..............          4,000          -2,600          +4,000
    Renewable program support...........................................          4,000           2,059           3,000          -1,000            +941
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Renewable support and implementation.......................         21,600           9,550          15,000          -6,600          +5,450
                                                                         ===============================================================================
National renewable energy laboratory....................................          4,000           5,000          12,000          +8,000          +7,000
Program direction.......................................................         18,700          19,200          21,000          +2,300          +1,800
                                                                         ===============================================================================
      TOTAL, RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES.................................        375,785         276,653         435,600         +59,815        +158,947
                                                                         ===============================================================================
                             NUCLEAR ENERGY

Advanced radioisotope power system......................................         32,200          29,094          29,094          -3,106   ..............
                                                                         ===============================================================================
Isotopes: Isotope support and production................................         24,715          24,683          24,683             -32   ..............
    Construction: 99-E-201 Isotope production facility (LANL)...........          2,500           2,494           2,494              -6   ..............
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Isotope support and production..........................         27,215          27,177          27,177             -38   ..............
    Offsetting collections..............................................         -8,000          -9,000          -9,000          -1,000   ..............
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Isotopes...................................................         19,215          18,177          18,177          -1,038   ..............
                                                                         ===============================================================================
University reactor fuel assistance and support..........................         12,000          11,974          19,000          +7,000          +7,026
                                                                         ===============================================================================
Research and development:
    Nuclear energy plant optimization...................................          5,000           4,500           9,000          +4,000          +4,500
    Nuclear energy research initiative..................................         35,000          18,079          38,000          +3,000         +19,921
    Nuclear energy technologies.........................................          7,500           4,500          14,000          +6,500          +9,500
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Research and development...................................         47,500          27,079          61,000         +13,500         +33,921
                                                                         ===============================================================================
Infrastructure:
    ANL-West operations.................................................         39,150          34,107          34,107          -5,043   ..............
    Fast flux test facility (FFTF)......................................         44,010          38,439          38,439          -5,571   ..............
    Test reactor area landlord..........................................          7,575           7,283           7,283            -292   ..............
        Construction:
            99-E-200 Test reactor area electrical utility upgrade, Idaho            925             950             950             +25   ..............
             National Engineering Laboratory, ID........................
            95-E-201 Test reactor area fire and life safety                         500             500             500   ..............  ..............
             improvements, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,  ID...
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Subtotal, Construction..................................          1,425           1,450           1,450             +25   ..............
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Subtotal, Test reactor area landlord....................          9,000           8,733           8,733            -267   ..............
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Total, Infrastructure...................................         92,160          81,279          81,279         -10,881   ..............
                                                                         ===============================================================================
Nuclear facilities management:
    EBR-II shutdown.....................................................          8,800           4,200           4,200          -4,600   ..............
    Disposition of spent fuel and legacy materials......................         16,200          16,267          16,267             +67   ..............
    Disposition technology activities...................................          9,850           9,990           9,990            +140   ..............
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Nuclear facilities management..............................         34,850          30,457          30,457          -4,393   ..............
                                                                         ===============================================================================
Program direction.......................................................         22,000          25,062          25,062          +3,062   ..............
                                                                         ===============================================================================
      TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY.............................................        259,925         223,122         264,069          +4,144         +40,947
                                                                         ===============================================================================
                     ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

Office of Environment, Safety and Health (non-defense)..................         16,000          14,973          13,973          -2,027          -1,000
Program direction.......................................................         19,998          20,527          19,527            -471          -1,000
                                                                         ===============================================================================
      TOTAL, ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH.............................         35,998          35,500          33,500          -2,498          -2,000
                                                                         ===============================================================================
                        ENERGY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES

Technical information management program................................          1,600           1,600           1,600   ..............  ..............
Program direction.......................................................          7,000           7,370           6,370            -630          -1,000
                                                                         ===============================================================================
      TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES..................................          8,600           8,970           7,970            -630          -1,000
                                                                         ===============================================================================
      Subtotal, Energy supply...........................................        680,308         544,245         741,139         +60,831        +196,894
                                                                         ===============================================================================
Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106-554).................         -1,456   ..............  ..............         +1,456   ..............
General reduction.......................................................  ..............  ..............         -5,000          -5,000          -5,000
Offset from nuclear energy royalties....................................         -2,352   ..............  ..............         +2,352   ..............
Reduction for safeguards and security...................................        -16,582   ..............  ..............        +16,582   ..............
                                                                         ===============================================================================
      TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPLY..............................................        659,918         544,245         736,139         +76,221        +191,894
                                                                         ===============================================================================
                  NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Site closure............................................................         81,636          43,000          43,000         -38,636   ..............
                                                                         ===============================================================================
Site/project completion.................................................         61,621          64,119          64,119          +2,498   ..............
Post 2006 completion....................................................        137,744         120,053         120,053         -17,691   ..............
Excess facilities.......................................................  ..............          1,381           1,381          +1,381   ..............
Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106-554).................           -612   ..............  ..............           +612   ..............
Reduction for safeguards and security...................................         -3,189   ..............  ..............         +3,189   ..............
                                                                         ===============================================================================
      TOTAL, NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT.......................        277,200         228,553         228,553         -48,647   ..............
                                                                         ===============================================================================
             URANIUM FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND REMEDIATION

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund:
    Decontamination and decommissioning.................................        273,038         241,641         286,941         +13,903         +45,300
    Uranium/thorium reimbursement.......................................         72,000           1,000           1,000         -71,000   ..............
    Depleted UF6 conversion project.....................................  ..............         10,000   ..............  ..............        -10,000
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Uranium enrichment D&D fund................................        345,038         252,641         287,941         -57,097         +35,300
                                                                         ===============================================================================
Other Uranium Activities:
    Maintenance of facilities and inventories...........................         29,193          99,000          99,000         +69,807   ..............
    Pre-existing liabilities............................................         11,330          11,784          11,784            +454   ..............
    Depleted UF6 conversion project.....................................         21,877   ..............         10,000         -11,877         +10,000
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Other uranium activities...................................         62,400         110,784         120,784         +58,384         +10,000
                                                                         ===============================================================================
Reduction for safeguards and security...................................        -14,071   ..............  ..............        +14,071   ..............
Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106-554).................           -865   ..............  ..............           +865   ..............
                                                                         ===============================================================================
      TOTAL, URANIUM FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND REMEDIATION.............        392,502         363,425         408,725         +16,223         +45,300
                                                                         ===============================================================================
                                 SCIENCE

