```

[Senate Report 107-220]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                       Calendar No. 514
107th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     107-220

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

 
         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATION BILL, 2003

                                _______
                                

                 July 24, 2002.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 2784]

    The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 2784) 
making appropriations for energy and water development for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and for other purposes, 
favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.

Amount in new budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2003

Budget estimates considered by Senate................... $25,797,357,000
Amount of bill as reported to the Senate................  26,785,991,000
The bill as reported to the Senate--
    Above the budget estimate, 2003.....................     988,634,000
    Over enacted bill, 2002.............................   1,126,032,000
                    ========================================================
                      __________________________________________________

                            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...................................    10
        Construction, general....................................    24
        Flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries.........    40
        Operation and maintenance, general.......................    42
        Regulatory program.......................................    63
        Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program..........    64
        General expenses.........................................    64

                                TITLE II

Department of the Interior:
    Central Utah project completion account......................    67
    Bureau of Reclamation: Water and related resources...........    67
    Central Valley project restoration fund......................    76
    California bay-delta restoration.............................    76
    Policy and administration....................................    77

                               TITLE III

Department of Energy:
    Energy Supply................................................    79
        Renewable energy resources...............................    79
        Nuclear energy programs..................................    83
        Environment, safety, and health..........................    86
        Energy support activities................................    86
        Energy supply infrastructure.............................    86
    Environmental management (nondefense)........................    87
    Uranium facilities maintenance and remediation...............    88
    Nuclear waste fund...........................................    88
    Science......................................................    89
        High energy physics......................................    90
        Nuclear physics..........................................    90
        Biological and environmental research....................    90
        Basic energy sciences....................................    91
        Fusion energy sciences...................................    92
    Departmental administration..................................    92
        Miscellaneous revenues...................................    92
    Inspector General............................................    92
    Atomic energy defense activities:
        National Nuclear Security Administration:
            Weapon activities....................................    93
            Defense nuclear nonproliferation.....................   102
            Naval reactors.......................................   106
            Office of the Administrator..........................   106
        Other defense related activities:
            Defense environmental restoration and waste 
              management.........................................   107
            Defense facilities closure projects..................   114
            Defense environmental management privatization.......   114
            Other defense activities.............................   114
            Defense nuclear waste disposal.......................   118
    Power marketing administrations:
        Operations and maintenance, Southeastern Power 
          Administration.........................................   120
        Operations and maintenance, Southwestern Power 
          Administration.........................................   120
        Construction, rehabilitation, operations and maintenance, 
          Western Area Power Administration......................   120
    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.........................   121
    General provisions...........................................   132

                                TITLE IV

Independent Agencies:
    Appalachian Regional Commission..............................   134
    Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board......................   134
    Delta Regional Authority.....................................   135
    Denali Commission............................................   135
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission................................   136
        Office of Inspector General..............................   137
    Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.........................   137

                                TITLE V

General provisions...............................................   138
Compliance with paragraph 7, rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of 
  the 
  Senate.........................................................   139
Compliance with paragraph 7(c), rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules 
  of the 
  Senate.........................................................   139
Compliance with paragraph 12, rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of 
  the 
  Senate.........................................................   140
Budgetary impact statement.......................................   141

                                PURPOSE

    The purpose of this bill is to provide appropriations for 
the fiscal year 2003 beginning October 1, 2002, and ending 
September 30, 2003, 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 2003 budget estimates for the bill total 
$25,510,881,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The 
recommendation of the Committee totals $26,299,915,000. This is 
$788,634,000 above the budget estimates and $1,129,556,000 over 
the enacted appropriation for the current fiscal year.
    The bill, as recommended, is in compliance with the 
subcommittee allocation agreed to by the Committee and entered 
into the Congressional Record on June 28, 2002.

                            BILL HIGHLIGHTS

                    ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

    The amount recommended in the bill includes $15,775,217,000 
for atomic energy defense activities. Major programs and 
activities include:

Weapon activities.......................................  $6,108,959,000
Defense nuclear nonproliferation........................   1,115,630,000
Naval reactors..........................................     706,790,000
Other defense activities................................     537,664,000
Defense waste management and environmental restoration..   5,406,532,000
Defense facilities closure projects.....................   1,125,314,000
Defense environmental privatization.....................     158,399,000

                             ENERGY SUPPLY

    The bill recommended by the Committee provides a total of 
$815,306,000 for energy research programs including:

Renewable energy resources..............................    $448,062,000
Nuclear energy..........................................     323,608,000

                  NONDEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

    An appropriation of $176,000,000 is recommended for 
nondefense environmental management activities of the 
Department of Energy.

                                SCIENCE

    The Committee recommendation also provides a net 
appropriation of $3,329,456,000 for general science and 
research activities in life sciences, high energy physics, and 
nuclear physics. Major programs are:

High energy physics research............................    $729,980,000
Nuclear physics.........................................     387,370,000
Basic energy sciences...................................   1,044,600,000
Biological and environmental R&D........................     531,215,000
Fusion energy sciences..................................     259,310,000

               REGULATORY AND OTHER INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

    Also recommended in the bill is $909,584,000 for various 
regulatory and independent agencies of the Federal Government. 
Major programs include:

Appalachian Regional Commission.........................     $74,400,000
Delta Regional Authority................................      15,000,000
Denali Commission.......................................      50,000,000
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission....................     192,000,000
Nuclear Regulatory Commission...........................     578,184,000

                      WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Corps of Engineers:
    General Investigations..............................    $148,304,000
    Construction, General...............................   1,745,102,000
    Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries....     337,937,000
    Operation and Maintenance, General..................   1,956,182,000
    Regulatory Program..................................     144,252,000
    Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.....     140,298,000
    General Expenses....................................     155,651,000
Central Utah Project Completion Account.................      36,228,000
Bureau of Reclamation:
    Water and Related resources.........................     919,921,000
    Central Valley Project Restoration Fund.............      48,904,000
    Policy and Administration...........................      54,870,000

    The Committee has recommended appropriations totaling 
approximately $5,640,330,000 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.

                         Subcommittee Hearings

    The Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the 
Committee on Appropriations held four sessions in connection 
with the fiscal year 2003 appropriation bill. Witnesses 
included officials and representatives of the Federal agencies 
under the subcommittee's jurisdiction.
    Although it is the policy of the subcommittee to receive 
oral and written testimony from representatives of all of the 
major Department and Agencies within its jurisdiction, the Army 
Corps of Engineers provided written testimony only. The 
administration fired Mike Parker, the Assistant Secretary of 
the Army for Civil Works, early in the week in which the Army 
Corps of Engineers hearing was scheduled to take place. Given 
the confusion and controversy surrounding Mr. Parker's 
dismissal, the subcommittee elected to accept written testimony 
in lieu of an oral statement from a lower level appointee in an 
acting capacity.
    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 2003 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 24, 2002, 
recommended that the bill, as amended, be reported to the 
Senate.

ACCRUAL FUNDING OF RETIREMENT COSTS AND POST-RETIREMENT HEALTH BENEFITS

    The President's Budget included a legislative proposal 
under the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Governmental 
Affairs to charge to individual agencies, starting in fiscal 
year 2003, the fully accrued costs related to retirement 
benefits of Civil Service Retirement System employees and 
retiree health benefits for all civilian employees. The Budget 
also requested an additional dollar amount in each affected 
discretionary account to cover these accrued costs.
    The authorizing committee has not acted on this 
legislation, therefore the Senate Appropriations Committee has 
reduced the dollar amounts of the President's request shown in 
the ``Comparative Statement of New Budget Authority Request and 
Amounts Recommended in the Bill'', as well as in other tables 
in this report, to exclude the accrual funding proposal.
    The Committee further notes that administration proposals 
requiring legislative action by the authorizing committees of 
Congress are customarily submitted in the budget as separate 
schedules apart from the regular appropriations requests. 
Should such a proposal be enacted, a budget amendment formally 
modifying the President's appropriation request for 
discretionary funding is subsequently transmitted to the 
Congress.
    The Senate Appropriations Committee joins with the House 
Appropriations Committee in raising concern that this practice, 
which has always worked effectively for both Congress and past 
administrations, was not followed for the accrual funding 
proposal. In this case, the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) decided to include accrual amounts in the original 
discretionary appropriations language request. These amounts 
are based on legislation that has yet to be considered and 
approved by the appropriate committees of Congress. This led to 
numerous misunderstandings both inside and outside of Congress 
of what was the ``true'' President's budget request. The 
Committee believes that, in the future, OMB should follow long-
established procedures with respect to discretionary spending 
proposals that require legislative action.

                 TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

                              INTRODUCTION

    The Committee remains concerned about the level of the 
budget requests for the water resources programs of the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers. The budget request for fiscal year 
2003 is about $600,000,000 less when comparably compared to the 
amount appropriated in fiscal year 2002. The budget request is 
extraordinarily unbalanced. Four projects account for 30 
percent of the proposed Construction, General budget with the 
remainder of the projects severely underfunded. The proposed 
General Investigations budget, which provides funding for 
studies of water resources needs, is decimated. Only studies in 
their final year were adequately funded, the remainder were 
severely underfunded. The proposed Operations and Maintenance 
budget appears to show an increase, however, when accounting 
for inflation and a proposed funding transfer that is unlikely 
to be enacted, the final total is less than the amount 
appropriated in fiscal year 2002. The budget proposed for the 
Mississippi River and Tributaries project, is equally 
inadequate.
    If the proposed budget request were enacted, the Corps 
would be forced to terminate on-going construction contracts 
costing the government some $200,000,000 in termination fees. 
One of the many examples from the proposed budget involves the 
Southeast Louisiana project. The budget request proposed 
$20,083,000 for this project, yet approximately $20,000,000 in 
additional funding is required in fiscal year 2003 just to keep 
from terminating work started in fiscal year 2002. If 
approximately $41,000,000 were appropriated, contract 
terminations could be avoided, however, no new construction 
work could be started, and tens of thousands of peoples lives 
would be at risk from flooding for an additional year.
    As has been the practice for the last several years, the 
budget proposal contained no new discretionary study or 
construction ``starts''. The budget proposal stated that this 
was done in order to only fund the backlog of on-going work 
(estimated at $21,000,000,000 in the budget proposal) and that 
within 10 years, this backlog would be reduced to zero. 
Followed to conclusion, that would mean that within 10 years 
the Corps would only be an operation and maintenance agency to 
oversee past constructed work. Since there are no other 
nationwide agencies that address water resource problems and 
needs, one can only assume that all water resource problems 
will be solved in the next 10 years or that the Federal 
Government intends to no longer fund water resource 
development.
    The Committee does not share the views in the budget 
proposal and remains concerned about the huge and increasing 
backlog of infrastructure development, maintenance, and repair 
over which the Corps has jurisdiction. The proposed budget 
causes the backlog of unconstructed projects to increase from 
$40,000,000,000 to $44,000,000,000 and ignores an accelerating 
critical maintenance backlog which increases from $702,000,000 
to $884,000,000. This maintenance backlog will soon become 
entirely unmanageable under the weight of an aging and 
crumbling inventory. Proposing no new study or discretionary 
construction starts, underfunding on-going projects, and 
providing minimal O&M funding for completed projects leads the 
Committee to believe that the budget preparation may have been 
influenced by very narrow interest groups as opposed to 
providing for a robust national water resources development 
program. The situation that the proposed budget poses to the 
Nation's economy and quality of life leave the Committee no 
option but to step forward in support of these vital projects.
    The Committee recommendation for the Corps of Engineers 
totals $4,647,953,000. This is $474,999,000 above the budget 
request for fiscal year 2003, and is $22,857,000 above the 
appropriation for the current year.

                       BUILDING AND SITE SECURITY

    Given the events of September 11, 2001, there has been a 
recognition for the need of improved security at the nation's 
infrastructure. The Committee is aware of the increased costs 
all Federal agencies are beginning to realize. Therefore, the 
Committee encourages the Corps of Engineers to utilize 
technology that is presently available in both the private and 
public sector as it evaluates its future infrastructure 
security needs.

                           BUDGET CONSTRAINTS

    The budget allocation for non-Defense discretionary 
programs contained in the Energy and Water Development bill for 
fiscal year 2003 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 2003. However, while 
the budget resources for non-Defense discretionary programs 
have remained flat or have declined in real terms, the number 
of requests of the Committee continue to increase. This year 
the Committee received more than 1,200 requests for funding for 
water projects within the Corps' Civil Works program. Many 
supported the funding level in the budget request, but a 
majority of the requests made of the Committee sought increases 
over the budgeted amounts or items not contained in the 
President's budget for fiscal year 2003.

                   BASIS OF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    In development of the fiscal year 2003 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, 2002....................................    $154,350,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     102,483,000
Committee recommendation................................     148,304,000

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

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

                        ALABAMA

ALABAMA RIVER BELOW CLAIBORNE LOCK AND DAM, AL........            300   ...........            300   ...........
BALDWIN COUNTY SHORE PROTECTION, AL...................            100   ...........            100   ...........
BALDWIN COUNTY WATERSHEDS, AL.........................            100   ...........            100   ...........
BAYOU LA BATRE, AL....................................             50   ...........             50   ...........
BREWTON AND EAST BREWTON, AL..........................            150   ...........            150   ...........
CAHABA RIVER WATERSHED, AL............................             50   ...........             50   ...........
DOG RIVER, AL.........................................            150   ...........            150   ...........
TUSCALOOSA COUNTY, AL.................................             50   ...........             50   ...........
VILLAGE CREEK, JEFFERSON COUNTY (BIRMINGHAM WATERSHED)            250   ...........            250   ...........

                        ALASKA

AKUTAN HARBOR, AK.....................................  ..............          200  ..............          350
ALASKA REGION PORTS, AK...............................  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
ANCHOR POINT HARBOR, AK...............................             50   ...........             50   ...........
ANCHORAGE HARBOR DEEPENING, AK........................             50   ...........            100   ...........
ANIAK HARBOR, AK......................................             50   ...........            100   ...........
BARROW COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION, AK.............            200   ...........            200   ...........
CHENA RIVER WATERSHED, AK.............................             50   ...........             50   ...........
COFFMAN COVE, AK......................................  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
DELONG MOUNTAIN HARBOR, AK............................            150   ...........            500   ...........
EKLUTNA WATERSHEAD, AK................................  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
FALSE PASS HARBOR, AK.................................  ..............           25  ..............           25
FIRE ISLAND CAUSEWAY, AK..............................  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
HAINES HARBOR, AK.....................................  ..............          115  ..............          400
HOMER HARBOR, AK......................................  ..............  ...........            200   ...........
KAKTOVIK BEACH EROSION, AK............................  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
KENAI RIVER BLUFF EROSION STUDY, AK...................  ..............  ...........            185   ...........
KETCHIKAN HARBOR, AK..................................             50   ...........             50   ...........