High energy physics:
    Research and technology.............................................        234,720         247,870         256,870         +22,150          +9,000
    Facility operations.................................................        459,010         456,830         456,830          -2,180   ..............
    Construction:
        00-G-307 SLAC office building...................................          5,200   ..............  ..............         -5,200   ..............
        99-G-306 Wilson hall safety improvements, Fermilab..............          4,200   ..............  ..............         -4,200   ..............
        98-G-304 Neutrinos at the main injector, Fermilab...............         23,000          11,400          11,400         -11,600   ..............
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Construction........................................         32,400          11,400          11,400         -21,000   ..............
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Facility operations.................................        491,410         468,230         468,230         -23,180   ..............
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, High energy physics....................................        726,130         716,100         725,100          -1,030          +9,000
                                                                         ===============================================================================
Nuclear physics.........................................................        369,890         360,510         373,000          +3,110         +12,490
                                                                         ===============================================================================
Biological and environmental research...................................        498,760         432,970         480,000         -18,760         +47,030
    Construction: 01-E-300 Laboratory for Comparative and Functional              2,500          10,000          10,000          +7,500   ..............
     Genomics, ORNL.....................................................
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Biological and environmental research......................        501,260         442,970         490,000         -11,260         +47,030
                                                                         ===============================================================================
Basic energy sciences program:
    Materials sciences..................................................        456,111         434,353         454,353          -1,758         +20,000
    Chemical sciences...................................................        223,229         218,714         228,714          +5,485         +10,000
    Engineering and geosciences.........................................         40,816          38,938          42,938          +2,122          +4,000
    Energy biosciences..................................................         33,714          32,400          34,400            +686          +2,000
    Construction:
        02-SC-002 Project engineering and design (VL)...................  ..............          4,000           4,000          +4,000   ..............
        99-E-334 Spallation neutron source (ORNL).......................        259,500         276,300         276,300         +16,800   ..............
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Construction........................................        259,500         280,300         280,300         +20,800   ..............
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Basic energy sciences..................................      1,013,370       1,004,705       1,040,705         +27,335         +36,000
                                                                         ===============================================================================
Advanced scientific computing research..................................        170,000         163,050         163,050          -6,950   ..............
Energy research analyses................................................          1,000           1,000           1,000   ..............  ..............
                                                                         ===============================================================================
Multiprogram energy labs--facility support:
    Infrastructure support..............................................          1,160           1,020           1,020            -140   ..............
    Oak Ridge landlord..................................................         10,711           7,359           7,359          -3,352   ..............
    Construction:
        MEL-001 Multiprogram energy laboratory infrastructure projects,          22,059          18,613          18,613          -3,446   ..............
         various locations..............................................
        02-SC-001 Multiprogram energy laboratories, project engineering   ..............          3,183           3,183          +3,183   ..............
         design, various locations......................................
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Construction........................................         22,059          21,796          21,796            -263   ..............
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Multiprogram energy labs--fac. support.................         33,930          30,175          30,175          -3,755   ..............
                                                                         ===============================================================================
Fusion energy sciences program..........................................        255,000         248,495         248,495          -6,505   ..............
Facilities and infrastructure...........................................  ..............  ..............         10,000         +10,000         +10,000
Safeguards and security.................................................         49,818          55,412          49,818   ..............         -5,594
                                                                         ===============================================================================
Program direction:
    Field offices.......................................................         83,307          64,400          63,000         -20,307          -1,400
    Headquarters........................................................         51,438          73,525          74,385         +22,947            +860
    Science education...................................................          4,500           4,460           5,000            +500            +540
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Program direction..........................................        139,245         142,385         142,385          +3,140   ..............
                                                                         ===============================================================================
      Subtotal, Science.................................................      3,259,643       3,164,802       3,273,728         +14,085        +108,926
                                                                         ===============================================================================
Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106-554).................         -7,011   ..............  ..............         +7,011   ..............
General reduction.......................................................        -34,047   ..............  ..............        +34,047   ..............
Reduction for safeguards and security...................................        -38,244   ..............  ..............        +38,244   ..............
Less security charge for reimbursable work..............................  ..............         -4,912          -4,912          -4,912   ..............
                                                                         ===============================================================================
      TOTAL, SCIENCE....................................................      3,180,341       3,159,890       3,268,816         +88,475        +108,926
                                                                         ===============================================================================
                         NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Repository program......................................................        135,200          70,577          15,000        -120,200         -55,577
Program direction.......................................................         62,800          64,402          10,000         -52,800         -54,402
Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106-554).................           -420   ..............  ..............           +420   ..............
Reduction for safeguards and security...................................         -6,926   ..............  ..............         +6,926   ..............
                                                                         ===============================================================================
      TOTAL, NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL.....................................        190,654         134,979          25,000        -165,654        -109,979
                                                                         ===============================================================================
                       DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

Administrative operations:
    Salaries and expenses:
        Office of the Secretary.........................................          5,000           4,700           4,700            -300   ..............
        Board of Contract Appeals.......................................            878             911             911             +33   ..............
        Chief financial officer.........................................         32,148          36,464          34,000          +1,852          -2,464
        Contract reform and privatization...............................          2,500   ..............  ..............         -2,500   ..............
        Engineering and project management..............................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
        Congressional and intergovernmental affairs.....................          5,000           5,478           4,500            -500            -978
        Economic impact and diversity...................................          5,126           5,230           5,000            -126            -230
        General counsel.................................................         22,724          23,058          22,000            -724          -1,058
        International affairs...........................................          8,500           8,481           8,500   ..............            +19
        Management and administration...................................         77,800          76,392          69,000          -8,800          -7,392
        Policy office...................................................          6,600           6,649           6,600   ..............            -49
        Public affairs..................................................          3,900           4,581           4,000            +100            -581
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Salaries and expenses...............................        170,176         171,944         159,211         -10,965         -12,733
    Program support:
        Minority economic impact........................................          1,500           1,498           1,500   ..............             +2
        Policy analysis and system studies..............................            422             420             400             -22             -20
        Environmental policy studies....................................          1,000             919           1,000   ..............            +81
        Corporate management information program........................         12,000   ..............  ..............        -12,000   ..............
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Program support.....................................         14,922           2,837           2,900         -12,022             +63
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Administrative operations..............................        185,098         174,781         162,111         -22,987         -12,670
                                                                         ===============================================================================
Cost of work for others.................................................         74,027          71,837          71,837          -2,190   ..............
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Departmental Administration.............................        259,125         246,618         233,948         -25,177         -12,670

Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106-554).................           -165   ..............  ..............           +165   ..............
Use of prior year balances and other adjustments........................         -8,000   ..............  ..............         +8,000   ..............
Funding from other defense activities...................................        -25,000         -25,000         -25,000   ..............  ..............
Reduction for safeguards and security...................................            -18   ..............  ..............            +18   ..............
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Departmental administration (gross)........................        225,942         221,618         208,948         -16,994         -12,670

Miscellaneous revenues..................................................       -151,000        -137,810        -137,810         +13,190   ..............
                                                                         ===============================================================================
      TOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION (net)..........................         74,942          83,808          71,138          -3,804         -12,670
                                                                         ===============================================================================
                       OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Office of Inspector General.............................................         31,500          31,430          30,000          -1,500          -1,430
Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106-554).................            -70   ..............  ..............            +70   ..............
                                                                         ===============================================================================
      TOTAL, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL................................         31,430          31,430          30,000          -1,430          -1,430
                                                                         ===============================================================================
                    ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

                NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

                           WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Directed stockpile work:
    Stockpile research and development..................................        272,300         305,460         365,145         +92,845         +59,685
    Stockpile maintenance...............................................        279,994         362,493         367,223         +87,229          +4,730
    Stockpile evaluation................................................        174,710         180,834         178,589          +3,879          -2,245
    Dismantlement/disposal..............................................         29,260          35,414          29,066            -194          -6,348
    Production support..................................................        149,939         152,890         134,896         -15,043         -17,994
    Field engineering, training and manuals.............................          4,400           6,700           6,418          +2,018            -282
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Directed stockpile work....................................        910,603       1,043,791       1,081,337        +170,734         +37,546
                                                                         ===============================================================================
Campaigns:
    Primary certification...............................................         41,400          55,530          52,661         +11,261          -2,869
    Dynamic materials properties........................................         74,408          97,810          93,644         +19,236          -4,166
    Advanced radiography................................................         58,000          60,510          85,803         +27,803         +25,293
        Construction: 97-D-102 Dual-axis radiographic hydrotest facility         35,232   ..............  ..............        -35,232   ..............
         (LANL), Los Alamos, NM.........................................
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Advanced radiography................................         93,232          60,510          85,803          -7,429         +25,293

    Secondary certification and nuclear systems margins.................         52,964          47,270          44,524          -8,440          -2,746
    Enhanced surety.....................................................         40,600          34,797          39,298          -1,302          +4,501
    Weapons system engineering certification............................         16,300          24,043          26,665         +10,365          +2,622
    Nuclear survivability...............................................         15,400          19,050          23,694          +8,294          +4,644
    Enhanced surveillance...............................................        106,651          82,333          82,333         -24,318   ..............
    Advanced design and production technologies.........................         75,735          75,533          75,533            -202   ..............
    Inertial confinement fusion and high yield..........................        250,500         222,943         247,443          -3,057         +24,500
        Construction: 96-D-111 National ignition facility, LLNL.........        199,100         245,000         245,000         +45,900   ..............
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Inertial confinement fusion.........................        449,600         467,943         492,443         +42,843         +24,500

    Advanced simulation and computing...................................        716,175         711,185         711,185          -4,990   ..............
        Construction:
            01-D-101 Distributed information systems laboratory, SNL,             2,300           5,400          12,400         +10,100          +7,000
             Livermore, CA..............................................
            00-D-103, Terascale simulation facility, LLNL, Livermore, CA          5,000           5,000          22,000         +17,000         +17,000
            00-D-105 Strategic computing complex, LANL, Los Alamos, NM..         56,000          11,070          11,070         -44,930   ..............
            00-D-107 Joint computational engineering laboratory, SNL,             6,700           5,377          15,377          +8,677         +10,000
             Albuquerque, NM............................................
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, Construction....................................         70,000          26,847          60,847          -9,153         +34,000
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, Advanced simulation and computing...............        786,175         738,032         772,032         -14,143         +34,000

    Pit manufacturing and certification.................................        125,038         128,545         237,713        +112,675        +109,168
    Secondary readiness.................................................         20,000          23,169          68,445         +48,445         +45,276
    High explosives manufacturing and weapons assembly/disassembly        ..............          3,960           6,846          +6,846          +2,886
     readiness..........................................................
    Non-nuclear readiness...............................................  ..............         12,204          18,187         +18,187          +5,983
    Materials readiness.................................................         40,511           1,209           1,209         -39,302   ..............
    Tritium readiness...................................................         77,000          43,350          42,350         -34,650          -1,000
        Construction:
            98-D-125 Tritium extraction facility, SR....................         75,000          81,125          81,125          +6,125   ..............
            98-D-126 Accelerator production of Tritium, various                  15,000   ..............         15,000   ..............        +15,000
             locations..................................................
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, Construction....................................         90,000          81,125          96,125          +6,125         +15,000
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, Tritium readiness...............................        167,000         124,475         138,475         -28,525         +14,000
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Campaigns..........................................      2,105,014       1,996,413       2,259,505        +154,491        +263,092
                                                                         ===============================================================================
Readiness in technical base and facilities:
    Operations of facilities............................................      1,252,232         830,427         939,479        -312,753        +109,052
    Program readiness...................................................         74,500         188,126         197,220        +122,720          +9,094
    Special projects....................................................         48,297          64,493          60,385         +12,088          -4,108
    Material recycle and recovery.......................................         30,018         101,311          90,310         +60,292         -11,001
    Containers..........................................................         11,876           8,199           8,199          -3,677   ..............
    Storage.............................................................          9,075          10,643          10,643          +1,568   ..............
    Nuclear weapons incident response...................................         56,289          89,125          88,923         +32,634            -202
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Readiness in technical base and fac.....................      1,482,287       1,292,324       1,395,159         -87,128        +102,835

    Construction:
        02-D-101 Microsystem and engineering science applications         ..............          2,000          67,000         +67,000         +65,000
         (MESA), SNL....................................................
        02-D-103 Project engineering and design, various locations......  ..............          9,180          31,130         +31,130         +21,950
        02-D-105 ETCU upgrade, LLNL.....................................  ..............  ..............          4,750          +4,750          +4,750
        02-D-107 Electrical power systems safety communications and bus   ..............          3,507           6,200          +6,200          +2,693
         upgrades, NV...................................................
        01-D-103 Preliminary project engineering and design (PE&D),              35,500          45,379          16,379         -19,121         -29,000
         various locations..............................................
        01-D-124 HEU storage facility, Y-12 plant, Oak Ridge, TN........         17,800           9,500   ..............        -17,800          -9,500
        01-D-126 Weapons Evaluation Test Laboratory Pantex Plant,                 3,000           7,700           7,700          +4,700   ..............
         Amarillo, TX...................................................
        01-D-800 Sensitive compartmented information facility, LLNL.....          2,000          12,993          12,993         +10,993   ..............
        99-D-103 Isotope sciences facilities, LLNL, Livermore, CA.......          5,000           4,400           4,400            -600   ..............
        99-D-104 Protection of real property (roof reconstruction-Phase           2,800           2,800           2,800   ..............  ..............
         II), LLNL, Livermore, CA.......................................
        99-D-106 Model validation and system certification center, SNL,           5,200           4,955           4,955            -245   ..............
         Albuquerque, NM................................................
        99-D-108 Renovate existing roadways, Nevada Test Site, NV.......          2,000   ..............          2,000   ..............         +2,000
        99-D-125 Replace boilers and controls, Kansas City plant, Kansas         13,000             300             300         -12,700   ..............
         City, MO.......................................................
        99-D-127 Stockpile management restructuring initiative, Kansas           23,765          22,200          22,200          -1,565   ..............
         City plant, Kansas City, MO....................................
        99-D-128 Stockpile management restructuring initiative, Pantex            4,998           3,300           3,300          -1,698   ..............
         consolidation, Amarillo, TX....................................
        98-D-123 Stockpile management restructuring initiative, Tritium          30,767          13,700          13,700         -17,067   ..............
         factory modernization and consolidation, Savannah River, SC....
        98-D-124 Stockpile management restructuring initiative, Y-12      ..............          6,850           6,850          +6,850   ..............
         consolidation, Oak Ridge, TN...................................
        97-D-123 Structural upgrades, Kansas City plant, Kansas City, KS          2,918           3,000           3,000             +82   ..............
        96-D-102 Stockpile stewardship facilities revitalization (Phase   ..............          2,900           2,900          +2,900   ..............
         VI), various locations.........................................
        95-D-102 Chemistry and metallurgy research (CMR) upgrades                13,337   ..............  ..............        -13,337   ..............
         project (LANL).................................................
        93-d-122 Life saftey upgrades, Y-12.............................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
        88-D-125 HE Machining facility, Panter..........................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
        88-D-122 FCAP...................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Construction........................................        162,085         154,664         212,557         +50,472         +57,893
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Readiness in technical base and facilities.............      1,644,372       1,446,988       1,607,716         -36,656        +160,728
                                                                         ===============================================================================
Facilities and infrastructure...........................................  ..............  ..............        300,000        +300,000        +300,000
                                                                         ===============================================================================
Secure transportation asset:
    Operations and equipment............................................         79,357          77,571          79,071            -286          +1,500
    Program direction...................................................         36,316          44,229          44,229          +7,913   ..............
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Secure transportation asset................................        115,673         121,800         123,300          +7,627          +1,500
                                                                         ===============================================================================
Safeguards and security.................................................        356,840         439,281         439,281         +82,441   ..............
    Construction:
        99-D-132 SMRI nuclear material safeguards and security upgrade           18,043           9,600           9,600          -8,443   ..............
         project (LANL), Los Alamos, NM.................................
        88-D-123 Security enhancements, Pantex plant, Amarillo, TX......          2,713   ..............  ..............         -2,713   ..............
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Construction........................................         20,756           9,600           9,600         -11,156   ..............
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Safeguards and security................................        377,596         448,881         448,881         +71,285   ..............
                                                                         ===============================================================================
Program direction.......................................................        224,071         271,137         271,137         +47,066   ..............
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Weapons activities......................................      5,377,329       5,329,010       6,091,876        +714,547        +762,866
                                                                         ===============================================================================
Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) Public Law 106-554)..................        -11,033   ..............  ..............        +11,033   ..............
Use of prior year balances..............................................        -13,647   ..............  ..............        +13,647   ..............
General reduction.......................................................        -35,700   ..............  ..............        +35,700   ..............
Reduction for safeguards and security...................................       -310,796   ..............  ..............       +310,796   ..............
Less security charge for reimbursable work..............................  ..............        -28,985         -28,985         -28,985   ..............
                                                                         ===============================================================================
      TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES.........................................      5,006,153       5,300,025       6,062,891      +1,056,738        +762,866
                                                                         ===============================================================================
                    DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Nonproliferation and verification, R&D..................................        235,990         170,296         222,355         -13,635         +52,059
    Construction: 00-D-192 Nonproliferation and international security           17,000          35,806          35,806         +18,806   ..............
     center (NISC), LANL................................................
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Nonproliferation and verification, R&D.....................        252,990         206,102         258,161          +5,171         +52,059
                                                                         ===============================================================================
Arms control............................................................        152,014         101,500         138,000         -14,014         +36,500
                                                                         ===============================================================================
Nonproliferation programs with Russia:
    International materials protection, control, and accounting.........        173,856         138,800         143,800         -30,056          +5,000
    Russian transition assistance.......................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
    HEU transparency implementation.....................................         15,190          13,950          13,950          -1,240   ..............
    International nuclear safety........................................         20,000          13,800          19,500            -500          +5,700
    Fissile materials disposition:
        U.S. surplus materials disposition..............................        139,517         130,089         130,089          -9,428   ..............
        Russian surplus materials disposition...........................         40,000          57,000          66,000         +26,000          +9,000
        Construction:
            01-D-407 Highly enriched uranium (HEU) blend dow Savannah            20,932          24,000          24,000          +3,068   ..............
             River, SC..................................................
            01-D-142 Immobilization and associated processin facility,            3,000   ..............  ..............         -3,000   ..............
             various locations..........................................
            99-D-141 Pit disassembly and conversion facility various             20,000          16,000          16,000          -4,000   ..............
             locations..................................................
            99-D-143 Mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility various               26,000          63,000          63,000         +37,000   ..............
             locations..................................................
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, Construction....................................         69,932         103,000         103,000         +33,068   ..............
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, Fissile materials disposition...................        249,449         290,089         299,089         +49,640          +9,000
                                                                         ===============================================================================
              Total, Nonproliferation programs with Russia..............        458,495         456,639         476,339         +17,844         +19,700
                                                                         ===============================================================================
Program direction.......................................................         51,468          51,459          50,000          -1,468          -1,459
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Defense nuclear nonproliferation........................        914,967         815,700         922,500          +7,533        +106,800
                                                                         ===============================================================================
Use of prior year balances..............................................           -526         -42,000         -42,000         -41,474   ..............
Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) Public Law 106-554)..................         -1,923   ..............  ..............         +1,923   ..............
Reduction for safeguards and security...................................        -40,245   ..............  ..............        +40,245   ..............
                                                                         ===============================================================================
      TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION...........................        872,273         773,700         880,500          +8,227        +106,800
                                                                         ===============================================================================
                             NAVAL REACTORS