KOTZEBUE SMALL BOAT HARBOR, AK........................             50   ...........             50   ...........
LITTLE DIOMEDE HARBOR, AK.............................            115   ...........            115   ...........
MATANUSKA EROSION STUDY, AK...........................  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
MCGRATH BANK STABLIZATION.............................  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
MEKORYUK HARBOR, AK...................................             50   ...........             50   ...........
PORT LIONS HARBOR, AK.................................             50   ...........             50   ...........
QUINHAGAK HARBOR, AK..................................  ..............  ...........            200   ...........
SAINT GEORGE NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, AK..............             75   ...........            500   ...........
SAND POINT HARBOR, AK.................................  ..............           50  ..............           50
SHIP CREEK WATERSHED, AK..............................             50   ...........             50   ...........
SITKA HARBOR, AK......................................             50   ...........            100   ...........
SKAGWAY HARBOR MODIFICATION, AK.......................             45   ...........             45   ...........
SKAGWAY RIVER FLOOD CONTROL, AK.......................             50   ...........             50   ...........
UNALAKLEET HARBOR, AK.................................             50   ...........             50   ...........
UNALASKA HARBOR, AK...................................            144   ...........            400   ...........
VALDEZ HARBOR EXPANSION, AK...........................  ..............          150  ..............          250
WHITTIER BREAKWATER, AK...............................             50   ...........             50   ...........

                     AMERICA SOMOA

TUTUILA HARBOR, AS....................................            100   ...........            100   ...........

                        ARIZONA

AGUA FRIA RIVER, AZ...................................            100   ...........            100   ...........
NAVAJO NATION, AZ, NM AND UT..........................            100   ...........            100   ...........
PIMA COUNTY, AZ.......................................            200   ...........            500   ...........
RILLITO RIVER, PIMA COUNTY, AZ........................            150   ...........            150   ...........
RIO DE FLAG, FLAGSTAFF, AZ............................  ..............          150  ..............          880
RIO SALADO OESTE, SALT RIVER, AZ......................            150   ...........            150   ...........
SANTA CRUZ RIVER, GRANT RD TO FT LOWELL RD, AZ........             50   ...........             50   ...........
SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, AZ...........            200   ...........            575   ...........
TRES RIOS, AZ.........................................  ..............          350  ..............        1,500
TUCSON DRAINAGE AREA, AZ..............................  ..............          100  ..............          200
VA SHLY-AY AKIMEL SALT RIVER RESTORATION PROJECT, AZ..            200   ...........            400   ...........

                       ARKANSAS

ARKANSAS RIVER LEVEES, AR.............................  ..............           50  ..............          150
ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION STUDY, AR AND OK............            910   ...........          1,500   ...........
HOT SPRINGS CREEK STUDY, AR...........................  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
MAY BRANCH, FORT SMITH, AR............................  ..............          100  ..............          100
NORTH LITTLE ROCK, DARK HOLLOW, AR....................  ..............          200  ..............          400
PINE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR................................  ..............          150  ..............          650
RED RIVER NAVIGATION, SW ARKANSAS, AR.................  ..............  ...........            583   ...........
SOUTHWEST ARK, LITTLE RIVER BASIN, AR.................  ..............  ...........            200   ...........
WHITE RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, AR AND MO............            400   ...........            800   ...........
WHITE RIVER MINIMUM FLOWS, AR.........................            150   ...........            300   ...........

                      CALIFORNIA

ALISO CREEK MAINSTEM, CA..............................            250   ...........            250   ...........
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CA..........................  ..............        1,275  ..............        2,600
ARANA GULCH WATERSHED, CA.............................             50   ...........             50   ...........
ARROYO SECO WATERSHED RESTORATION, CA.................            100   ...........            100   ...........
BALLONA CREEK ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA...............            100   ...........            150   ...........
BOLINAS LAGOON ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA..............  ..............          200  ..............          400
CALIFORNIA COSTAL SEDIMONT MASTER PLAN................  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CA.............................            100   ...........            100   ...........
COAST OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTH COAST REGION, LA COUNTY,     ..............  ...........            400   ...........
 CA...................................................
COYOTE DAM, CA........................................             50   ...........            150   ...........
FOLSOM DAM, CA........................................  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
GRAYSON AND MURDERER'S CREEKS, CA.....................            200   ...........            200   ...........
HUNTINGTON HARBOR DREDGING, CA........................  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
LAGUNA DE SANTA ROSA, CA..............................            200   ...........            200   ...........
LAKE ELSINORE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, CA...........            100   ...........            100   ...........
LLAGAS CREEK, CA......................................  ..............          225  ..............          225
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA................................            150   ...........            300   ...........
LOWER CACHE CREEK, YOLO COUNTY, WOODLAND AND VICIN-     ..............          200  ..............          200
 ITY..................................................
LOWER MISSION CREEK, CA...............................  ..............          200  ..............          600
MALIBU CREEK WATERSHED, CA............................            200   ...........            200   ...........
MARIN COUNTY SHORELINE, SAN CLEMENTE CREEK, CA........             25   ...........             25   ...........
MARINA DEL REY AND BALLONA CREEK, CA..................            170   ...........            250   ...........
MATILIJA DAM, CA......................................            150   ...........            150   ...........
MIDDLE CREEK, CA......................................  ..............           50  ..............           50
MORRO BAY ESTUARY, CA.................................            200   ...........            200   ...........
MUGU LAGOON, CA.......................................            100   ...........            100   ...........
N CA STREAMS, DRY CREEK, MIDDLETOWN, CA...............            200   ...........            200   ...........
N CA STREAMS, LOWER SACRAMENTO RVR RIPARIAN REVEGETATI            100   ...........            100   ...........
NAPA RIVER, SALT MARSH RESTORATION, CA................            100   ...........          1,000   ...........
NAPA VALLEY WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, CA..................            150   ...........            150   ...........
NEWPORT BAY (LA-3 SITE DESIGNATION), CA...............  ..............  ...........            350   ...........
NEWPORT BAY HARBOR, CA................................  ..............          100  ..............          100
NEWPORT BAY/SAN DIEGO CREEK WATERSHED, CA.............            200   ...........            200   ...........
OCEAN BEACH, CA.......................................             50   ...........             50   ...........
ORANGE COUNTY, SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA..............            200   ...........            200   ...........
ORANGE COUNTY SAMP, CA................................  ..............  ...........            200   ...........
PAJARO RIVER AT WATSONVILLE, CA.......................  ..............          275  ..............          400
PAJARO RIVER BASIN STUDY, CA..........................            100   ...........            100   ...........
PINE FLAT DAM, FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION..  ..............          200  ..............          200
PORT OF STOCKTON, CA..................................            100   ...........  ..............  ...........
POSO CREEK, CA........................................            100   ...........            100   ...........
PRADO BASIN ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, CA.............             50   ...........             50   ...........
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAMP, CA.............................  ..............  ...........          1,000   ...........
ROCK CREEK AND KEEFER SLOUGH, CA......................  ..............           25  ..............           25
RUSSIAN RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA...............            200   ...........            200   ...........
SACRAMENTO--SAN JOAQUIN DELTA, CA.....................            100   ...........            100   ...........
SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN COMPREHENSIVE BASIN  STUDY.          2,973   ...........          3,173   ...........
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA.............................             50   ...........             50   ...........
SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE, CA............................            100   ...........            398   ...........
SAN DIEGO COUNTY SAMP, CA.............................  ..............  ...........            500   ...........
SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHORELINE, CA........................  ..............  ...........            500   ...........
SAN FRANCISCO BAY, CA.................................            225   ...........            225   ...........
SAN JACINTO RIVER, CA.................................            100   ...........            100   ...........
SAN JOAQUIN RB, W STANISLAUS, DEL PUERTO AND SALADO               100   ...........            200   ...........
 CREE.................................................
SAN JOAQUIN RB, WEST STANISLAUS COUNTY, ORESTIMBA       ..............          100  ..............          100
 CREE.................................................
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, ARROYO PASAJERO, CA..........            100   ...........            100   ...........
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, CONSUMNES AND MOKELUMNE                  100   ...........            100   ...........
 RIVERS...............................................
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, FRAZIER CREEK, CA............            100   ...........            100   ...........
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, STOCKTON METROPOLITAN AREA,              100   ...........            100   ...........
 C....................................................
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, TUOLUMNE RIVER, CA...........            100   ...........            100   ...........
SAN JUAN CREEK, SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY, CA...............            100   ...........            100   ...........
SAN PABLO BAY WATERSHED, CA...........................            240   ...........            240   ...........
SANTA ANA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, BIG BEAR LAKE, CA....            100   ...........            100   ...........
SANTA CLARA RIVER, CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CA..........            100   ...........            100   ...........
SANTA CRUZ PORT, CA...................................             50   ...........             50   ...........
SANTA ROSA CREEK WATERSHED, CA........................            260   ...........            260   ...........
SANTA YNEZ RIVER, CA..................................             50   ...........             50   ...........
SOLANA BEACH, CA......................................  ..............  ...........            500   ...........
SONOMA CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, CA......................            150   ...........            150   ...........
STRONG AND CHICKEN RANCH SLOUGHS, CA..................            100   ...........            100   ...........
SUTTER COUNTY, CA.....................................            677   ...........            677   ...........
TAHOE BASIN, CA AND NV................................            690   ...........          1,500   ...........
TIJUANA RIVER VALLEY, CA..............................            200   ...........            200   ...........
UPPER PENITENCIA CREEK, CA............................            559   ...........            559   ...........
UPPER SANTA ANA RIVER WATERSHED, CA...................            150   ...........            150   ...........
VENTURA AND SANTA BARBARA COUNTY SHORELINE, CA........            100   ...........            100   ...........
VENTURA HARBOR SAND BYPASS, CA........................            150   ...........            150   ...........
WESTMINSTER, COYOTE AND CARBON CANYON CREEK WATERSHEDS             50   ...........             50   ...........
WESTMINSTER, EAST GARDEN GROVE, CA....................            200   ...........            200   ...........
WHITE RIVER AND DEER CREEK, CA........................            100   ...........            100   ...........
WILDCAT AND SAN PABLO CREEKS, CA......................             50   ...........             50   ...........
YUBA RIVER BASIN, CA..................................  ..............          250  ..............          250

                       COLORADO

ADAMS COUNTY, CO......................................  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
ARAPAHO COUNTY, CO....................................  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
CACHE-LAPOUDRE RIVER FLOODWAY IMPROVEMENT.............  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
CHATFIELD, CHERRY CREEK AND BEAR CREEK RESERVOIRS,  CO            200   ...........            200   ...........
FOUNTAIN CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, CO....................            330   ...........            330   ...........
ZUNI AND SUN VALLEY REACHES, SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, CO...  ..............          200  ..............          200

     COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS

ROTA HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, CNMI.......................             25   ...........             25   ...........
TINIAN HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, CNMI.....................             50   ...........             50   ...........

                       DELAWARE

DELAWARE COAST, CAPE HENLOPEN TO FENWICK ISLAND, DE...  ..............          100  ..............          314

                        FLORIDA

HILLSBOROUGH RIVER, FL................................            280   ...........            280   ...........
LAKE WORTH INLET, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL...............            126   ...........            126   ...........
PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL............................  ..............          100  ..............          100
ST JOHNS COUNTY BEACHES, FL...........................  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
ST PETERSBURG HARBOR, FL..............................  ..............          100  ..............          100
WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER, FL...............................            271   ...........            271   ...........

                        GEORGIA

ALLATOONA LAKE, GA....................................            186   ...........            186   ...........
ARABIA MOUNTAIN, GA...................................             50   ...........            100   ...........
AUGUSTA, GA...........................................            230   ...........            230   ...........
DEEP AND CAMP CREEKS WATERSHED STUDY..................  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
INDIAN, SUGAR, ENTRENCHMENT AND FEDERAL PRISON  CREEKS            100   ...........            100   ...........
LONG ISLAND, MARSH AND JOHNS CREEKS, GA...............            150   ...........            150   ...........
METRO ATLANTA WATERSHED, GA...........................             50   ...........             50   ...........
NEW SAVANNAH BLUFF LOCK AND DAM, GA AND SC............  ..............           50  ..............          276
SAVANNAH HARBOR ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, GA.............            100   ...........            100   ...........
SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA.........................  ..............          428  ..............          428
SAVANNAH HARBOR SEDIMENT CONTROL WORKS, GA AND SC.....             50   ...........             50   ...........
SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, GA AND SC.........            120   ...........            120   ...........
UTOY, SANDY AND PROCTOR CREEKS, GA....................            150   ...........            150   ...........

                        HAWAII

ALA WAI CANAL, OAHU, HI...............................            135   ...........            135   ...........
BARBERS POINT HARBOR MODIFICATION, OAHU, HI...........  ..............           50  ..............           50
KAHUKU, HI............................................            100   ...........            100   ...........
KAWAIHAE DEEP DRAFT HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, HAWAII, HI..            142   ...........            142   ...........
KIHEI AREA EROSION, HI................................             50   ...........            100   ...........
NAWILIWILI HARBOR MODIFICATION, KAUAI, HI.............             50   ...........            300   ...........
WAIKIKI EROSION CONTROL, HI...........................  ..............           48  ..............          250
WAILUPE STREAM FLOOD CONTROL STUDY, OAHU, HI..........  ..............           50  ..............           50

                         IDAHO

BOISE RIVER, BOISE, ID................................             50   ...........             50   ...........
LITTLE WOOD RIVER, GOODING, ID........................            145   ...........  ..............          145

                       ILLINOIS

ALEXANDER AND PULASKI COUNTIES, IL....................            147   ...........            147   ...........
DES PLAINES RIVER, IL (PHASE II)......................            335   ...........            500   ...........
ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION, IL..................          1,051   ...........          1,500   ...........
ILLINOIS RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, IL..............            365   ...........            600   ...........
PEORIA RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, IL.....................  ..............          237  ..............          237
ROCK RIVER, IL AND WI.................................            182   ...........            182   ...........
UPPER MISS AND ILLINOIS NAV STUDY, IL, IA, MN, MO AND           1,000   ...........          3,685   ...........
 WI...................................................
UPPER MISS RVR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IL, IA, MO, MN AND           1,814   ...........          1,814   ...........
 WI...................................................
UPPER MISS RVR SYS FLOW FREQUENCY STUDY, IL, IA, MN,              463   ...........            463   ...........
 M....................................................
WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL...................................  ..............          200  ..............          200
WOOD RIVER LEVEE, IL..................................  ..............          130  ..............          130

                        INDIANA

COLUMBUS WATERFRONT STUDY, IN.........................  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
INDIANA HARBOR, IN....................................            248   ...........            500   ...........
JOHN T MYERS LOCKS AND DAM, IN AND KY.................  ..............        1,346  ..............        2,100
VINCENNES WATERFROUNT STUDY, IN.......................  ..............  ...........            100   ...........