Naval reactors development..............................................        644,500         652,245         652,245          +7,745   ..............
    Construction:
        GPN-101 General plant projects, various locations...............         11,400   ..............  ..............        -11,400   ..............
        01-D-200 Major office replacement building, Schenectady, NY.....          1,300           9,000           9,000          +7,700   ..............
        90-N-102 Expended core facility dry cell project, Naval Reactors         16,000           4,200           4,200         -11,800   ..............
         Facility, ID...................................................
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Construction........................................         28,700          13,200          13,200         -15,500   ..............
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Naval reactors development.............................        673,200         665,445         665,445          -7,755   ..............
                                                                         ===============================================================================
Program direction.......................................................         21,400          22,600          22,600          +1,200   ..............
Reduction for safeguards and security...................................         -4,437   ..............  ..............         +4,437   ..............
Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106-554).................         -1,518   ..............  ..............         +1,518   ..............
                                                                         ===============================================================================
      TOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS.............................................        688,645         688,045         688,045            -600   ..............
                                                                         ===============================================================================
                       OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

Office of the Administrator.............................................         10,000          15,000          15,000          +5,000   ..............
Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106-554).................            -22   ..............  ..............            +22   ..............
                                                                         ===============================================================================
      TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR................................          9,978          15,000          15,000          +5,022   ..............
                                                                         ===============================================================================
      TOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION...................      6,577,049       6,776,770       7,646,436      +1,069,387        +869,666
                                                                         ===============================================================================
            DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND WASTE MGMT.

Site/project completion:
    Operation and maintenance...........................................        919,167         872,030         979,480         +60,313        +107,450
    Construction:
        02-D-402 Intec cathodic protection system expansion project,      ..............          3,256           3,256          +3,256   ..............
         INEEL, Idaho Falls, ID.........................................
        01-D-414 Preliminary project, engineering and design (PE&D),             17,300           6,254           6,254         -11,046   ..............
         various locations..............................................
        01-D-415 235-F packaging and stabilization project, Savannah              4,000   ..............  ..............         -4,000   ..............
         River, SC......................................................
        99-D-402 Tank farm support services, F&H area, Savannah River             7,714           5,040           5,040          -2,674   ..............
         site, Aiken, SC................................................
        99-D-404 Health physics instrumentation laboratory (INEL), ID...          4,300           2,700           2,700          -1,600   ..............
        98-D-453 Plutonium stabilization and handling system for PFP,             1,690           1,910           1,910            +220   ..............
         Richland, WA...................................................
        97-D-470 Regulatory monitoring and bioassay laboratory, Savannah          3,949   ..............  ..............         -3,949   ..............
         River site, Aiken, SC..........................................
        96-D-471 CFC HVAC/chiller retrofit, Savannah River site, Aiken,          12,512           4,244           4,244          -8,268   ..............
         SC.............................................................
        92-D-140 F&H canyon exhaust upgrades, Savannah River, SC........          8,879          15,790   ..............         -8,879         -15,790
        86-D-103 Decontamination and waste treatment facility (LLNL),             2,000             762             762          -1,238   ..............
         Livermore, CA..................................................
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Construction........................................         62,344          39,956          24,166         -38,178         -15,790
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Site/project completion................................        981,511         911,986       1,003,646         +22,135         +91,660
                                                                         ===============================================================================
Post 2006 completion:
    Operation and maintenance...........................................      2,251,514       1,680,979       2,133,779        -117,735        +452,800
    Uranium enrichment D&D fund contribution............................        420,000         420,000         420,000   ..............  ..............
    Construction: 93-D-187 High-level waste removal from filled waste            27,212           6,754           6,754         -20,458   ..............
     tanks, Savannah River, SC..........................................
    Office of River Protection:
        Operation and maintenance.......................................        309,619         272,151         328,151         +18,532         +56,000
        Construction:
            01-D-416 Hanford waste treatment plant, Richland, WA........        377,000         500,000         665,000        +288,000        +165,000
            99-D-403 Infrastructure support, Richland, WA...............          7,812   ..............  ..............         -7,812   ..............
            97-D-402 Tank farm restoration and safe operations,                  46,023          33,473          33,473         -12,550   ..............
             Richland, WA and 94-D-407 Initial tank retrieval systems...
            94-D-407 Initial tank retrieval systems, Richland, WA.......         17,385           6,844           6,844         -10,541   ..............
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, Construction....................................        448,220         540,317         705,317        +257,097        +165,000
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, Office of River Protection......................        757,839         812,468       1,033,468        +275,629        +221,000
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Post 2006 completion...............................      3,456,565       2,920,201       3,594,001        +137,436        +673,800
                                                                         ===============================================================================
Science and technology..................................................        256,898         196,000         271,700         +14,802         +75,700
Excess facilities.......................................................  ..............          1,300           1,300          +1,300   ..............
Safeguards and security.................................................        203,748         205,621         205,621          +1,873   ..............
Program direction.......................................................        363,988         355,761         355,761          -8,227   ..............
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Defense environmental management........................      5,262,710       4,590,869       5,432,029        +169,319        +841,160
                                                                         ===============================================================================
Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106-554).................        -10,943   ..............  ..............        +10,943   ..............
Use of prior year balances..............................................        -34,317         -36,770         -36,770          -2,453   ..............
Pension refund..........................................................        -50,000   ..............  ..............        +50,000   ..............
General reduction.......................................................        -10,700   ..............  ..............        +10,700   ..............
Reduction for safeguards and security...................................       -193,217   ..............  ..............       +193,217   ..............
Less security charge for reimbursable work..............................  ..............         -5,391          -5,391          -5,391   ..............
                                                                         ===============================================================================
      TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRON. RESTORATION AND WASTE MGMT................      4,963,533       4,548,708       5,389,868        +426,335        +841,160
                                                                         ===============================================================================
                   DEFENSE FACILITIES CLOSURE PROJECTS

Site closure............................................................      1,027,942       1,004,636       1,034,636          +6,694         +30,000
Safeguards and security.................................................         54,772          45,902          45,902          -8,870   ..............
Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106-554).................         -2,383   ..............  ..............         +2,383   ..............
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, DEFENSE FACILITIES CLOSURE PROJECTS........................      1,080,331       1,050,538       1,080,538            +207         +30,000
                                                                         ===============================================================================
             DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRIVATIZATION

Privatization initiatives, various locations............................         90,092         141,537         157,537         +67,445         +16,000
Use of prior year balances..............................................        -25,092   ..............  ..............        +25,092   ..............
                                                                         ===============================================================================
      TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT. PRIVATIZATION..................         65,000         141,537         157,537         +92,537         +16,000
                                                                         ===============================================================================
      TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT...........................      6,108,864       5,740,783       6,627,943        +519,079        +887,160
                                                                         ===============================================================================
                        OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Other national security programs:
    Security and emergency operations:
        Nuclear safeguards and security.................................        116,409         121,188         121,188          +4,779   ..............
        Security investigations.........................................         33,000          44,927          44,927         +11,927   ..............
        Corporate management information program........................  ..............         20,000   ..............  ..............        -20,000
        Emergency management............................................         33,711   ..............  ..............        -33,711   ..............
        Program direction...............................................         92,967          83,135          81,450         -11,517          -1,685
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Security and emergency operations...................        276,087         269,250         247,565         -28,522         -21,685

    Intelligence........................................................         36,059          40,844          40,844          +4,785   ..............
    Counterintelligence.................................................         45,200          46,389          46,389          +1,189   ..............
    Advanced accelerator applications...................................         34,000   ..............         55,000         +21,000         +55,000
    Independent oversight and performance assurance Program direction...         14,937          14,904          14,904             -33   ..............
    Environment, safety and health (Defense)............................        102,963          91,307          98,992          -3,971          +7,685
        Program direction--EH...........................................         22,604          23,293          23,293            +689   ..............
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Environment, safety and health (Defense)............        125,567         114,600         122,285          -3,282          +7,685

    Worker and community transition.....................................         21,500          21,246          18,000          -3,500          -3,246
        Program direction--WT...........................................          3,000           3,200           2,000          -1,000          -1,200
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Worker and community transition.....................         24,500          24,446          20,000          -4,500          -4,446

    National Security programs administrative support...................         25,000          25,000          25,000   ..............  ..............
    Office of Hearings and Appeals......................................          3,000           2,893           2,893            -107   ..............
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Other defense activities................................        584,350         538,326         574,880          -9,470         +36,554
                                                                         ===============================================================================

Use of prior year balances..............................................  ..............        -10,000         -10,000         -10,000   ..............
Reduction for safeguards and security...................................           -595   ..............  ..............           +595   ..............
Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106-554).................         -1,289   ..............  ..............         +1,289   ..............
Less security charge for reimbursable work..............................  ..............           -712            -712            -712   ..............
                                                                         ===============================================================================
      TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES...................................        582,466         527,614         564,168         -18,298         +36,554
                                                                         ===============================================================================
                     DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Defense nuclear waste disposal..........................................        200,000         310,000         250,000         +50,000         -60,000
Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106-554).................           -275   ..............  ..............           +275   ..............
                                                                         ===============================================================================
      TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES...........................     13,468,104      13,355,167      15,088,547      +1,620,443      +1,733,380
                                                                         ===============================================================================
                     POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

                    SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance:
    Purchase power and wheeling.........................................         34,463          34,463          34,463   ..............  ..............
    Program direction...................................................          5,000           4,891           4,891            -109   ..............
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Operation and maintenance...............................         39,463          39,354          39,354            -109   ..............

Offsetting collections..................................................        -34,463         -34,463         -34,463   ..............  ..............
Offsetting collections (Public Law 106-377).............................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106-554).................             -9   ..............  ..............             +9   ..............
Use of prior year balances..............................................         -1,100   ..............  ..............         +1,100   ..............
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION..........................          3,891           4,891           4,891          +1,000   ..............
                                                                         ===============================================================================
                    SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance:
    Operating expenses..................................................          3,795           3,339           3,339            -456   ..............
    Purchase power and wheeling.........................................            288           1,800           1,800          +1,512   ..............
    Program direction...................................................         18,388          18,668          18,668            +280   ..............
    Construction........................................................          6,817           6,031           6,031            -786   ..............
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Operation and maintenance...............................         29,288          29,838          29,838            +550   ..............

Offsetting collections..................................................           -288          -1,800          -1,800          -1,512   ..............
Offsetting collections (Public Law 106-377).............................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106-554).................            -62   ..............  ..............            +62   ..............
Use of prior year balances..............................................           -900   ..............  ..............           +900   ..............
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION..........................         28,038          28,038          28,038   ..............  ..............
                                                                         ===============================================================================
                    WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance:
    Construction and rehabilitation.....................................         23,115          16,064          16,064          -7,051   ..............
    System operation and maintenance....................................         36,104          37,796          37,796          +1,692   ..............
    Purchase power and wheeling.........................................         65,224         186,124         186,124        +120,900   ..............
    Program direction...................................................        106,644         114,378         114,378          +7,734   ..............
    Utah mitigation and conservation....................................          5,950           1,227           6,092            +142          +4,865
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Operation and maintenance...............................        237,037         355,589         360,454        +123,417          +4,865

Offsetting collections..................................................        -65,224        -186,124        -190,989        -125,765          -4,865
Offsetting collections (Public Law 106-377).............................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) Public Law 106-554)..................           -365   ..............  ..............           +365   ..............
Use of prior year balances..............................................         -5,983   ..............  ..............         +5,983   ..............
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION..........................        165,465         169,465         169,465          +4,000   ..............
                                                                         ===============================================================================
            FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

Operation and maintenance...............................................          2,670           2,663           2,663              -7   ..............
Across-the-board cut (.22 percent) (Public Law 106-554).................             -7   ..............  ..............             +7   ..............
                                                                         ===============================================================================
      TOTAL, FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING FUND..........................          2,663           2,663           2,663   ..............  ..............
                                                                         ===============================================================================
      TOTAL, POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS............................        200,057         205,057         205,057          +5,000   ..............
                                                                         ===============================================================================
                  FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission....................................        175,200         181,155         181,155          +5,955   ..............
FERC revenues...........................................................       -175,200        -181,155        -181,155          -5,955   ..............
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                         ===============================================================================
Defense nuclear waste disposal (rescission).............................        -75,000   ..............  ..............        +75,000   ..............
Defense environmental privatization (rescission)........................        -97,000   ..............  ..............        +97,000   ..............
                                                                         ===============================================================================
      GRAND TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.................................     18,303,148      18,106,554      20,061,975      +1,758,827      +1,955,421
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    The following list of general provisions are recommended by 
the Committee. The recommendation includes several provisions 
which have been included in previous Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Acts and new provisions as follows:
    Language under section 301 prohibits the use of funds to 
award, amend or modify a contract in a manner that deviates 
from the Federal Acquisition Regulations unless on a case-by-
case basis, a waiver is granted by the Secretary of Energy or 
the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration. Similar language was contained in last year's 
Energy and Water Development Act, Public Law 106-377. The 
recommendation contained herein, provides waiver authority for 
Atomic Energy Defense Activities of the National Nuclear 
Security Administration to the Administrator. Waiver authority 
for all other programs shall be provided by the Secretary of 
Energy.
    Language is included under section 302 which prohibits the 
use of funds in this Act to develop or implement a workforce 
restructuring plan or enhanced severance payments and other 
benefits for Federal employees of the Department of Energy 
under section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 
Fiscal Year 1993, Public Law 484. A similar provision was 
contained in the Energy and Water Development Act, 2000, Public 
Law 106-377.
    Language is included under section 303 which prohibits the 
use of funds for severance payments under the worker and 
community transition program.
    Language is included under section 304 which prohibits the 
use of funds in this Act to initiate requests for proposals or 
expression of interest for new programs which have not yet been 
presented to Congress in the annual budget submission, and 
which have not yet been approved and funded by Congress. A 
similar provision was contained in the Energy and Water 
Development Act, 2000, Public Law 106-377.
    Language is included under section 305 which permits the 
transfer and merger of unexpended balances of prior 
appropriations with appropriation accounts established in this 
bill. A similar provision was contained in the Energy and Water 
Development Act, 2000, Public Law 106-377.
    Language is included under section 306 which provides that 
up to 6 percent of funds appropriated in this Act, including 
Environmental Management programs, may be used for Laboratory 
Directed Research and Development. A similar provision was 
contained in the Energy and Water Development Act, 2000, Public 
Law 106-377.
    Language is included under section 307 which provides that 
none of the funds in this Act may be used to dispose of 
transuranic waste in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant which 
contains concentrations of plutonium in excess of 20 percent by 
weight for the aggregate of any material category on the date 
of enactment of this Act, or generated after such date. A 
similar provision was contained in the Energy and Water 
Development Act, 2001, Public Law 106-377.
    Language is included under section 308 which provides that 
the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration may authorize 2 percent of the amount allocated 
to a nuclear weapons production plant for the production plant 
to engage in research, development, and demonstration 
activities with respect to the Engineering and manufacturing 
capabilities of the plant in order to maintain and enhance such 
capabilities at the plant. A similar provision was contained in 
the Energy and Water Development Act, 2001, Public Law 106-377.
    Language is included under section 309 which allows the 
Power Marketing Administrations to engage in activities and 
solicit, undertake and review studies and proposals relating to 
the formation and operation of a regional transmission 
organization.
    Language is included under section 310 which provides that 
the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration may authorize 2 percent of the amount allocated 
for national security operations at the Nevada Test Site for 
investment in innovative research, development, and 
demonstration activities with respect to the development, test, 
and evaluation capabilities necessary for operations and 
readiness of the Nevada Test Site.
    Language is included under section 311 to extend the 
authorization for withdrawals from the United States Enrichment 
Corporation Fund from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2005.