                         IOWA

DAVENPORT, IA.........................................  ..............           61  ..............          125
DES MOINES AND RACCOON RIVERS, IA.....................             51   ...........            400   ...........
FORT DODGE, IA........................................             87   ...........            100   ...........
LOWER DES MOINES, IA AND MO...........................             89   ...........            150   ...........

                        KANSAS

GRAND (NEOSHO) RIVER BASIN STUDY......................  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
MANHATTAN, KS.........................................  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
TOPEKA, KS............................................            125   ...........            125   ...........
TURKEY CREEK BASIN, KS AND MO.........................  ..............          250  ..............          434
UPPER TURKEY CREEK, KS................................            125   ...........            125   ...........
WALNUT AND WHITEWATER RIVER WATERSHEDS, KS............            110   ...........            110   ...........

                       KENTUCKY

COVINGTON WATERFROUNT STUDY, KY.......................  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
GREENUP LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, KY AND OH..........  ..............        1,302  ..............        1,302
METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, JEFFERSON COUNTY, KY.........            225   ...........            225   ...........
METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, MILL CREEK BASIN, KY.........            187   ...........            187   ...........
METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, SOUTHWEST, KY................            140   ...........            140   ...........
OHIO RIVER MAIN STEM SYSTEMS STUDY, KY, IL, IN, PA, WV          3,000   ...........          3,000   ...........

                       LOUISIANA

AMITE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION,  LA            150   ...........            300   ...........
AMITE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, BAYOU MANCHAC, LA........            100   ...........            200   ...........
ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF AND BLACK, L            100   ...........            540   ...........
BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, LA.....  ..............          100  ..............          200
BARATARIA BASIN MARSH CREATION AND RESTORATION, LA....  ..............          100  ..............          200
BAYOU SORREL LOCK, LA.................................  ..............          110  ..............          300
CALCASIEU LOCK, LA....................................            150   ...........            480   ...........
CALCASIEU RIVER BASIN, LA.............................            150   ...........            350   ...........
CALCASIEU RIVER PASS SHIP CHANNEL ENLARGEMENT, LA.....  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
GIWW ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA........................            100   ...........            250   ...........
HURRICANE PROTECTION, LA..............................            125   ...........            300   ...........
JEFFERSON PARISH, LA..................................  ..............           25  ..............           25
LAFAYETTE PARISH, LA..................................  ..............          125  ..............          400
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA......            585   ...........          1,500   ...........
ORLEANS PARISH, LA....................................  ..............           25  ..............           25
OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, LA AND AR..................             37   ...........             37   ...........
PLAQUEMINES PARISH URBAN FLOOD CONTROL, LA............            100   ...........            300   ...........
PORT OF IBERIA, LA....................................            185   ...........            540   ...........
ST BERNARD PARISH URBAN FLOOD CONTROL, LA.............            150   ...........            325   ...........
ST CHARLES PARISH URBAN FLOOD CONTROL, LA.............            100   ...........            275   ...........
ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH, LA.......................            100   ...........            200   ...........
WEST SHORE, LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN, LA....................  ..............          100            200   ...........

                       MARYLAND

ANACOSTIA RIVER, PG COUNTY LEVEE, MD AND DC...........            248   ...........            248   ...........
BALTIMORE METRO, GWYNNS FALLS, MD.....................  ..............           50  ..............          250
CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINE EROSION, MD, VA AND DE.......            350   ...........            350   ...........
EASTERN SHORE, MD.....................................            350   ...........          1,070   ...........
LOWER POTOMAC ESTUARY WATERSHED, ST MARY'S, MD........            100   ...........            100   ...........
MIDDLE POTOMAC RIVER BASIN, MD........................            350   ...........            350   ...........
SMITH ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, MD............  ..............          249  ..............          249

                     MASSACHUSETTS

BLACKSTONE RIVER WATERSHED RESTORATION, MA AND RI.....            140   ...........            140   ...........
BOSTON HARBOR (45-FOOT CHANNEL), MA...................            362   ...........            362   ...........
COASTAL MASSACHUSETTS ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, MA.......             80   ...........             80   ...........
MUDDY RIVER, BROOKLINE AND BOSTON, MA.................  ..............          322  ..............          322
SOMERSET AND SEARSBURG DAMS, DEERFIELD RIVER, MA AND               62   ...........             62   ...........
 VT...................................................

                       MICHIGAN

DETROIT RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, MI..............  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
DETROIT RIVER MASTER PLAN, MI.........................  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
DETROIT RIVER SEAWALLS, MI............................  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.........  ..............  ...........            174   ...........
GREAT LAKES NAV SYST STUDY, MI, IL, IN, MN, NY, OH, PA            375   ...........            750   ...........
JOHN GLENN GREAT LAKES STRATEGIC PLAN.................  ..............  ...........            500   ...........
LANSING, MI...........................................  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
ROUGE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, MI................  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
MUSKEGON LAKE ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING..................  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
ST CLAIR RIVER AND LAKE ST CLAIR, MI..................  ..............  ...........            124   ...........
WHITE LAKE ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, MI.................  ..............  ...........            100   ...........

                       MINNESOTA

MINNESOTA DAM SAFETY, MN..............................            222   ...........            222   ...........
RED RIVER OF THE NORTH BASIN, MN, ND, SD AND MANITOBA,          1,078   ...........          2,078   ...........
 C....................................................
UPPER MISS RIVER WATERSHED MGMT, LAKE ITASCA TO  L/D 2            400   ...........            400   ...........

                      MISSISSIPPI

PEARL RIVER WATERSHED, MS.............................            363   ...........            363   ...........

                       MISSOURI

CHESTERFIELD, MO......................................  ..............          385  ..............          550
KANSAS CITYS, MO AND KS...............................            400   ...........            575   ...........
MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, UNITS L455 AND R460-471,             100   ...........            331   ...........
 MO...................................................
RIVER DES PERES, MO...................................  ..............          130  ..............          130
SPRINGFIELD, MO.......................................            140   ...........            400   ...........
ST. LOUIS AREA MISSISSIPPI RIVERFRONT, MO AND IL......            185   ...........            185   ...........
ST. LOUIS HARBOR, MO AND IL...........................  ..............           73  ..............           73
ST. LOUIS FLOOD PROTECTION, MO........................  ..............          150  ..............          150
SWOPE PARK INDUSTRIAL AREA, KANSAS CITY, MO...........  ..............          100  ..............          200
WEARS CREEK, JEFFERSON CITY, MO.......................             57   ...........             57   ...........

                        MONTANA

YELLOWSTONE RIVER CORRIDOR, MT........................            300   ...........            300   ...........

                       NEBRASKA

LOWER PLATTE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NE................            139   ...........            139   ...........
SAND CREEK WATERSHED, WAHOO, NE.......................  ..............          130  ..............          130
WESTERN SARPY AND CLEAR CREEK, NE.....................  ..............          180  ..............          180

                        NEVADA

LAS VEGAS WASH, NORTH LAS VEGAS, NV...................            100   ...........            500   ...........
LOWER LAS VEGAS WASH WETLANDS, NV.....................            100   ...........            400   ...........
TRUCKEE MEADOWS, NV...................................  ..............          650  ..............        1,000
WALKER RIVER BASIN, NV................................             25   ...........             25   ...........

                     NEW HAMPSHIRE

CONNECTICUT RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, NH AND VT....             25   ...........             25   ...........
MERRIMACK RIVER BASIN, NH.............................            350   ...........            500   ...........
PORTSMITH HARBOR AND PISCATAQUA RIVER TURNING BASIN...  ..............  ...........            100   ...........

                      NEW JERSEY

BARNEGAT BAY, NJ......................................  ..............  ...........  ..............          200
DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, NJ, NY, DE AND  PA            100   ...........            325   ...........
GREAT EGG INLET TO TOWNSEND INLET, NJ.................  ..............          300  ..............          300
HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS,  NJ..  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, LOWER PASSAIC RIVER, NJ......            206   ...........            300   ...........
LOWER PASSAIC RIVER, NJ...............................             30   ...........             30   ...........
MANASQUAN INLET TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ.................  ..............          200  ..............          400
NEW JERSEY SHORE PROTECTION, HEREFORD TO CAPE MAY INLE            100   ...........            100   ...........
NEW JERSEY SHORELINE ALTERNATIVE LONG-TERM NOURISHMENT            100   ...........            100   ...........
PASSAIC RIVER, HARRISON, NJ...........................  ..............          270  ..............          270
PECKMAN RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NJ.....................             50   ...........             50   ...........
RAHWAY RIVER BASIN, NJ................................            100   ...........            200   ...........
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, HIGHLANDS, NJ.........            100   ...........            200   ...........
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, KEYPORT, NJ...........            100   ...........            200   ...........
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, LEONARDO, NJ..........            200   ...........            300   ...........
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, PORT MONMOUTH, NJ.....  ..............          100  ..............          250
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, UNION BEACH, NJ.......  ..............          100  ..............          100
SHREWSBURY RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NJ..................            100   ...........            200   ...........
SOUTH RIVER, RARITAN RIVER BASIN, NJ..................  ..............          100  ..............          200
STONY BROOK, MILLSTONE RIVER BASIN, NJ................            100   ...........            200   ...........
UPPER PASSAIC RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NJ...............  ..............           30  ..............           30
UPPER ROCKAWAY RIVER, NJ..............................            300   ...........            300   ...........
WOODBRIDGE RIVER BASIN, NJ............................            100   ...........            200   ...........

                      NEW MEXICO

EAST MESA, LAS CRUCES, NM.............................  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
ESPANOLA VALLEY, RIO GRANDE AND TRIBUTARIES, NM.......             50   ...........             50   ...........
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE BOSQUE, NM..........................            100   ...........            400   ...........
NAVAJO NATION, NM.....................................  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
RIO GRANDE BASIN, NM, CO AND TX.......................            300   ...........            300   ...........
SANTA FE, NM..........................................            205   ...........            205   ...........
SW VALLEY FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION STUDY, ALBUQUERQUE, N  ..............          250  ..............          450

                       NEW YORK

AUSABLE RIVER BASIN, ESSEX AND CLINTON COUNTIES, NY...             50   ...........             50   ...........
BOQUET RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, ESSEX COUNTY, NY........             50   ...........             50   ...........
BRONX RIVER BASIN, NY.................................             30   ...........             30   ...........
BUFFALO RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, NY..............  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY............................            258   ...........            258   ...........
FREEPORT CREEK, VILLAGE OF FREEPORT, NY...............            100   ...........            100   ...........
HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, GOWANUS CANAL, NY AND NJ.....            360   ...........            500   ...........
HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, NY AND NJ....................            676   ...........          1,800   ...........
HUDSON RIVER HABITAT RESTORATION, NY..................  ..............           50  ..............           50
JAMAICA BAY, MARINE PARK AND PLUMB BEACH, ARVERNE,  NY             50   ...........             50   ...........
JAMAICA BAY, MARINE PARK AND PLUMB BEACH, NY..........            200   ...........            200   ...........
LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR, NY...............................             30   ...........             30   ...........
LINDENHURST, NY.......................................             50   ...........             50   ...........
NEW YORK HARBOR ANCHORAGE AREAS, NY...................            364   ...........            364   ...........
NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, ASHAROKEN, NY.............            200   ...........            200   ...........
NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, BAYVILLE, NY..............            250   ...........            250   ...........
ONONDAGA COUNTY WATERSHED, NY.........................  ..............  ...........            500   ...........
ONONDAGA LAKE, NY.....................................            300   ...........            300   ...........
SAW MILL RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NY....................             50   ...........             50   ...........
SOUTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, NY........................             50   ...........             50   ...........
SOUTH SHORE OF STATEN ISLAND, NY......................            200   ...........            200   ...........
UPPER DELAWARE RIVER WATERSHED, NY....................            146   ...........            146   ...........
UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN ENVIRON RESTORATION,  NY            161   ...........            161   ...........

                    NORTH CAROLINA

BOGUE BANKS, NC.......................................            300   ...........            450   ...........
CURRITUCK SOUND, NC...................................            200   ...........            300   ...........
DARE COUNTY BEACHES, HATTERAS AND ORACOKE ISLANDS,  NC            150   ...........            525   ...........
NEUSE RIVER BASIN, NC.................................            100   ...........            100   ...........
SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH, NC.................            173   ...........            300   ...........

                         OHIO

ASHTABULA RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, OH............  ..............          160  ..............          480
BELPRE, OH............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............          350
BUTLER COUNTY, OH.....................................            243   ...........            243   ...........
OHIO RIVERFRONT STUDY, CINCINNATI, OH.................  ..............  ...........            200   ...........
COLUMBUS METROPOLITAN AREA, OH........................            100   ...........            100   ...........
HOCKING RIVER BASIN ENV RESTORATION, MONDAY CREEK,  OH            205   ...........            205   ...........
HOCKING RIVER BASIN ENV RESTORATION, SUNDAY CREEK,  OH            225   ...........            225   ...........
MAHONING RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, OH AND PA......             40   ...........            750   ...........
MUSKINGUM BASIN SYSTEM STUDY, OH......................            225   ...........            225   ...........
POLK RUN CREEK, OH....................................  ..............  ...........            100   ...........

                       OKLAHOMA

MIAMI AND VICINITY, OK................................            380   ...........            380   ...........
MOUNTAIN FORK WATERSHEAD STUDY, OK....................  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
OOLOGAH LAKE WATERSHED, OK AND KS.....................            310   ...........            450   ...........
RED RIVER WATERWAY, OK, TX AND AR.....................             50   ...........             50   ...........
SOUTHEAST OKLAHOMA WATER RESOURCE STUDY, OK...........            100   ...........            100   ...........
SPAVINAW CREEK, OK....................................  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
WASHITA RIVER BASIN, OK...............................  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
WISTER LAKE WATERSHED, OK.............................             50   ...........            200   ...........

                        OREGON

AMAZON CREEK, OR......................................            100   ...........            100   ...........
LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR AND WA.            300   ...........            300   ...........
TILLAMOOK BAY AND ESTUARY ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR...            266   ...........            266   ...........
WALLA WALLA RIVER WATERSHED, OR AND WA................            390   ...........            800   ...........
WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN REVIEW, OR.....................            100   ...........            100   ...........
WILLAMETTE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, OR...........            249   ...........            249   ...........
WILLAMETTE RIVER FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION, OR...........            150   ...........            150   ...........

                     PENNSYLVANIA

BLOOMSBURG, PA........................................            204   ...........            204   ...........
CHRISTINA RIVER WATERSHED, PA, DE AND MD..............            100   ...........            300   ...........
SCHUYLKILL RIVER, WISSAHICKON, PA.....................            100   ...........            100   ...........
SCHUYLKILL RIVER BASIN ESTAURINE, PA..................  ..............  ...........            250   ...........
UPPER OHIO RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM STUDY, PA..........  ..............  ...........            400   ...........