                     TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                    Appalachian Regional Commission

Appropriations, 2001....................................     $66,254,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      66,290,000
Committee recommendation................................      66,290,000

    The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is a regional 
economic development agency established in 1965. It is composed 
of the Governors of the 13 Appalachian States and a Federal 
cochairman who is appointed by the President.
    The Committee recommendation for the Appalachian Regional 
Commission totals $66,290,000, the amount of the request.
    Consistent with the administration's budget request, the 
Committee recommendation does not include funding for ARC 
highways. Funding for ARC development highways will be provided 
through the highway trust fund beginning in fiscal year 1999 
through 2004 consistent with provision contained in the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act.
    The Committee recognizes the importance of trade and 
investment opportunities to the Appalachian region, and is 
encouraged by a preliminary trade report determining that 
Appalachian firms might find significant trade and investment 
opportunities, particularly in the energy, high technology, and 
transportation sectors, in the Republic of Turkey and the 
surrounding region. In this regard, the Committee supports the 
Appalachian-Turkish Trade Project (ATTP), a project to promote 
opportunities to expand trade, encourage business interests, 
stimulate foreign studies, and to build a lasting and mutually 
meaningful relationship between the Appalachian States and the 
Republic of Turkey, as well as the neighboring regions, such as 
Greece. The Committee commends the ARC for its leadership role 
in helping to implement the mission of the ATTP, and for the 
expertise it provided in implementing the ATTP Conference that 
was held in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, on March 23, 2001. 
The Committee expects the ARC to continue to be a prominent 
ATTP sponsor.

                Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

                         salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 2001....................................     $18,459,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      18,500,000
Committee recommendation................................      18,500,000

    An appropriation of $18,500,000, the amount of the request, 
is recommended for fiscal year 2002. This is the same as the 
budget request.
    The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board was created by 
the Fiscal Year 1989 National Defense Authorization Act. The 
Board, composed of five members appointed by the President, 
provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy 
regarding public health and safety issues at the Department's 
defense nuclear facilities. The Board is also responsible for 
investigating any event or practice at a defense nuclear 
facility which has or may adversely affect public health and 
safety. The Board is responsible for reviewing and evaluating 
the content and implementation of the standards relating to the 
design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of defense 
nuclear facilities of the Department of Energy.

                        Delta Regional Authority

Appropriations, 2001....................................     $19,956,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      19,992,000
Committee recommendation................................      20,000,000

    The Delta Regional Authority (DRA), authorized by Public 
Law 106-554, was established to assist an eight-state, 236-
county region of demonstrated distress in obtaining 
transportation and basic public infrastructure, skills 
training, and opportunities for economic development essential 
to strong local economies.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $20,000,000 
for the Delta Regional Authority. The recommended 
appropriations will be used to carry out the activities of 
Authority during fiscal year 2002.

                           Denali Commission

Appropriations, 2001....................................     $29,934,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      29,939,000
Committee recommendation................................      40,000,000

    The Denali Commission is a regional economic development 
agency established in 1998 for the intended purpose of 
delivering basic utilities, including affordable power, and 
other essential infrastructure to the nation's most 
geographically isolated communities. The Committee is 
encouraged by the progress of the Denali Commission in 
assisting distressed communities throughout Alaska, and urges 
continued work among local and State agencies, non-profit 
organizations and other participants in meeting the most 
pressing infrastructure needs.
    The Committee recommendation includes $40,000,000 for the 
Denali Commission. The Committee has provided $10,000,000 above 
the President's request for the Denali Commission. Within this 
amount, the Committee recommends $5,000,000 to improve basic 
infrastructure and community facilities for community residents 
without running water or sewer systems.

                     Nuclear Regulatory Commission

                         salaries and expenses

                          gross appropriation

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $481,825,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     506,900,000
Committee recommendation................................     506,900,000

                                revenues

Appropriations, 2001....................................   -$447,958,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................    -463,248,000
Committee recommendation................................    -463,248,000

                           net appropriation

Appropriations, 2001....................................     $33,867,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      43,652,000
Committee recommendation................................      43,652,000

    The Committee recommendation includes $506,900,000, the 
same amount as the request, for the Commission, and includes a 
single year extension of the NRC's user fee collection 
authority.
    The Committee directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission not 
to expend any funds to implement or enforce the revisions to 10 
C.F.R. Part 35 which contains regulations concerning the 
medical use of isotopes that were adopted by the Commission on 
October 23, 2000. The Committee has taken this action becuase 
it believes that the Commission has failed to adequately 
consider, as it has repeatedly promised, adopting regulations 
which properly reflect the very low risk posed by the use of 
diagnostic nuclear medicine procedures.
    The Committee agrees with the Administration's National 
Energy Policy Development Group, chaired by the Vice President, 
in its recommendation supporting the expansion of nuclear 
energy in the United States. The Committee has strongly 
supported nuclear power in the past and believes that new 
nuclear plants offer emission-free power sources, help maintain 
diversity of fuel supply, enhance energy security, meet growing 
electricity demand, and protect consumers against volatility in 
the electricity and natural gas markets. As such, the Committee 
recognizes the possibility that several entities are 
considering possible applications to the Commission for an 
Early Site Permit, a Combined Operating License, and/or a 
Design Certificate for new nuclear power plants. Should this 
occur, the Committee would expect that the Commission's 
consideration would be both thorough and adhere to a 
predictable schedule. Because this is the first time 10 CFR 52, 
which was enacted in 1992, may be used by the Commission, the 
Committee recommends that the cost of the activities for these 
initial reviews should be shared between the Federal Government 
and the nuclear industry. To achieve this type of cost sharing, 
a reduction in fees payable by the nuclear industry to the 
Commission is appropriate. To this end, the Committee 
recommendation includes an appropriation for an additional 
$10,000,000, of which $5,000,000 will be appropriated from the 
general fund of the Treasury and $5,000,000 will be recovered 
through fees assessed to NRC licensees and applicants. Of the 
amount appropriated, $3,000,000 may be available for supporting 
studies at national laboratories for fuel testing, code 
verification and validation, and materials testing.

                      Office of Inspector General

                          gross appropriation

Appropriations, 2001....................................      $5,500,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................       6,180,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,500,000

                                revenues

Appropriations, 2001....................................     -$5,390,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      -5,432,000
Committee recommendation................................      -5,432,000

    This appropriation provides for the Office of Inspector 
General of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $5,500,000 for fiscal year 2002.