                      PUERTO RICO

RIO NIGUA AT SALINAS, PR..............................  ..............          147  ..............          147

                     RHODE ISLAND

QUONSET DAVISVILLE PORT, RI...........................             25   ...........  ..............  ...........
RHODE ISLAND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, RI................             25   ...........             25   ...........

                    SOUTH CAROLINA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC....................            475   ...........            625   ...........
BROAD RIVER BASIN, SC.................................            103   ...........            250   ...........
CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC.................................            135   ...........            135   ...........
PAWLEYS ISLAND, SC....................................  ..............          100  ..............          100
REEDY RIVER, SC.......................................             50   ...........             50   ...........
SANTEE DELTA ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, SC............             50   ...........             50   ...........
WACCAMAW RIVER, SC....................................             25   ...........             25   ...........

                     SOUTH DAKOTA

JAMES RIVER, SD.......................................  ..............  ...........          1,000   ...........
NIOBRARA RIVER AND MISSOURI RIVER, SD.................            100   ...........            100   ...........
WATERTOWN, SD.........................................  ..............  ...........            750   ...........

                       TENNESSEE

CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TENNESSEE RIVER,TN..................  ..............          252  ..............        4,000
DAVIDSON COUNTY, TN...................................            240   ...........            240   ...........
FRENCH BROAD WATERSHED, TN............................            205   ...........            264   ...........
LICK BRANCH WATERSHED, TN.............................  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
WASHINGTON DEE CEE BASIN, TN..........................  ..............  ...........            100   ...........

                         TEXAS

BOIS D'ARC CREEK, BONHAM, TX..........................            100   ...........            100   ...........
BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, WHITE OAK BAYOU, TX....            160   ...........            160   ...........
CEDAR BAYOU, TX.......................................  ..............          310  ..............          310
COLONIAS-LWR RIO GRANDE BASIN ALONG TX AND MEXICO       ..............          100  ..............          100
 BORDER...............................................
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX.......................            410   ...........            410   ...........
FREEPORT HARBOR, TX...................................            200   ...........            500   ...........
FREEPORT HURRICANE PROTECTION LEVEE, TX...............            100   ...........            100   ...........
GIWW MODIFICATIONS, TX................................            225   ...........            225   ...........
GIWW, BRAZOS RIVER TO PORT O'CONNOR, TX...............            225   ...........            225   ...........
GIWW, HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS RIVER, TX.................  ..............          275  ..............          275
GIWW, MATAGORDA BAY, TX...............................  ..............          480  ..............          480
GIWW, PORT O'CONNOR TO CORPUS CHRISTI BAY, TX.........            228   ...........            228   ...........
GREENS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX.............................  ..............          150  ..............          150
GUADALUPE AND SAN ANTONIO RIVER BASINS, TX............            300   ...........            800   ...........
HARRIS GULLY, TX......................................  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN, TX........................            600   ...........          2,000   ...........
MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL (PORT LAVACA), TX..............  ..............  ...........            150   ...........
MIDDLE BRAZOS RIVER, TX...............................             50   ...........             50   ...........
MUSTANG BAYOU, BRAZORIA COUNTY, TX....................            137   ...........            137   ...........
NORTH BOSQUE RIVER, TX................................  ..............           50  ..............           50
NORTHWEST EL PASO, TX.................................            228   ...........            228   ...........
NUECES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, TX......................             87   ...........             87   ...........
RAYMONDVILLE DRAIN, TX................................  ..............          250  ..............          250
RESACAS AT BROWNSVILLE, TX............................            200   ...........            200   ...........
SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX............................            400   ...........            400   ...........
SABINE PASS TO GALVESTON BAY, TX......................            250   ...........            250   ...........
SOUTH MAIN CHANNEL, TX................................  ..............          200  ..............          200
SPARKS ARROYO COLONIA, EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS..........            137   ...........            137   ...........
SULPHUR RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, TX...........             50   ...........             50   ...........
TEXAS CITY CHANNEL (50-FOOT PROJECT), TX..............  ..............          200  ..............          750
UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TX.........................            433   ...........          1,200   ...........

                         UTAH

PARK CITY WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, UT....................  ..............  ...........            500   ...........
PROVO AND VICINITY, UT................................             25   ...........             25   ...........

                       VIRGINIA

AIWW, BRIDGES AT DEEP CREEK, VA.......................  ..............          275  ..............          275
CLINCH RIVER WATER PROJECT............................  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
ELIZABETH RIVER, HAMPTON ROADS, VA....................  ..............          471  ..............          471
FOURMILE RUN, VA......................................             37   ...........             37   ...........
JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA...............................  ..............          109  ..............          109
JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA AND NC (SECTION                 300   ...........            400   ...........
 216).................................................
LOWER RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER BASIN, VA....................            157   ...........            157   ...........
LYNNHAVEN RIVER BASIN, VA.............................             37   ...........            237   ...........
NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, CRANEY ISLAND, VA........            350   ...........            350   ...........
POWELL RIVER WATERSHED, VA............................            100   ...........            100   ...........

                      WASHINGTON

BELLINGHAM BAY, WA....................................             50   ...........             50   ...........
CENTRALIA, WA.........................................  ..............          500  ..............        1,500
CHEHALIS RIVER BASIN, WA..............................            250   ...........            250   ...........
COMMENCEMENT BAY AND HYLEBOS WATERWAY, PIERCE COUNTY..            200   ...........            500   ...........
DUWAMISH AND GREEN RIVER BASIN, WA....................  ..............          265  ..............          265
LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA........................            450   ...........            450   ...........
PUGET SOUND CONFINED DISPOSAL SITES, WA...............             50   ...........             50   ...........
PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE MARINE HABITAT RESTORATION, WA..            250   ...........            900   ...........
SKAGIT RIVER, WA......................................            450   ...........          1,000   ...........
STILLAGUAMISH RIVER BASIN, WA.........................  ..............          100  ..............          100
WHITE RIVER FLOOD CONTROL AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, W            200   ...........            200   ...........

                     WEST VIRGINIA

ISLAND CREEK AT LOGAN, WV.............................  ..............          697  ..............          697
LITTLE KANAWHA RIVER, WV..............................  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
NEW RIVER BASIN, WV, NC AND VA........................            235   ...........            235   ...........

                       WISCONSIN

BARABOO RIVER, WI.....................................            350   ...........            350   ...........
FOX RIVER, WI.........................................             40   ...........             40   ...........
FOX RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, WI..................  ..............  ...........            200   ...........

                        WYOMING

JACKSON HOLE RESTORATION, WY..........................  ..............          108  ..............          108

                     MISCELLANEOUS

COASTAL FIELD DATA COLLECTION.........................          2,500   ...........          4,500   ...........
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STUDIES............................            100   ...........            100   ...........
FLOOD DAMAGE DATA.....................................            300   ...........            300   ...........
FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES.......................          7,500   ...........          9,000   ...........
GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM (SECTION 401).....  ..............  ...........          2,000   ...........
HYDROLOGIC STUDIES....................................            400   ...........            400   ...........
INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES...........................            400   ...........            400   ...........
NATIONAL SHORELINE....................................            500   ...........            500   ...........
OTHER COORDINATION PROGRAMS...........................          4,850   ...........          5,250   ...........
PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES.........................          6,000   ...........          8,300   ...........
PRECIPITATION STUDIES (NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE)......            300   ...........            300   ...........
REMOTE SENSING/GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM SUP-                 200   ...........            200   ...........
 PORT.................................................
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT..............................         22,000   ...........         25,000   ...........
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTERS..........            100   ...........            100   ...........
STREAM GAGING (U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY)................            500   ...........            500   ...........
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS................................            500   ...........            500   ...........
TRI-SERVICE CADD/GIS TECHNOLOGY CENTER................            450   ...........            450   ...........
REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE........        -21,430   ...........        -44,061   ...........
ADJUSTMENT FOR ACTUAL RETIREMENT ACCRUALS.............           -517   ...........  ..............  ...........
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS...................         83,488        18,995        113,657        34,647
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hot Springs, AR.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for a 
reconnaissance study to identify and evaluate alternatives for 
flood damage prevention.
    Red River Navigation, Southwest Arkansas, AR and LA.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $583,000 to complete the 
cost-shared navigation study. The Committee understands that 
navigation in the Shreveport, LA, to Index, AR 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 all study and project documents.
    Southwest Arkansas Study, AR.--The Committee has provided 
$200,000 to initiate and complete an expanded reconnaissance 
study to address flooding, environmental restoration, water 
quality and other water resource needs in the Red River and 
Little Red River basins.
    Rio de Flag, Flagstaff, AZ.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $880,000 for preconstruction engineering and design 
phase for Rio de Flag, Flagstaff, AZ.
    American River Watershed, CA.--The Committee has provided 
$2,600,000 for continuing analyses on the American River 
Watershed Long-Term Study, which recommends authorization of 
the so-called Folsom Dam Mini-Raise. In the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999, Congress directed the Corps of 
Engineers to study a potential increase in flood storage at the 
Folsom reservoir. The Corps has completed its review and has 
concluded that raising the existing dam by 7 feet would provide 
substantially increased flood control benefits, and is 
technically feasible, economically justified and 
environmentally preferable, to other flood control options for 
the Sacramento region. The Congress has methodically authorized 
and funded improvements in the Sacramento region to reduce 
flooding and these efforts should continue without further 
delay. The Mini-Raise is widely supported by virtually all of 
the congressional delegation as well as State and local 
officials and the environmental community. However, the project 
continues to have narrow but persistent opposition. The 
Committee believes it is time to provide Sacramento with much 
needed and deserved flood protection. It is the Committee's 
understanding that the Chief's report for this project is 
currently under review. The longer the review drags on, the 
longer tens of thousands of citizens in the Sacramento, 
California, region will remain in jeopardy from catastrophic 
flooding. The Committee directs that this review be expedited 
such that the project will be eligible for authorization in 
2002. The Committee also strongly urges the congressional 
authorizing committees to authorize the Folsom Mini-Raise in 
the next Water Resources Development Act.
    Coast of California, Los Angeles County, CA.--The Committee 
has provided $400,000 to continue data collection and surveys.
    Huntington Harbor Dredging, CA.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $100,000 for a reconnaissance study for 
ecosystem restoration of Huntington Harbor, CA.
    Napa River Salt Marsh Restoration, CA.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $1,000,000 to complete the feasibility 
study and to initiate preconstruction engineering and design 
activities for Napa River Salt Marsh Restoration, CA.
    Sacramento and San Joaquin Comprehensive Basin Study, CA.--
The Committee recommendation includes $3,173,000 to complete 
the feasibility study and to initiate preconstruction 
engineering and design.
    Tahoe Basin, CA & NV.--The Committee has included 
$1,500,000 to continue the comprehensive watershed study of the 
Lake Tahoe Basin Watershed.
    Adams County, CO.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$100,000 for a reconnaissance study for ecosystem restoration 
study for Adams County, CO.
    New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam, GA & SC.--The Committee 
has provided $276,000 to complete the preconstruction 
engineering and design phase of the New Savannah Bluff Lock and 
Dam, GA & SC.
    Savannah Harbor Estuary Restoration Study, GA.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $100,000 for a reconnaissance 
study for ecosystem restoration study for the Savannah Harbor 
Estuary Restoration Study, GA.
    Waikiki Erosion Control, HI.--The Committee has provided 
$250,000 to continue preconstruction engineering and design for 
the Waikiki Erosion Control, HI, project.
    Upper Mississippi & Illinois Navigation Study, IL, IA, MN, 
MO, & WI.--The Committee recommendation includes $3,685,000 to 
continue the system feasibility phase of this study to ensure 
timely completion in fiscal year 2004. The Committee 
understands that the Corps has submitted an Interim Report in 
compliance with direction in the fiscal year 2003 Senate Energy 
and Water Development bill.
    Columbus Waterfront Development Project, Columbus, IN.--The 
Committee has provided $100,000 to initiate and complete a 
reconnaissance study of the Columbus, IN waterfront area.
    Vincennes Waterfront Development Project, Vincennes, IN.--
The Committee has provided $100,000 to initiate and complete a 
reconnaissance study of the Vincennes, IN waterfront area.
    Covington Waterfront Development Project, Covington, KY.--
The Committee has provided $100,000 to initiate and complete a 
reconnaissance study of the Covington, KY waterfront area.
    Muddy River, Boston, MA.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $322,000 to complete the preconstruction engineering 
and design phase of the flood damage reduction and ecosystem 
restoration for the Muddy River in Boston and Brookline, MA.
    Detroit River Environmental Dredging, MI.--The Committee 
has provided $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study of 
dredging and disposal requirements of contaminated sediments in 
the Detroit River.
    Detroit River Master Plan, Detroit, MI.--The Committee has 
provided $100,000 to continue the Detroit River Master Plan 
study.
    Detroit River Seawalls, Detroit, MI.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $100,000 for continued studies of the 
Detroit River Seawalls.
    Rouge River Environmental Dredging, MI.--The Committee has 
provided $100,000 for a reconnaissance study on remediation of 
contaminated sediments in the Rouge River.
    Red River of the North Basin, MN, ND, SD, & Manitoba, 
Canada.--The Committee recommendation includes $2,078,000 to 
continue feasibility studies and incorporate the Fargo 
Southside, ND, formerly being studied under the Continuing 
Authorities Program.
    The Committee is aware that several stakeholder groups in 
the Red River Basin are coordinating water resource management 
efforts across State and international borders by forming the 
Red River Basin Commission (RRBC). The Committee recognizes 
this Commission, which includes local, provincial, State, and 
Federal interests, as a non-profit entity registered in the 
States of Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and the 
Canadian Province of Manitoba.
    Missouri River Levee System, Units L455 & R 460-471, MO & 
KS.--The Committee has provided $331,000 to complete the 
feasibility study.
    Portsmouth Harbor & Piscataqua River, Upper Turning Basin, 
NH & ME.--The Committee recommendation includes $100,000 for a 
reconnaissance study of navigation improvements at Portsmouth 
Harbor.
    Hudson Raritan Estuary -- Hackensack Meadowlands Ecosystem 
Restoration, NJ.--The Committee has provided $100,000 to 
initiate the feasibility study.
    Onondaga County Watershed Management Study, NY.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $500,000 to initiate 
comprehensive watershed studies for the Onondaga County 
Watershed.
    Ohio Riverfront Study, Cincinnati, OH.--The Committee has 
provided $200,000 to initiate a feasibility study.
    James River, SD.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$1,000,000 to complete reconnaissance studies and to initiate 
feasibility studies for flood damage reduction in the James 
River basin.
    Watertown, SD.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$750,000 for initiation of a general reevaluation report for a 
flood protection project at Watertown, SD.
    Guadalupe and San Antonio River Basins, TX.--The Committee 
has provided $800,000 to continue basinwide environmental 
restoration studies and for basin hydrologic studies to update 
flood plain mapping in Goliad, Karnes, and Wilson Counties.