                  Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

Appropriations, 2001....................................      $2,894,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................       3,100,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,500,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,500,000 for 
the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. The Nuclear Waste 
Policy Amendments Act of 1987 directed the Board to evaluate 
the technical and scientific validity of the activities of the 
Department of Energy's nuclear waste disposal program. The 
Board must report its findings not less than two times a year 
to the Congress and the Secretary of Energy.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

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

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

    Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on 
general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment 
to the House bill ``which proposes an item of appropriation 
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing 
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously 
passed by the Senate during that session.''
    The recommended appropriations in title III, Department of 
Energy, generally are subject to annual authorization. However, 
the Congress has not enacted an annual Department of Energy 
authorization bill for several years, with the exception of the 
programs funded within the atomic energy defense activities 
which are authorized in annual defense authorization acts. The 
authorization for the atomic energy defense activities, 
contained in the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal 
Year 2001, is currently being considered by the Senate.
    Also, contained in title III, Department of Energy, in 
connection with the appropriation under the heading ``Nuclear 
Waste Disposal Fund,'' the recommended item of appropriation is 
brought to the attention of the Senate.

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

    Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, the Committee 
ordered reported, en bloc, S. 1171, an original fiscal year 
2002 Energy and Water Development appropriations bill, S. 1172, 
an original fiscal year 2002 Legislative Branch appropriations 
bill, and an original fiscal year 2002 Transportation and 
related agencies appropriations bill, each subject to amendment 
and each subject to its budget allocations, by a recorded vote 
of 29-0, a quorum being present. The vote was as follows:
        Yeas                          Nays
Chairman Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Hollings
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Reid
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson
Mrs. Landrieu
Mr. Reed
Mr. Stevens
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Campbell
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. DeWine

 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.

  RECLAMATION STATES EMERGENCY DROUGHT RELIEF ACT OF 1991, PUBLIC LAW 
                               102-250

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            TITLE III--GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 301. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    Except as otherwise provided in section 303 of this Act 
(relating to temperature control devices at Shasta Dam, 
California), there is authorized to be appropriated not more 
the $90,000,000 in total for fiscal years 1992, 1993, 1994, 
1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000, [and 2001] 2001, and 2002.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                           PUBLIC LAW 105-204

                                 An Act

To require the Secretary of Energy to submit to Congress a plan to 
  ensure that all amounts accrued on the books of the United States 
  Enrichment Corporation for the disposition of depleted uranium 
  hexafluoride will be used to treat and recycle depleted uranium 
  hexafluoride.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SECTION 1. UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORPORATION.

    (a) * * *
    (b) Limitation.--Notwithstanding the privatization of the 
United Sates Enrichment Corporation and notwithstanding any 
other provision of law (including the repeal of chapters 22 
through 26 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2297 et 
seq.) made by section 3116(a)(1) of the United States 
Enrichment Corporation Privatization Act (104 Stat. 1321-349), 
except as provided in subsection (c), no amounts described in 
subsection (a) shall be withdrawn from the United States 
Enrichment Corporation Fund established by section 1308 of the 
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2297b-7) or the Working 
Capital Account established under section 1316 of the Atomic 
Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2297b-15) until the date that is 
1 year after the date on which the President submits to 
Congress the budget request for [fiscal year 2002] fiscal year 
2005.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                                            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      bill      allocation      bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations
 to its subcommittees of amounts in the First Concurrent
 Resolution for 2002: Subcommittee on Energy and Water
 Development:
    General purpose, defense................................       15,247       15,247           NA           NA
    General purpose, non-defense............................        9,713  ...........           NA           NA
    General purpose, total..................................       24,960       15,247       24,916   \1\ 24,690
Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:
    2002....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........   \2\ 16,182
    2003....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        7,577
    2004....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        1,159
    2005....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........           30
    2006 and future years...................................  ...........  ...........  ...........           19
Financial assistance to State and local governments for 2002           NA          109           NA           34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.

               ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR LARRY E. CRAIG

                           nuclear waste fund

    I am providing additional views with respect to both the 
funding level for the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management and the Committee report recommendations regarding 
the Yucca Mountain project. The funding level of $275,000,000 
represents an unwarranted cut from the Department of Energy's 
request of $445,000,000 and jeopardizes the ultimate success of 
the project. Furthermore, this blow to the Yucca Mountain 
project comes just months before the President is expected to 
make a decision about whether to move forward with Yucca 
Mountain's development as a geologic repository for spent 
nuclear fuel and high-level waste from commercial reactors and 
defense activities. His decision will be based on the many 
volumes of data compiled during over two decades of scientific 
study of the site.
    A central repository for spent nuclear fuel is vital to 
maintain nuclear energy's role as our Nation's largest source 
of non-emitting electricity generation. Although spent nuclear 
fuel and high-level waste is currently being safely stored at 
approximately 150 locations around the country, those sites 
were never intended to be permanent storage facilities. The 
Department of Energy has a legal obligation to begin managing 
the fuel as of January 31, 1998. The urgent need for a 
permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel is why the Yucca 
Mountain site has been subjected to extensive scientific study 
over a period of years.
    The Committee report, in my view, misrepresents the ongoing 
process of scientific investigation at Yucca Mountain and adds 
redundant and contradictory processes to those already in place 
to determine if the site is suitable.
    The Committee report asserts that our Nation's reluctance 
to reprocess used nuclear fuel made a geologic repository our 
only option. Such an assertion ignores the recommendations of 
the National Academy of Sciences and ignores the international 
consensus for deep geologic disposal. The fact is that 
reprocessing does not eliminate the need for a repository. 
Every time spent fuel is reprocessed, there are radioactive 
byproducts that require disposal. In fact, 16 nations are 
studying geologic repositories, including every nation that 
currently reprocesses its spent nuclear fuel.
    The cost of continued technical investigation of other 
potential sites did not make Yucca Mountain the designated 
repository site by default. A total of nine sites were studied 
between 1982 and 1987. A comparison of the sites pointed 
clearly to Yucca Mountain as the best repository site, which is 
why scientific attention has been focused on Yucca Mountain 
since then.
    Opponents of Yucca Mountain have also mischaracterized 
national policy toward used nuclear fuel as ``bury it all and 
forget it.'' The fact is that provisions are in place for 
continual study of Yucca Mountain for 50 to 300 years after 
spent fuel disposal commences, and future generations have the 
freedom to opt for further study.
    The report mischaracterizes the ongoing, scientific studies 
of Yucca Mountain by stating that the Department of Energy 
``has not demonstrated that the proposed site at Yucca Mountain 
is suitable.'' This assertion contradicts the numerous 
scientific studies that have already been released nearly all 
of which indicate that Yucca Mountain will be suitable, based 
on the evidence to date.
    The Committee report decries changes in the repository's 
operational concept from a sealed and backfilled approach to a 
monitored and retrievable approach by saying the changes 
undermine public confidence in the safety of the repository. 
Precisely the opposite is true. Having a repository that is 
more easily monitored can only strengthen public confidence in 
Yucca Mountain, because the public can have more assurance that 
rigorous scientific inquiry can easily and regularly be applied 
to the site.
    The Committee report recommendations place an onerous 
burden on Yucca Mountain by upholding contradictory positions 
and mandating redundant processes on top of those already in 
place. The report language calls upon the Department of Energy 
to ``use existing regulations to determine site suitability,'' 
even though those regulations are contradictory to the 
recommendation of scientific experts at the National Academy of 
Sciences. Those same regulations are, in fact, being revised to 
reflect the Environmental Protection Agency's recently issued 
radiation protection standard.
    Additionally, the comments call for mandating an extensive 
process of public hearings in each of the 43 States through 
which spent fuel could be transported to Yucca Mountain. An 
extensive process for public hearings already exists, whereby 
States, local communities, and emergency response authorities 
can express concerns, have questions answered, and receive 
appropriate training. It is not useful to conduct the training 
and hearings now, when this program is at least a decade away 
from transporting spent fuel to Yucca Mountain and the 
Department of Energy has not yet selected transportation 
routes. These routes must also be selected in accordance with 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Department of Transportation 
regulations.
    Proponents and opponents of the Yucca Mountain project 
alike agree that the decision about the site's suitability as a 
geologic repository should be based on sound and thorough 
science. Unfortunately, both the funding level of $275,000,000 
and the report language regarding this program frustrate a 
scientifically-based approach to the decision in favor of an 
attempt to starve the program with a lack of resources and 
delay it with unnecessary or duplicative processes. Our 
Nation's energy future, however, demands that we evaluate Yucca 
Mountain on its scientific merits alone.