    Harris Gully, Houston, TX.--The Committee has provided 
$100,000 for studies to determine the feasibility of 
alternative measures relating to flood damage reduction, 
ecosystem restoration, and other allied purposes for Harris 
Gully, Houston, TX.
    Matagorda Ship Channel (Port Lavaca), TX.--The Committee 
has provided $150,000 for studies of navigation improvements of 
the Matagorda Ship Channel.
    Duwamish and Green River Basin, WA.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $265,000 to complete the 
preconstruction engineering and design phase for ecosystem 
restoration of the Duwamish and Green River Basin.
    Coastal Field Data Collection.--Within the funds provided, 
the Committee has provided $1,000,000 for the Southern 
California Beach Processes Study and $1,000,000 for Hurricane 
Evaluation Studies in the State of Hawaii and U.S. Territories.
    Flood Plain Management Services.--Within the amount 
provided for the Flood Plain Management Services Program, the 
Committee urges the Corps to develop information and decision-
support tools for hurricane preparedness in the State of Hawaii 
and U.S. Territories and to conduct a flood plain management 
study for Dexter, MO, and a flood plain management study for 
Cumberland County, TN.
    Planning Assistance to States.--The Committee has provided 
$8,300,000 for the Planning Assistance to States Program. 
Within the funds provided, the Committee urges the Corps of 
Engineers to assist in the development of a watershed 
management assessment plan for Lamar County, Alabama, initiate 
studies for Cross Lake, LA, and a drought watershed management 
plan for Big Hole, MT.
    The Committee acknowledges the serious impacts of coastal 
erosion due to continued climate change and other factors in 
the following communities in Alaska: Bethel, Dillingham, 
Shishmaref, Kakatovik, Kivalina, Unalakleet, and Newtok. The 
Committee directs the Corps to perform an analysis of the costs 
associated with continued erosion of these communities, 
potential costs associated with moving the affected communities 
to new locations (including collocation with existing 
communities), and to identify the expected time line for a 
complete failure of the useable land associated with each 
community. An additional $2,000,000 above the President's 
request has been provided for this work, of which $1,000,000 is 
for Shishmaref, AK.
    Due to rapid erosion occurring at Shishmaref, AK, the 
Committee directs the Corps to expedite all necessary 
environmental studies to document the impacts of this severe 
and continuing erosion.
    Other Coordination Programs.--Within the funds provided, 
the Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for activities 
related to the Environmental Improvement Program for the Lake 
Tahoe Basin, CA & NV, $200,000 for the American Heritage Rivers 
Program, $500,000 for international waters studies, and 
$600,000 for the Tri-Service CADD/GIS Technology Center.
    Research and Development.--Within the funds provided for 
the Corps of Engineers R&D Program, $2,000,000 is provided for 
innovative technology demonstrations for urban flooding and 
channel restoration. These demonstrations shall be conducted in 
close coordination and cooperation with the Urban Water 
Research Program of the Desert Research Institute of Nevada. 
$500,000 is provided to conduct investigations, assessment, and 
demonstrations on large-scale submerged aquatic vegetation 
restoration techniques and technologies. Appropriate 
demonstration activities should be considered within the 
Chesapeake Bay, MD.
    The Committee is aware that WRDA 1999, Sec. 503 authorized 
the test and demonstration of innovative technologies for 
environmentally sound management of contaminated sediments. The 
Committee encourages the Corps of Engineers to continue its 
work in this matter in cooperation with the University of New 
Hampshire.

                         CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL

Appropriations, 2002....................................  $1,715,951,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................   1,415,612,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,745,102,000

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

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

MOBILE HARBOR, AL.......................             200             200
WALTER F GEORGE POWERHOUSE AND DAM, AL            16,473          16,473
 AND GA (MAJOR REH......................
WALTER F GEORGE POWERPLANT, AL AND GA              2,852           2,852
 (MAJOR REHAB)..........................

                 ALASKA

BETHEL BANK STABILIZATION, AK...........  ..............           3,000
BUCKLAND ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE,    ..............           4,000
 AK.....................................
CHIGNIK HARBOR, AK......................           3,120           3,120
DILLINGHAM BANK STABILIZATION...........  ..............           3,000
GALENA, AK..............................  ..............           3,000
NOME HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS, AK............           4,500           4,500
ST PAUL HARBOR, AK......................           5,880           5,880
SEWARD HARBOR, AK.......................  ..............           3,500
WRANGELL HARBOR, AK.....................           5,000           2,000

                 ARIZONA

RIO SALADO, PHOENIX AND TEMPE REACHES,            14,300          17,000
 AZ.....................................

                ARKANSAS

FOURCHE BAYOU BASIN, AR.................  ..............             500
MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION           3,360           3,360
 SYSTEM, AR.............................
MONTGOMERY POINT LOCK AND DAM, AR.......          20,000          24,000
RED RIVER BELOW DENISON DAM, AR, LA, TX.  ..............           5,000
RED RIVER EMERGENCY BANK PROTECTION, AR,  ..............           7,500
 LA.....................................

               CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM               4,900           4,900
 MODIFICATIONS), C......................
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CA............          22,280          22,280
CORTE MADERA CREEK, CA..................             100             100
GUADALUPE RIVER, CA.....................           5,000           9,000
HAMILTON AIRFIELD WETLANDS RESTORATION,            3,900           5,000
 CA.....................................
HARBOR/SOUTH BAYWATER RECYCLING, CA.....  ..............           7,000
IMPERIAL BEACH, SILVER STRAND SHORELINE,             200             600
 CA.....................................
KAWEAH RIVER, CA........................          10,151          11,000
LOS ANGELES HARBOR, CA..................  ..............          10,300
LOWER SACRAMENTO AREA LEVEE                        1,680           1,680
 RECONSTRUCTION, CA.....................
MARYSVILLE/YUBA CITY LEVEE                         5,900           5,900
 RECONSTRUCTION, CA.....................
MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA...............             500             500
MID-VALLEY AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA           5,172           5,172
NAPA RIVER, CA..........................           5,000           8,000
OAKLAND HARBOR (50 FOOT PROJECT), CA....           5,000           5,000
PETALUMA RIVER, CA......................           4,000          10,700
SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION                   2,600           2,600
 PROJECT, CA............................
SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEPWATER SHIP CHANNEL,             250             400
 CA.....................................
SACRAMENTO RIVER, GLENN-COLUSA                       806             806
 IRRIGATION DISTRICT, CA................
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TO STOCKTON, CA.......  ..............           1,150
SAN LORENZO RIVER, CA...................           2,751           2,751
SAN RAMON VALLEY RECYCLED WATER PROJECT,  ..............             500
 CA.....................................
SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA............          29,700          32,000
SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA................             100             100
SOUTH SACRAMENTO COUNTY STREAMS, CA.....           2,000           7,000
STOCKTON METROPOLITIAN FLOOD CONTROL               1,000  ..............
 REIMBURSEMENT, CA......................
SUCCESS DAM, TULE RIVER, CA (DAM SAFETY)           1,000           1,000
SURFSIDE-SUNSET-NEWPORT BEACH, CA.......           4,300           4,300
TULE RIVER, CA..........................  ..............           1,500
UPPER SACRAMENTO AREA LEVEE                        3,510           3,510
 RECONSTRUCTION, CA.....................

                DELAWARE

DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, ROOSEVELT INLET              500           1,200
 TO LEWES BEACH.........................
DELAWARE COAST PROTECTION, DE...........             294             294
DELAWARE COAST, REHOBOTH BEACH TO DEWEY            1,000           3,000
 BEACH, DE..............................

                 FLORIDA

BREVARD COUNTY, FL......................  ..............           1,500
CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL....................           3,600           3,600
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL........         108,202          98,202
DADE COUNTY, FL.........................  ..............           2,000
EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM            19,526          19,526
 RESTORATION, FL........................
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL.................           4,028           4,028
JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM POWERHOUSE, FL           1,742           1,742
 AND GA (MAJOR R........................
KISSIMMEE RIVER, FL.....................          23,727          23,727
MIAMI HARBOR CHANNEL, FL................          13,100          13,100
PALM BEACH COUNTY (REIMBURSEMENT), FL...  ..............           1,500
PANAMA CITY HARBOR, FL..................           1,645           1,645
ST JOHNS COUNTY, FL.....................  ..............             300

                 GEORGIA

BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA....................          11,116          11,116
BUFORD POWERHOUSE, GA (MAJOR REHAB).....           3,374           3,374
HARTWELL LAKE POWERHOUSE, GA AND SC                2,493           2,493
 (MAJOR REHAB)..........................
LOWER SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN, GA AND SC...             250             250
OATES CREEK, RICHMOND COUNTY, GA (DEF                850             850
 CORR)..................................
RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND             1,000           1,000
 SC.....................................
THURMOND LAKE POWERHOUSE, GA AND SC                3,500           3,500
 (MAJOR REHAB)..........................

                 HAWAII

HAWAII WATER MANAGEMENT.................  ..............           2,000
IAO STREAM FLOOD CONTROL, MAUI, HI (DEF              419             419
 CORR)..................................
KAUMALAPAU HARBOR, HI...................  ..............           2,000
KIKIAOLA SMALL BOAT HARBOR, KAUAI, HI...           4,303           4,303
MAALAEA HARBOR, MAUI, HI................           2,262           2,262

                ILLINOIS

CHAIN OF ROCKS CANAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER,           2,037           2,037
 IL (DEF CORR)..........................
CHICAGO SHORELINE, IL...................          19,000          21,000
COOK COUNTY, IL.........................  ..............             400
DES PLAINES RIVER, IL...................  ..............           2,500
EAST ST LOUIS, IL.......................             800             800
LOCK AND DAM 24, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL            10,000          10,000
 AND MO (MAJOR REH......................
LOVES PARK, IL..........................           2,973           2,973
MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS, IL......          10,000          12,000
MELVIN PRICE LOCK AND DAM, IL AND MO....           1,200           1,200
NUTWOOD LEVEE, IL.......................  ..............             200
OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL             77,000          68,000
 AND KY.................................
UPPER MISS RVR SYSTEM ENV MGMT PROGRAM,           12,200          15,000
 IL, IA, MN, MO.........................

                 INDIANA

CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS (ENVIRONMENTAL       ..............             500
 INFRASTRUCTURE)........................
INDIANA HARBOR (CONFINED DISPOSAL                  6,800           6,800
 FACILITY), IN..........................
INDIANAPOLIS, WHITE RIVER (NORTH), IN...           2,000           2,000
LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, IN................           3,562           3,562
MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN (MAJOR REHAB).....           7,094           7,094
OHIO RIVER GREENWAY PUBLIC ACCESS, IN...             732             732

                  IOWA

DES MOINES RECREATIONAL RIVER AND         ..............           1,400
 GREENBELT, IA..........................
LOCK AND DAM 11, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IA             1,366           2,250
 (MAJOR REHAB)..........................
LOCK AND DAM 12, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IA             5,404           5,404
 (MAJOR REHAB)..........................
MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE                  17,500          18,600
 MITIGATION, IA, NE, K..................
MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, IA, NE, KS            6,978           9,000
 AND MO.................................
PERRY CREEK, IA.........................           4,000           4,500

                 KANSAS

ARKANSAS CITY, KS.......................           3,000           3,000

                KENTUCKY

DEWEY LAKE, KY (DAM SAFETY).............             600             600
KENTUCKY LOCK AND DAM, TENNESSEE RIVER,           27,400          31,000
 KY.....................................
MCALPINE LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, KY             6,192          13,000
 AND IN.................................
METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, BEARGRASS                 3,838           3,838
 CREEK, KY..............................
METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, POND CREEK, KY.           2,000           2,000

                LOUISIANA

ASCENSION PARISH (ENVIRONMENTAL           ..............             300
 INFRASTRUCTURE), LA....................
COMITE RIVER, LA........................           3,000           3,000
EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH (ENVIRONMENTAL    ..............             300
 INFRASTRUCTURE)........................
GRAND ISLE AND VICINITY, LA.............  ..............             213
INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL LOCK, LA..           9,000          15,000
J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA.........          11,016          20,000
LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN AND VICINITY, LA                4,900           7,000
 (HURRICANE PROTECT.....................
LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LA (HURRICANE               410             410
 PROTECTION)............................
LIVINGSTON PARISH (ENVIRONMENTAL          ..............             300
 INFRASTRUCTURE), LA....................
MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET, LA.......  ..............             500
MISSISSIPPI RIVER SHIP CHANNEL, GULF TO              200             200
 BATON ROUGE, L.........................
NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE, LA (HURRICANE                 900           1,500
 PROTECTION)............................
OUACHITA RIVER LEVEES...................  ..............           1,500
SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA, LA.................          20,083          55,000
WEST BANK AND VICINITY, NEW ORLEANS, LA.           5,000          10,000

                MARYLAND

ASSATEAGUE ISLAND, MD...................           6,900           6,900
ATLANTIC COAST OF MARYLAND, MD..........             200             200
BALTIMORE HARBOR ANCHORAGES AND                   10,590          10,590
 CHANNELS, MD AND VA....................
CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTOR AND   ..............           2,000
 PROTECTION, MD.........................
CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD AND             2,000           3,000
 VA.....................................
CUMBERLAND, MD..........................  ..............           5,000
POPLAR ISLAND, MD.......................          10,600          10,600

              MASSACHUSETTS

CAPE COD CANAL RAILROAD BRIDGE, MA                 8,500           8,500
 (MAJOR REHAB)..........................
WEST HILL DAM, MA (MAJOR REHAB).........           2,800           2,800

                MICHIGAN

GENESEE COUNTY (ENVIRONMENTAL             ..............             200
 INFRASTRUCTURE), MI....................
NEGAUNEE, MI............................  ..............             575
SAULT STE MARIE LOCK REPLACEMENT, MI....  ..............           3,000
TWELVE TOWNS DRAIN RETENTION FACILITY...  ..............             300

                MINNESOTA

BRECKENRIDGE, MN........................  ..............           3,000
CROOKSTON, MN...........................           3,202           3,202
LOCK AND DAM 3, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN              3,000           3,000
 (MAJOR REHAB)..........................
MILLE LACS REGIONAL WASTEWATER, MN......  ..............           1,000

               MISSISSIPPI

DESOTO COUNTY, MS.......................  ..............           4,000
GULFPORT HARBOR, MS.....................  ..............             800
MISSISSIPPI (SECTION 592)...............  ..............          12,000
PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS...................           2,476           5,834

                MISSOURI

BLUE RIVER BASIN, KANSAS CITY, MO.......             200             200
BLUE RIVER CHANNEL, KANSAS CITY, MO.....           6,676          11,000
BOIS BRULE DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICT,   ..............             200
 MO.....................................
MERAMEC RIVER BASIN, VALLEY PARK LEVEE,              600           4,000
 MO.....................................
MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS             1,700           3,500
 (REG WORKS), MO........................