                                                    Larry E. Craig.

  COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
                                                                        YEAR 2002
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                         Senate Committee recommendation
                                                                                                                             compared with (+ or -)
                                Item                                       2001       Budget estimate     Committee    ---------------------------------
                                                                      appropriation                     recommendation        2001
                                                                                                                         appropriation   Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                     Corps of Engineers--Civil

General investigations.............................................         160,584          130,000          152,402           -8,182          +22,402
Construction, general..............................................       1,716,165        1,324,000        1,570,798         -145,367         +246,798
Flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries, Arkansas,                 350,458          280,000          328,011          -22,447          +48,011
 Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and
 Tennessee.........................................................
Operation and maintenance, general.................................       1,897,775        1,745,000        1,833,263          -64,512          +88,263
Regulatory program.................................................         124,725          128,000          128,000           +3,275   ...............
FUSRAP.............................................................         139,692          140,000          140,000             +308   ...............
General expenses...................................................         151,666          153,000          153,000           +1,334   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, title I, Department of Defense--Civil.................       4,541,065        3,900,000        4,305,474         -235,591         +405,474
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

              Central Utah Project Completion Account

Central Utah project construction..................................          19,524           24,169           24,169           +4,645   ...............
Fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation.........          14,136           10,749           10,749           -3,387   ...............
Utah reclamation mitigation and conservation account...............           4,989   ...............  ...............          -4,989   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................          38,649           34,918           34,918           -3,731   ...............

Program oversight and administration...............................           1,213            1,310            1,310              +97   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Central Utah project completion account...............          39,862           36,228           36,228           -3,634   ...............

                       Bureau of Reclamation

Water and related resources........................................         678,953          647,997          732,496          +53,543          +84,499
Loan program.......................................................           9,348            7,495            7,495           -1,853   ...............
    (Limitation on direct loans)...................................         (26,941)         (26,000)         (26,000)           (-941)  ...............
Central Valley project restoration fund............................          38,360           55,039           55,039          +16,679   ...............
California Bay-Delta restoration...................................  ...............          20,000   ...............  ...............         -20,000
Policy and administration..........................................          50,114           52,968           52,968           +2,854   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Bureau of Reclamation.................................         776,775          783,499          847,998          +71,223          +64,499
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Total, title II, Department of the Interior..................         816,637          819,727          884,226          +67,589          +64,499
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                  TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Energy supply......................................................         659,918          544,245          736,139          +76,221         +191,894
Non-defense environmental management...............................         277,200          228,553          228,553          -48,647   ...............
Uranium facilities maintenance and remediation.....................         392,502          363,425          408,725          +16,223          +45,300
Science............................................................       3,180,341        3,159,890        3,268,816          +88,475         +108,926
Nuclear Waste Disposal.............................................         190,654          134,979           25,000         -165,654         -109,979

Departmental administration........................................         225,942          221,618          208,948          -16,994          -12,670
    Miscellaneous revenues.........................................        -151,000         -137,810         -137,810          +13,190   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Net appropriation                                   74,942           83,808           71,138           -3,804          -12,670

Office of the Inspector General....................................          31,430           31,430           30,000           -1,430           -1,430

Environmental restoration and waste management:
    Defense function...............................................      (6,108,864)      (5,740,783)      (6,638,539)       (+529,675)       (+897,756)
    Non-defense function...........................................        (669,702)        (591,978)        (637,278)        (-32,424)        (+45,300)
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total........................................................      (6,778,566)      (6,332,761)      (7,275,817)       (+497,251)       (+943,056)

                  Atomic Energy Defense Activities

National Nuclear Security Administration:
    Weapons activities.............................................       5,006,153        5,300,025        6,062,891       +1,056,738         +762,866
    Defense nuclear nonproliferation...............................         872,273          773,700          880,500           +8,227         +106,800
    Naval reactors.................................................         688,645          688,045          688,045             -600   ...............
    Office of the Administrator....................................           9,978           15,000           15,000           +5,022   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, National Nuclear Security Administration...........       6,577,049        6,776,770        7,646,436       +1,069,387         +869,666

Defense environmental restoration and waste management.............       4,963,533        4,548,708        5,389,868         +426,335         +841,160
Defense facilities closure projects................................       1,080,331        1,050,538        1,080,538             +207          +30,000
Defense environmental management privatization.....................          65,000          141,537          157,537          +92,537          +16,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Defense environmental management...................       6,108,864        5,740,783        6,627,943         +519,079         +887,160

Other defense activities...........................................         582,466          527,614          564,168          -18,298          +36,554
Defense nuclear waste disposal.....................................         199,725          310,000          250,000          +50,275          -60,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities......................      13,468,104       13,355,167       15,088,547       +1,620,443       +1,733,380

                  Power Marketing Administrations

Operation and maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration.......           3,891            4,891            4,891           +1,000   ...............
Operation and maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration.......          28,038           28,038           29,838           +1,800           +1,800
Construction, rehabilitation, operation and maintenance, Western            165,465          169,465          169,465           +4,000   ...............
 Area Power Administration.........................................
Falcon and Amistad operating and maintenance fund..................           2,663            2,663            2,663   ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Power Marketing Administrations.......................         200,057          205,057          206,857           +6,800           +1,800

                Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Salaries and expenses..............................................         175,200          181,155          181,155           +5,955   ...............
    Revenues applied...............................................        -175,200         -181,155         -181,155           -5,955   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
Defense nuclear waste disposal (rescission)........................         -75,000   ...............  ...............         +75,000   ...............
Defense environmental privatization (rescission)...................         -97,000   ...............  ...............         +97,000   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Total, title III, Department of Energy.......................      18,303,148       18,106,554       20,063,775       +1,760,627       +1,957,221
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                   TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Appalachian Regional Commission....................................          66,254           66,290           66,290              +36   ...............
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board............................          18,459           18,500           18,500              +41   ...............
Delta Regional Authority...........................................          19,956           19,992           20,000              +44               +8

Denali Commission..................................................          29,934           29,939           40,000          +10,066          +10,061

Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
    Salaries and expenses..........................................         481,825          506,900          516,900          +35,075          +10,000
    Revenues.......................................................        -447,958         -463,248         -468,248          -20,290           -5,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................          33,867           43,652           48,652          +14,785           +5,000

    Office of Inspector General....................................           5,500            6,180            5,500   ...............            -680
    Revenues.......................................................          -5,390           -5,932           -5,432              -42             +500
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................             110              248               68              -42             -180
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total........................................................          33,977           43,900           48,720          +14,743           +4,820

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board...............................           2,894            3,100            3,500             +606             +400
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Total, title IV, Independent agencies........................         171,474          181,721          197,010          +25,536          +15,289
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                  TITLE V--EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL

                        DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                  Atomic Energy Defense Activities

Cerro Grande fire activities (contingent emergency appropriations).         203,012   ...............  ...............        -203,012   ...............
Appalachian Regional Commission (contingent emergency                        10,976   ...............  ...............         -10,976   ...............
 appropriations)...................................................
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Total, title V, Emergency Supplemental.......................         213,988   ...............  ...............        -213,988   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Grand total:
          New budget (obligational) authority......................      24,046,312       23,008,002       25,450,485       +1,404,173       +2,442,483
              Appropriations.......................................     (24,004,324)     (23,008,002)     (25,450,485)     (+1,446,161)     (+2,442,483)
              Contingent emergency appropriations..................        (213,988)  ...............  ...............       (-213,988)  ...............
              Rescissions..........................................       (-172,000)  ...............  ...............       (+172,000)  ...............
          (By transfer)............................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  

```