STE GENEVIEVE, MO.......................             300             300
TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO AND AR (DAM SAFETY).          10,000          12,000

                 MONTANA

FORT PECK FISH HATCHERY, MT.............  ..............           8,000
RURAL MONTANA...........................  ..............           3,500

                NEBRASKA

ANTELOPE CREEK, NE......................  ..............           2,000
MISSOURI NATIONAL RECREATIONAL RIVER, NE             750             750
 AND SD.................................
WOOD RIVER, GRAND ISLAND, NE............           3,536           3,536

                 NEVADA

RURAL NEVADA, NV........................  ..............          13,000
TROPICANA AND FLAMINGO WASHES, NV.......          33,900          45,000

               NEW JERSEY

BRIGANTINE INLET TO GREAT EGG INLET                  500           1,000
 (ABSECON ISLAND).......................
CAPE MAY INLET TO LOWER TOWNSHIP, NJ....              82              82
DELAWARE RIVER MAIN CHANNEL, NJ, PA AND           12,000          10,000
 DE.....................................
GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET AND PECK BEACH,               460             460
 NJ.....................................
LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAY POINT,            2,000           2,000
 NJ.....................................
PASSAIC RIVER PRESERVATION OF NATURAL              3,000           3,000
 STORAGE AREAS, N.......................
RAMAPO AND MAHWAH RIVERS, MAHWAH, NJ AND             500             500
 SUFFERN, NY............................
RAMAPO RIVER AT OAKLAND, NJ.............           5,241           5,241
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, NJ......           1,000           1,000
RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK SUB-              5,000           7,000
 BASIN, NJ..............................
SANDY HOOK TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ........           4,434           4,434
TOWNSENDS INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET, NJ...           7,000           8,000

               NEW MEXICO

ACEQUIAS IRRIGATION SYSTEM, NM..........           1,500           5,200
ALAMOGORDO, NM..........................           5,400           5,400
CENTRAL NEW MEXICO, NM..................  ..............           8,000
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE FLOOD PROTECTION,                  800             800
 BERNALILLO TO BELE.....................
RIO GRANDE FLOODWAY, SAN ACACIA TO                   800             800
 BOSQUE DEL APACHE......................

                NEW YORK

ATLANTIC COAST OF NYC, ROCKAWAY INLET TO             450             450
 NORTON POINT...........................
EAST ROCKAWAY INLET TO ROCKAWAY INLET              1,000           1,000
 AND JAMAICA BAY........................
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY....             500             500
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, NY..           2,750           2,750
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY AND           120,000         110,000
 NJ.....................................

             NORTH CAROLINA

BRUNSWICK COUNTY BEACHES, NC............             700             700
STANLEY COUNTY WASTEWATER, NC...........  ..............           1,000
WEST ONSLOW BEACH AND NEW RIVER INLET,             1,200           1,200
 NC.....................................
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC...................          24,650          41,000

              NORTH DAKOTA

BUFORD-TRENTON IRRIGATION DISTRICT LAND            1,000           2,500
 ACQUISITION............................
DEVILS LAKE, ND.........................  ..............           5,000
GARRISON DAM AND POWER PLANT, ND (MAJOR            6,500           6,500
 REHAB).................................
GRAFTON, PARK RIVER, ND.................  ..............           1,000
GRAND FORKS, ND--EAST GRAND FORKS, MN...          30,000          40,000
HOMME LAKE, ND (DAM SAFETY).............           2,272           2,272
SHEYENNE RIVER, ND......................           2,417           2,417

                  OHIO

HOLES CREEK, WEST CARROLLTON, OH........  ..............           2,000
METROPOLITAN REGION OF CINCINNATI, DUCK            3,270           4,000
 CREEK, OH..............................
MILL CREEK, OH..........................           1,100           4,500
WEST COLUMBUS, OH.......................           2,000           3,000

                OKLAHOMA

SKIATOOK LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY)..........           3,000           3,000
TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY)...           4,600           4,600

                 OREGON

BONNEVILLE POWERHOUSE PHASE II, OR AND             8,913           8,913
 WA (MAJOR REHAB).......................
COLUMBIA RIVER CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS, OR   ..............           5,000
 AND WA.................................
COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY FISHING ACCESS               5,800           5,800
 SITES, OR AND WA.......................
ELK CREEK LAKE, OR......................           1,000           1,000
LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN BANK                      100             100
 PROTECTION, OR AND WA..................
LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM                     2,000  ..............
 RESTORATION, OR AND WA.................
WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE CONTROL, OR           6,000           8,000

              PENNSYLVANIA

LACKAWANNA RIVER, OLYPHANT, PA..........           1,161           1,161
LOCKS AND DAMS 2, 3 AND 4, MONONGAHELA            36,017          42,000
 RIVER, PA..............................
PRESQUE ISLE PENINSULA, PA (PERMANENT)..             580           1,080
SAW MILL RUN, PITTSBURGH, PA............           4,103           4,103
SCHUYLKILL RIVER PARK, PA...............  ..............           1,000
WYOMING VALLEY, PA (LEVEE RAISING)......           9,439           9,439

               PUERTO RICO

ARECIBO RIVER, PR.......................           5,000           5,000
PORTUGUES AND BUCANA RIVERS, PR.........           5,500           5,500
RIO DE LA PLATA, PR.....................             500             500
RIO GRANDE DE MANATI, PR................           4,981           4,981
RIO PUERTO NUEVO, PR....................           8,778           8,778
SAN JUAN HARBOR, PR.....................           1,457           1,457

             SOUTH CAROLINA

CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC (DEEPENING AND               4,539           6,500
 WIDENING)..............................
HARTWELL LK,CLEMSON UPPER AND LOWER                5,791           5,791
 DIVERSION, SC (DAM S...................
MYRTLE BEACH STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION, SC.  ..............             400

              SOUTH DAKOTA

BIG SIOUX RIVER, SIOUX FALLS, SD........           3,964           3,964
CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE            1,700           9,500
 SIOUX, SD..............................
MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, SD..........             750             750
PIERRE, SD..............................           1,426           6,000

                TENNESSEE

BLACK FOX, OAKLANDS AND MURFREE SPRINGS   ..............           2,300
 WETLANDS, TN...........................

                  TEXAS

BOSQUE AND LEON RIVERS, TX..............  ..............           1,000
BRAYS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX................           3,798           3,798
CLEAR CREEK, TX.........................           1,200           1,200
DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, TX...........  ..............           9,744
EL PASO, TX.............................           1,000           1,000
HOUSTON-GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS,            19,487          36,000
 TX.....................................
JOHNSON CREEK, UPPER TRINITY BASIN,                3,636           3,636
 ARLINGTON, TX..........................
NECHES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES SALTWATER             7,000           7,000
 BARRIER, TX............................
NORTH PADRE ISLAND, PACKERY CHANNEL, TX.  ..............           4,000
RED RIVER BASIN CHLORIDE CONTROL, TX....  ..............           2,000
SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, TX.....           3,219           3,219
SIMS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX.................           9,000           9,000

                  UTAH

UPPER JORDAN RIVER, UT..................             500             500

                 VERMONT

VERMONT DAMS REMEDIATION, VT............  ..............             500

                VIRGINIA

AIWW BRIDGE AT GREAT BRIDGE, VA.........           3,401           3,401
EMBREY DAM, VA..........................  ..............           2,500
JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA AND NC           6,600           6,600
 (MAJOR REHAB)..........................
LYNCHBURG (COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW), VA.  ..............             500
NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS (DEEPENING),             477  ..............
 VA.....................................
RICHMOND (COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW), VA..  ..............             500
ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, HEADWATERS                850             850
 AREA, VA...............................
SANDBRIDGE BEACH, VA....................  ..............           1,400
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (HURRICANE                        120             120
 PROTECTION)............................

               WASHINGTON

COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR            98,000          87,000
 AND ID.................................
GRAYS HARBOR, WA........................              50              50
HOWARD HANSON DAM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION,           5,776           7,500
 WA.....................................
LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE                4,600           4,600
 COMPENSATION, WA, OR...................
MT ST HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA.......             281             281
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA (DAM SAFETY).......           1,200           2,500
SHOALWATER BAY SHORELINE EROSION, WA....  ..............           1,000
THE DALLES POWERHOUSE (UNITS 1-14), WA             3,000           3,000
 AND OR (MAJOR REH......................

              WEST VIRGINIA

BLUESTONE LAKE, WV (DAM SAFETY).........           8,500          13,100
LEVISA AND TUG FORKS AND UPPER                    10,400          16,900
 CUMBERLAND RIVER, WV, V................
LONDON LOCKS AND DAM, KANAWHA RIVER, WV           11,934          11,934
 (MAJOR REHAB)..........................
LOWER MUD RIVER, WV.....................  ..............             750
MARMET LOCK, KANAWHA RIVER, WV..........          10,978          58,500
ROBERT C BYRD LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER,           1,500           1,500
 WV AND OH..............................
WINFIELD LOCKS AND DAM, KANAWHA RIVER,               200             200
 WV.....................................

                WISCONSIN

LAFARGE LAKE, WI........................           4,361           4,361

              MISCELLANEOUS

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (SECTION            10,000          20,000
 206)...................................
AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROGRAM...........           3,000           5,000
BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL                1,500           1,500
 (SECTION 204)..........................
DAM SAFETY AND SEEPAGE/STABILITY                   5,000          10,000
 CORRECTION PROGRAM.....................
DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES               9,000           9,000
 PROGRAM................................
EMERGENCY STREAMBANK AND SHORELINE                 7,000           9,000
 PROTECTION (SEC 14)....................
EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION.................          20,000          20,000
FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 205)....          30,000          45,000
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--BOARD                   45              45
 EXPENSE................................
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--CORPS                  185             185
 EXPENSE................................
NAVIGATION MITIGATION PROJECT (SECTION               500           2,000
 111)...................................
NAVIGATION PROJECTS (SECTION 107).......           7,000           9,100
PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF          16,000          23,000
 THE ENVIRONME..........................
SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT              8,000           8,000
 AND DEMONSTRATIO.......................
SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECTS (SECTION             5,000           5,000
 103)...................................
SNAGGING AND CLEARING PROJECT (SECTION             1,000           1,000
 208)...................................
REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND           -103,454        -228,360
 SLIPPAGE...............................
ADJUSTMENT FOR ACTUAL RETIREMENT                  -2,388  ..............
 ACCRUALS...............................
                                         -------------------------------
      TOTAL, CONSTRUCTION GENERAL.......       1,415,612       1,745,102
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bethel Emergency Bank Stabilization Project, Bethel, 
Alaska.--The Committee is aware that extenuating circumstances 
and the dire situation with regard to the Bethel Emergency Bank 
Stabilization project. Therefore, the Committee urges the Corps 
of Engineers to take all steps necessary to address the rapidly 
deteriorating seawall in order to prevent its imminent 
collapse.
    Montgomery Point Lock and Dam, AR.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $24,000,000. The Committee understands 
that this is far less than the Corps capability for this 
important navigation project that contributes to the Nation's 
economic security, but in a constrained budget environment, is 
an increase over the budget amount.
    Red River Below Denison Dam, AR, LA, OK & TX.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 to continue the 
levee rehabilitation and bank stabilization project in 
Arkansas.
    Red River Emergency Bank Protection, AR, LA, OK & TX.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $7,500,000 to continue the 
project.
    Harbor/South Bay Water Recycling, CA.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $7,000,000 to continue construction of 
the project.
    Los Angeles Harbor Main Channel Deepening, CA.--The 
Committee has provided $10,300,000 to continue construction of 
the channel deepening project.
    Petaluma River, CA.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$10,700,000 for completion of this project.
    San Francisco Bay to Stockton, CA.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $1,150,000 for continuation of the 
General Reevaluation Reports on the Avon Turning Basin and for 
the minimal deepening of the San Francisco Bay to the Port of 
Stockton.
    South Sacramento County Streams, CA.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $7,000,000. The Committee understands 
that this is far less than the Corps capability for this 
project that will provide flood protection for more than 
100,000 people and 41,000 structures, but in a constrained 
budget environment, it is a significant increase over the 
budget amount.
    Central and Southern Florida, FL.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $98,202,000 to continue Everglades 
Restoration projects. This is a $10,000,000 reduction from the 
budget request. This should in no way be considered any 
diminution of interest or support for these vitally important 
ecosystem restoration projects by the Committee. Rather, this 
cut is due to recent questions raised concerning implementation 
of the restoration project. The Committee is concerned that the 
project may be too heavily weighted in favor of commercial 
development of water supplies rather than the restoration of 
historic water flow characteristics and water quality needed to 
save the Everglades. The Committee believes that the Corps 
should respond to these concerns and provide written 
notification to the Committee that addresses these concerns.
    Hawaii Water Management, HI.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $2,000,000 for continued construction of the Hawaii 
Water Management Project.
    Kaumalapau Harbor, HI.--The Committee has provided 
$2,000,000 for continued construction of the harbor project.
    Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation, IA, NE, KS, 
and MO.--The Committee recommendation includes $1,100,000 above 
the budget amount for habitat acquisition. Additional funding 
should be focused on acquisition of lands at the confluence of 
the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers near St. Louis, MO.
    Des Plaines River, IL (Phase I).--The Committee 
recommendation includes $2,500,000 to continue construction of 
the project.
    Olmsted Locks and Dam, Ohio River, IL & KY.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $68,000,000 to continue construction of 
the replacement navigation structure. This is a $9,000,000 
reduction from the budget request, but should in no way be 
considered any diminution of interest in this critically 
important portion of the Nation's inland waterway system by the 
Committee. Rather it reflects the extraordinarily unbalanced 
nature of the budget request and the Committee's attempt to 
restore some balance to this account. None of the funds 
provided for the Olmsted Locks and Dam Project are to be used 
to reimburse the Claims and Judgement Fund.
    Kentucky Lock and Dam, Tennessee River, KY.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $31,000,000. The Committee understands 
that this is considerably less than the Corps capability for 
this important navigation project that contributes to the 
Nation's economic security, but in a constrained budget 
environment, it is an increase over the budget request.
    McAlpine Lock and Dam, IN & KY.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $13,000,000. The Committee understands 
that this is considerably less than the Corps capability for 
this important navigation project that contributes to the 
Nation's economic security, but in a constrained budget 
environment, it is an increase over the budget request.
    Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock, LA.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $15,000,000. The Committee understands 
that this is considerably less than the Corps capability for 
this important navigation project, but in a constrained budget 
environment, it is an increase over the budget request.
    J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, LA.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $20,000,000 to continue construction of 
necessary navigation channel refinements, land purchases and 
development for mitigation of project impacts, and construction 
of project recreation and appurtenant features.
    Ouachita River Levees, LA.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $1,500,000 to continue construction of the project.
    Southeast Louisiana, LA.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $55,000,000. While this is a significant increase over 
the budget request, it is still far below the amount needed to 
fund the project at an optimum level.
    Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection, 
MD, PA, and VA.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$2,000,000 for continuation of the Taylor's Island Marsh 
Creation Project, and the Baltimore Harbor Middle Branch 
Wetland Creation Project.
    Cumberland, MD.--The Committee has provided $5,000,000 to 
continue this flood control project.
    Sault Ste. Marie (Replacement Lock), MI.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $3,000,000 to continue construction of 
the replacement lock.
    Breckenridge, MN.--$3,000,000 is included to continue 
construction of this vital flood control project.
    Mississippi Environmental Infrastructure, MS.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $12,000,000. Within the funds 
provided the Corps should continue on-going work at 
Pearlington, Hancock County, MS; Jefferson County, MS; 
Picayune, Pearl River County, MS; Gulfport, Harrison County, MS 
and is directed to give priority for initiation of assistance 
to Helena, Jackson County, MS; Town of Decatur, MS; and City of 
Newton, MS.
    Fort Peck Fish Hatchery, MT.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $8,000,000 for continuation of construction.
    Rural Montana, MT.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$3,500,000 to continue the Rural Montana Project. Within the 
funds provided, the Corps should give consideration to Grant 
Creek, Missoula County, and the cities of Belgrade, Helena, and 
Conrad.
    Stanly County Wastewater, NC.--The Committee has provided 
$1,000,000 for continued construction of this project.
    Wilmington Harbor, NC.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $41,000,000. The Committee understands that this is 
considerably less than the Corps capability for this important 
harbor project that contributes to the Nation's economic 
security, but in a constrained budget environment, it is an 
increase over the budget request.
    Devils Lake, ND.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$5,000,000 for construction of the Devils Lake outlet subject 
to certain conditions. The Committee also recognizes that the 
Corps has authority to use up to an additional $10,000,000 of 
previously appropriated funds for construction if the 
conditions mandated by Congress are met.
    Grafton, Park River, ND.--The Committee recommendation has 
included $1,000,000 to continue construction of this flood 
control project.
    Grand Forks, ND.--East Grand Forks, MN.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $40,000,000. While this is an increase 
over the budget request, it is still far below the amount 
needed to fund the project at an optimum level.
    Antelope Creek, NE.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$2,000,000 to continue construction of the project.
    Delaware Main Channel Deepening, NJ, PA, & DE.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 for construction 
of this project. However, the Committee has serious concerns 
about the project due to concerns raised in the General 
Accounting Office's review of the project's economic analysis. 
It is the Committee's understanding that the Corps is currently 
conducting an entirely new economic analysis to address the 
concerns that were raised in the GAO report and that this 
analysis will be subject to two independent peer reviews. The 
Committee believes this is a prudent action, however, until the 
project is shown to be technically sound, environmentally 
sustainable, and economically viable, the Committee directs 
that none of the funds provided should be used to award 
construction contracts. Further, the Secretary is required to 
provide written notification to the Committee that these 
requirements have been met before funds can be used for this 
purpose.
    Rural Nevada, NV.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$13,000,000 to continue the Rural Nevada project. Within the 
funds provided, the Corps is directed to give consideration to 
projects at Boulder City, Lyon County (Carson River Regional 
Water System), Gerlach, Incline Village, Round Hill, Mesquite, 
Moapa, Spanish Springs, Battle Mountain, Virgin Valley, Lawton-
Verdi, and Esmeralda County.
    Tropicana and Flamingo Washes, NV.--The Committee has 
provided $45,000,000 to continue construction of the project. 
The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 for 
reimbursement of work performed by the project non-Federal 
sponsor in accordance with Section 211 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996.
    Holes Creek, West Carrollton, OH.--The Committee 
recommendation has included $2,000,000 to continue construction 
of the project.
    Columbia River Channel Improvements, OR & WA.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 for continuation 
of the project.
    Lower Columbia River Ecosystem Restoration, OR & WA.--In 
keeping with the Committee's decision to not initiate any 
construction ``new starts'' in the fiscal year 2003 Committee 
recommendation, no funding has been provided.
    Locks and Dams 2, 3 and 4, Monongahela River, PA.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $42,000,000. The Committee 
understands that this is considerably less than the Corps 
capability for this important navigation project that 
contributes to the Nation's economic security, but in a 
constrained budget environment, it is an increase over the 
budget request.
    Presque Isle Peninsula, PA.--The Committee has provided 
$1,080,000 for the beach nourishment project at Presque Isle 
for both annual periodic nourishment and for construction of 
modifications to the North Pier to facilitate the stockpiling 
of sand.
    Charleston Harbor (Deepening/Widening), SC.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $6,500,000 for continued construction 
of the project.
    Myrtle Beach, SC.--The Committee has provided $400,000 for 
dune restoration work at Surfside Beach/Garden City authorized 
as a part of the Myrtle Beach Project but not constructed at 
the time of sand placement due to funding constraints.
    Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux, SD.--The 
Committee notes that Title VI of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999, as amended, authorizes funding to pay 
administrative expenses, implementation of terrestrial wildlife 
plans, activities associated with land transferred or to be 
transferred, and annual expenses for operating recreational 
areas. Within the funds provided, the Committee directs that 
not more than $1,000,000 shall be provided for administrative 
expenses, and that the Corps is to distribute remaining funds 
as directed by Title VI to the State of South Dakota, the 
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and Lower Brule Sioux Tribe.
    Dallas Floodway Extension, Texas.--The Committee has 
provided $9,744,000 to continue the overall project, including 
the Cadillac Heights feature, generally in accordance with the 
Chief of Engineers Report dated December 7, 1999.
    North Padre Island, Packery Channel, Texas.--The Committee 
is aware that design and environmental studies have been 
completed and construction initiated to ensure the project 
meets provisions of Section 556 of WRDA 99. To that end, the 
Committee has provided $4,000,000 to continue construction of 
the project.
    Red River Basin Chloride Control Project, TX, OK, AR, & 
LA.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 to complete the 
reevaluation effort, initiate plans and specifications, and 
continue monitoring for the Wichita River Basin portion of the 
project. Further, the Committee urges budgeting for this 
critical project that improves Red River water quality in four 
States.
    Sandbridge Beach, VA.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $1,400,000 to continue the project. The Committee is 
aware of questions concerning property ownership in the project 
area and directs that the funding provided shall not be used 
for construction contracts until these questions are resolved 
and the Committee notified of the resolution.
    Columbia River Fish Mitigation, WA, OR, and ID.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $87,000,000 to continue 
efforts associated with Columbia River Fish Mitigation. This is 
an $11,000,000 reduction from the budget request, but should in 
no way be considered any diminution of interest or support for 
these vitally important mitigation projects by the Committee. 
Rather it reflects the fiscal constraints with which the 
Committee is faced with. The Committee recommendation is 
$6,000,000 above fiscal year 2002 funding enacted for this 
project.
    Within the funds provided, the Committee recommendation 
includes $300,000 for a reconnaissance level investigation of 
Columbia River flood control operations to determine what 
changes, if any, would benefit endangered species, particularly 
salmon. Evaluation beyond the reconnaissance phase is subject 
to agency review and congressional notification.
    Mud Mountain Dam, WA.--The Committee has provided 
$2,500,000 to continue work on dam safety measures and the fish 
passage facility.
    Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper 
Cumberland River, WV, KY, & VA.--The Committee has provided 
$16,900,000 for continuation of the project. Within the funds 
provided, the Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for 
Buchanan County, VA; $500,000 for Dickenson County, VA; and 
$10,400,000 for Grundy, VA. Further, the Committee 
recommendation includes $800,000 for Kermit, Lower Mingo 
County, WV; $3,800,000 for McDowell County, WV; $700,000 for 
Upper Mingo County, WV; and $200,000 for Wayne County, WV.
    Aquatic Plant Control Program.--The Committee has provided 
$5,000,000 for the Aquatic Plant Control Program, the Nation's 
only Federally authorized research program for technology that 
focuses on the management of non-indigenous aquatic species. 
The Committee is aware of the growing problem of invasive plant 
infestation around the country and supports the Corps' and 
industries efforts to develop new management and control 
technologies. The Committee believes that success in management 
of these invasive species is dependent upon the research and 
development activities of this program. In an effort to 
maximize limited funding for eradication and harvesting, the 
Committee strongly recommends that these efforts be undertaken 
only where a local sponsor agrees to provide 50 percent of the 
cost of the work. Within the funds provided, $300,000 is for a 
cost shared effort with the State of South Carolina and 
$400,000 is for a cost shared effort with the State of Vermont.
    Dam Safety and Seepage Stability Correction Program.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 for the program. 
Within the funds provided, $5,000,000 is provided for the Corps 
to continue work on Waterbury Dam in Vermont.
    Idaho Dam Safety, Idaho.--The Committee encourages the 
Corps to provide assistance, within the authorities available 
to it, to the State of Idaho as it evaluates the need for 
maintenance of these deteriorating structures as well as the 
need for increased security.
    Ability to pay.--Section 103(m) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986, as amended, requires that all project 
cooperation agreements for flood damage reduction projects, to 
which non-Federal cost sharing applies, will be subject to the 
ability of non-Federal sponsors to pay their shares. Congress 
included this section in the landmark 1986 Act to ensure that 
as many communities as possible would qualify for Federal flood 
damage reduction projects, based more on needs and less on 
financial capabilities. The Secretary published eligibility 
criteria in 33 CFR 241, which requires a non-Federal sponsor to 
meet an ability-to-pay test. However, the Committee believes 
that the Secretary's test is too restrictive and operates to 
exclude most communities from qualifying for relief under the 
ability-to-pay provision. For example, 33 CFR 241.4(f) 
specifies that the test should be structured so that reductions 
in the level of cost-sharing will be granted in ``only a 
limited number of cases of severe economic hardship,'' and 
should depend not only on the economic circumstances within a 
project area, but also on the conditions of the state in which 
the project area is located. While within the letter of the 
law, the Secretary's policies do not appear to be keeping the 
spirit of the law. The Secretary is directed to report to the 
Appropriations Committees within 90 days on a proposal intended 
to be published in the Federal Register to revise 33 CFR 241 
eligibility criteria to allow a more reasonable and balanced 
application of the ability-to pay provision.

                     CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM

    The continuing project authorities listed below, allow the 
Corps great flexibility to respond to various, limited-scope, 
water resource problems facing communities throughout the 
Nation. This program has proven to be remarkably successful in 
providing a quick response to serious local problems. These 
problems range from flood control and navigation to bank 
stabilization and environmental restoration. The Committee has 
provided funds in excess of the budget request for virtually 
all of these accounts. As a general rule, once a project has 
received funds for the initial phases of any of these 
authorities, the project will continue to be funded as long as 
it proves to be environmentally sound, technically feasible, 
and economically justified, as applicable. With this in mind, 
the Committee has chosen to limit explicit direction of these 
project authorities.
    The Committee is aware that there are funding requirements 
for ongoing, continuing authorities projects that may not be 
accommodated within the funds provided for each program. It is 
not the Committee's intent that ongoing projects be terminated. 
If additional funds are needed to keep ongoing work in any 
program on schedule, the Committee urges the Corps to reprogram 
the necessary funds.
     Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration (Section 206).--The 
Committee has provided $20,000,000 for the Section 206 Program. 
Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes:
    $250,000 for the Arroyo Mocho, Ecosystem Restoration, CA, 
for the preliminary restoration plan; $185,000 for the 
Sweetwater Ecosystem Restoration, CA, for the preliminary 
restoration plan; $100,000 for a preliminary restoration plan 
and planning and design analysis for the St. Joseph River, 
South Bend, IN; $400,000 for the Chariton River/Rathbun Lake 
Watershed, IA, to continue feasibility study and initiate plans 
and specifications; $114,000 for the Duck Creek-Fairmont Park 
Wetland Restoration, IA for planning and design analysis; 
$250,000 for developing the plans and specifications for the 
Squaw Creek, IL, Ecosystem Restoration project; $285,000 to 
complete feasibility studies for the Lake Killarney, LA, 
restoration; $150,000 to complete the feasibility study for the 
Mill Creek, Littleton Pond, MA, restoration; $161,000 for plans 
and specifications and construction of the Belle Isle Piers, MI 
restoration; $100,000 for feasibility studies for controlling 
Eurasian watermilfoil in Clearwater Lake, MI; $250,000 to 
conduct a feasibility study of alternatives to control Eurasian 
watermilfoil in Houghton Lake, MI; $40,000 for the Little Sugar 
Creek, NC, restoration; $200,000 to prepare a preliminary 
restoration plan for the West Cary Stream Restoration, NC; 
$100,000 for the preliminary restoration plan and planning and 
design analysis for the Mason's Point Dike, NJ; $380,000 for 
Bottomless Lakes, NM; $233,000 for Jemez River, NM; $1,600,000 
to initiate planning, design, and implementation of various 
restoration projects for Tillamook Bay, OR; $50,000 for the 
preliminary restoration plan for Roaring Branch, VT; $240,000 
to complete plans and specifications and to initiate 
construction for the Lake Poygan, WI restoration; $140,000 to 
complete feasibility studies and initiate plans and 
specifications for the Menomonee River Watershed, WI; and 
$100,000 to initiate the planning and design analysis for the 
Trinity Creek, Mequon, WI, restoration.
    Navigation Projects (Section 107).--The Committee has 
provided $9,100,000 for the Section 107 Program. Within the 
amount provided, the recommendation includes:
    $40,000 to complete the detailed project report for the 
Oyster Point Marina, CA, project; $300,000 to complete the 
feasibility study for the Short Cut Canal project in Terrebonne 
Parish, LA; $125,000 to complete feasibility studies for the 
Rouge River, MI, navigation project; $100,000 to complete the 
feasibility study for the Tri State Commerce Park navigation 
Project in Iuka, MS; and $100,000 to initiate studies for the 
navigation project at Charlestown Breachway and Ninigret Pond, 
RI.
    Tatilik Harbor, Alaska.--Given concerns over the safety and 
security of port and maritime harbors in the wake of terrorist 
attacks on the United States, the Committee recognizes the 
importance of ensuring there is an adequate response in the 
case of a major oil spill near the Valdez terminal facility in 
Valdez, Alaska. The Committee also recognizes that nearly 20 
percent of the domestic oil supply of the United States flows 
via tanker from Valdez terminal to the Lower 48 States, and 
that a terrorist attack on the facility, or a natural or man-
made disaster around the terminal could temporarily suspend the 
flow of Alaska oil to the Lower 48 market. Further the 
Committee acknowledges that Tatitlik, Alaska is strategically 
located and designated as the primary alternate response site 
to stage an oil spill clean up effort if the port of Valdez is 
inaccessible. To this end, the Committee authorizes and directs 
the Corps of Engineers to take whatever steps necessary with 
existing funds authorized and appropriated under section 107 to 
begin and finalize construction of a small boat harbor at 
Tatitlik, Alaska.
    Navigation Mitigation Projects (Section 111).--The 
Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the Section 111 Program. 
Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes:
    $1,220,000 to initiate construction of the Saco River and 
Camp Ellis Beach, ME project to mitigate shoreline damages 
caused by the Federal navigation project.
    Project Modifications for Improvement of the Environment 
(Section 1135).--The Committee has provided $23,000,000 for the 
Section 1135 Program. Within the amount provided, the 
recommendation includes:
    $130,000 for feasibility studies for restoration of Ditch 
28, Mississippi County, AR; $25,000 for feasibility studies for 
modifications to Big Creek Spilllway, IA; $90,000 to complete 
the planning design analysis for the Honey Creek Wetlands 
project in IA; $25,000 for the Trail Creek, IN, for the 
planning and design analysis for a sea lamprey barrier; $30,000 
for the Black Mallard Creek, MI, for the planning and design 
analysis for a sea lamprey barrier; $100,000 to complete the 
feasibility studies for the project at Hennepin Marsh, MI; 
$70,000 for the planning and design analysis for a sea lamprey 
barrier at Rapid River, Delta County, MI; $451,000 to complete 
the analysis and for construction of the Lemay Wetlands 
Restoration, MO; $740,000 to complete feasibility studies and 
plans and specifications for the Pine Mountain Creek, (Cohansey 
River), NJ; project; $150,000 to complete feasibility studies 
of the Middle Harbor Restoration at East Harbor State Park, 
Marblehead, OH; $450,000 for construction of the Boyd's Marsh 
restoration project in Portsmouth, RI; and $1,351,000 for 
construction of Phase I of Drakes Creek, Hendersonville, TN 
project and initiation of Phase II.
    Emergency Streambank & Shoreline Protection Projects 
(Section 14).--The Committee has provided $9,000,000 for the 
Section 14 Program. Within the amount provided, the 
recommendation includes:
    $185,000 for construction of the Baker Canal, East Baton 
Rouge, LA project; $100,000 for the planning and design 
analysis for the Bell Isle South Shore, Detroit, MI project; 
$800,000 for completion of design and construction of the 
Detroit River Shoreline, Detroit, MI, project; $500,000 to 
initiate construction on the St. Cloud, MN project; $687,000 
for I-40 Rio Puerco, NM; $167,000 Paseo del Norte, NM; $415,000 
for Unamed Arroy, NM; and $600,000 for construction of the 
Cincinnati Waterworks, Hamilton County, OH project.
    Flood Control Projects (Section 205).--The Committee has 
provided $45,000,000 for the Section 205 Program. Within the 
amount provided, the recommendation includes:
    $100,000 for feasibility studies of flooding problems at 
Grubbs, AR; $200,000 for feasibility studies of flood 
protection measures for the Santa Venetia Flood Control Zone 7, 
CA; $4,500,000 to continue construction of the project for Van 
Bibber Creek at Arvada, CO; $100,000 to complete feasibility 
studies and initiate plans and specifications for Mosquito 
Creek at Council Bluffs, IA; $100,000 to initiate feasibility 
studies of flooding problems along the Cedar River in Waverly, 
IA; $1,000,000 to investigate flooding problems along Bayou 
Choupique in the vicinity of the Chitimacha Reservation in St. 
Mary Parish, LA; $1,000,000 to complete plans and 
specifications and initiate construction for the Braithwaite 
Park, Plaquemines Parish, LA, project; $300,000 to complete 
plans and specifications and initiate construction for the 
Dawson, MN, project; $100,000 to continue feasibility studies 
of flooding problems at Jordan, MN; $100,000 to initiate 
feasibility studies for Tchula Lake in Tchula, MS; $2,000,000 
for continued construction of the Wahpeton, ND, flood control 
project. The Committee is aware of the close hydraulic 
connection between this project and the Breckenridge, NM, 
project and encourages the Corps to coordinate these projects 
closely; $1,600,000 for Little Puerco Wash, Gallup, NM; 
$3,000,000 to complete plans and specifications for the 
nonstructural flood damage reduction project for Little Duck 
Creek, Cincinnati and Fairfax, OH; $100,000 for plans and 
specifications for the Beaver Creek, Bristol TN and VA, 
project; and $100,000 for feasibility studies for a flood 
damage reduction project along Richland Creek, Nashville, TN.
    Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material (Section 204).--The 
Committee has provided $1,500,000 for the Section 204 Program. 
Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes $25,000 
to initiate the feasibility phase for the Blackhawk Bottoms, 
Des Moines County, IA, project.
    Shoreline Protection Projects (Section 103).--The Committee 
has provided $5,000,000 for the Section 103 Program. Within the 
amount provided, the recommendation includes $100,000 to 
complete feasibility and initiate plans and specifications for 
the Luna Pier, MI, project and $250,000 to complete design and 
plans and specifications for the Chesapeake Bay Shoreline, 
Hampton, VA, project.

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

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $345,992,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     280,671,000
Committee recommendation................................     337,937,000

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

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

ALEXANDRIA TO THE GULF, LA............             420              420
BAYOU METO BASIN, AR..................  ...............           1,633
SOUTHEAST ARKANSAS, AR................  ...............             900
DONALDSONVILLE TO THE GULF, LA........             780              780
SPRING BAYOU, LA......................             505              505
COLDWATER RIVER BASIN BELOW ARKABUTLA              180              180
 LAKE, MS.............................
GERMANTOWN, TN........................             345              345
MEMPHIS METRO AREA, TN AND MS.........              25   ...............
MILLINGTON AND VICINITY, TN...........             150              150
MORGANZA TO THE GULF, LA..............           2,880            2,880
WOLF RIVER, MEMPHIS, TN...............             123              123
COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA....             600              600
                                       ---------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS           6,008            7,936

             CONSTRUCTION

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA,            36,690           36,690
 MS, MO AND TN........................
FRANCIS BLAND FLOODWAY DITCH (EIGHT                750              750
 MILE CREEK), AR......................
HELENA AND VICINITY, AR...............             660              660
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY,           42,360           49,885
 LA, MS, MO AND TN....................
ST FRANCIS BASIN, AR AND MO...........           1,970            4,200
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA           7,010            7,010
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA.................          18,873           19,173
LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY LEVEE, LA           2,449            2,449
MISSISSIPPI AND LOUISIANA ESTUARINE                 25               25
 AREAS, LA AND MS.....................
MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA..........           3,500            3,500
HORN LAKE CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES (INCL              300              300
 COW PEN CREEK), MS...................
YAZOO BASIN...........................         (10,550)         (44,000)
    BACKWATER PUMP, MS................             250           11,000
    BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS...........             200            1,200
    DEMONSTRATION EROSION CONTROL, MS.  ...............          19,500
    MAIN STEM, MS.....................              25               25
    REFORMULATION UNIT, MS............              25               25
    TRIBUTARIES, MS...................             200              200
    UPPER YAZOO PROJECTS, MS..........           9,850           12,050
ST JOHNS BAYOU AND NEW MADRID                      100            1,000
 FLOODWAY, MO.........................
NONCONNAH CREEK, TN AND MS............             605            1,605
WEST TENNESSEE TRIBUTARIES, TN........             100              100
                                       ---------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, CONSTRUCTION..........         125,942          171,347

              MAINTENANCE

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA,            66,465           66,465
 MS, MO AND TN........................
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR....             490              490
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR.....             441              441
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, AR..             105              105
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, AR..             135              135
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY,            7,185            8,130
 LA, MS, MO AND TN....................
ST FRANCIS BASIN, AR AND MO...........          10,580           11,180
TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS,           2,463            3,713
 AR AND LA............................
WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR.............           1,250            1,250
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL.....              50               50
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY.....              35               35
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA           2,095            2,095
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA.................          12,512           14,320
BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA...             210              210
BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA....              75               75
BONNET CARRE, LA......................           3,105            3,105
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA.....             510              510
LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, LA             125            2,375
MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA..........             860              860
OLD RIVER, LA.........................          11,520           11,520
TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA.           3,145            3,145
GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS.................             340              340
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS.....             286              286
VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS..................             330              330
YAZOO BASIN...........................         (26,910)         (37,470)
    ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS................           5,380            8,380
    BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS...........             115            3,115
    ENID LAKE, MS.....................           4,920            5,660
    GREENWOOD, MS.....................             825              825
    GRENADA LAKE, MS..................           5,700            6,120
    MAIN STEM, MS.....................           1,265            1,265
    SARDIS LAKE, MS...................           5,905            8,905
    TRIBUTARIES, MS...................           1,265            1,265
    WILL M WHITTINGTON AUX CHAN, MS...             450              450
    YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS..........             280              680
    YAZOO CITY, MS....................             805              805
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO.....             167              167
WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO...................           6,730            6,730
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN.....              96               96
MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, TN.....           1,750            1,750
FACILITY PROTECTION...................           1,000            1,000
MAPPING...............................           1,170            1,170
                                       ---------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, MAINTENANCE...........         162,135          179,548

REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND          -13,085          -21,474
 SLIPPAGE.............................
ADJUSTMENT FOR ACTUAL RETIREMENT                  -329   ...............
 ACCRUALS.............................
                                       =================================
      TOTAL, FLOOD CONTROL,                    280,671          337,937
       MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND
       TRIBUTARIES....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

    Bayou Meto Basin, AR.--The Committee has included 
$1,633,000 to complete preconstruction engineering and design.
    Channel Improvement, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, & TN.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $36,690,000 for continuation 
of construction of various bank stabilization and river 
training measures to ensure an efficient flood control channel 
as well as to provide a safe and reliable navigation alignment.
    Mississippi River Levees, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, and TN.--
The Committee has provided $49,885,000 for continued 
construction of the various elements of the Mississippi River 
Levee Project. Within the funds provided, $500,000 is provided 
to continue engineering and design of the Lower Mississippi 
River Museum and Interpretive Site.
    Yazoo Basin, Demonstration Erosion Control, MS.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $19,500,000 to continue 
construction of the Demonstration Erosion Control Project, a 
joint effort of the Corps of Engineers and the Natural 
Resources Conservation Service. The Committee expects the Corps 
to continue design work, acquire real estate, monitor results 
for all watersheds, and initiate continuing contracts as 
required for completion of the total program.
    Yazoo Basin, Yazoo Backwater Pumping Plant, MS.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $11,000,000 to complete 
design, continue real estate activities and to initiate the 
pump supply contract.

Maintenance

    Mississippi River Levees, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, and TN.--
The Committee recommendation includes $8,130,000 and includes 
$945,000 to provide gravel surfacing to selected locations on 
levee roads in Mississippi.
    St. Francis River and Tributaries, AR & MO.--An additional 
$600,000 has been provided above the budget request for 
maintenance items in Missouri.
    Atchafalaya Basin, LA.--An additional $1,808,000 has been 
provided above the budget request for dewatering and major lock 
repairs to Berwick Lock.
    Lower Red River, South Bank Levees, LA.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $2,375,000 for completion of the Bayou 
Rapides Pumping Plant and to continue routine operation and 
maintenance activities of the project.
    Yazoo Basin, (Bogue Phalia), Big Sunflower River, MS.--The 
Committee has provided $3,000,000 above the budget request to 
continue channel maintenance items.

                   OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL

Appropriations, 2002....................................  $1,874,803,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................   1,913,760,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,956,182,000

    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,             500             500
 AL.....................................
ALABAMA-COOSA RIVER, AL.................           2,974           3,174
BAYOU LA BATRE, AL......................           2,000           2,000
BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL..          24,201          24,201
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL..........           4,963           4,963
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AL.......             100             100
MILLERS FERRY LOCK AND DAM, WILLIAM                7,094           7,644
 ``BILL'' DANNELLY LA...................
MOBILE HARBOR, AL.......................          18,610          20,110
PERIDO PASS CHANNEL, AL.................  ..............           1,200
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AL...........             350             350
ROBERT F HENRY LOCK AND DAM, AL.........           5,558           5,858
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AL.....             100             100
TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL AND MS.          23,083          26,800
WALTER F GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL AND GA.           6,912           6,912

                 ALASKA

ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK....................           3,616           4,200
CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK...................           2,889           2,889
COOK INLET NAVIGATION CHANNEL, AK.......  ..............           1,000
DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK...................             459             684
HOMER HARBOR, AK........................             363             488
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK.......              40              40
KETCHIKAN HARBOR, BAR POINT, AK.........             500             500
ST HERMAN (KODIAK) HARBOR, AK...........  ..............             750
NAKNEK RIVER, AK........................             215             215
NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK....................             232             232
NOME HARBOR, AK.........................             410             410
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK...........             543             543
ST PAUL HARBOR, AK......................              75              75

                 ARIZONA

ALAMO LAKE, AZ..........................           1,282           1,282
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ.......              79              79
PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ....................           1,269           1,269
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AZ.....              32              32
WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ...................             168             168

                ARKANSAS

BEAVER LAKE, AR.........................           5,064           5,064
BLAKELY MT DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR.......           9,444           9,444
BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR..................           1,162           1,162
BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR....................           5,675           5,675
DARDANELLE LOCK AND DAM, AR.............           5,699           5,699
DEGRAY LAKE, AR.........................           4,620           4,620
DEQUEEN LAKE, AR........................             931             931
DIERKS LAKE, AR.........................             959             959
GILLHAM LAKE, AR........................             861             861
GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR...................           5,445           5,445
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR......              23             340
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR.......             147             147
MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION          23,925          25,925
 SYSTEM, AR.............................
MILLWOOD LAKE, AR.......................           1,257           1,257
NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR...........           7,440           7,440
NIMROD LAKE, AR.........................           1,409           1,409
NORFORK LAKE, AR........................           4,368           4,368
OSCEOLA HARBOR, AR......................              21             610
OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR AND LA....           6,491           8,325
OZARK-JETA TAYLOR LOCK AND DAM, AR......           4,152           4,152
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AR...........               6               6
WHITE RIVER, AR.........................             195           2,200
YELLOW BEND PORT, AR....................              10             147

               CALIFORNIA

BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA....................           2,034           2,034
BODEGA BAY, CA..........................           1,750           1,750
BUCHANAN DAM, H V EASTMAN LAKE, CA......           1,796           1,796
CHANNEL ISLANDS HARBOR, CA..............           3,622           3,622
COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, CA...           3,334           3,334
DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND                  4,338           4,338
 CHANNEL, CA............................
FARMINGTON DAM, CA......................             308             308
HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA............           1,751           1,751
HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA.............           3,426           4,926
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA.......           1,130           1,130
ISABELLA LAKE, CA.......................           1,227           1,227
LOS ANGELES-LONG BEACH HARBOR MODEL, CA.             170             170
LOS ANGELES-LONG BEACH HARBORS, CA......             320             320
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA....           4,424           7,584
MARINA DEL REY, CA......................              60              60
MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA...............             313             313
MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA....................             259             259
MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA....................           1,280           1,280
MOSS LANDING HARBOR, CA.................  ..............           1,125
NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA......................           2,006           2,006
NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL, CA           1,651           1,651
NEWPORT BAY HARBOR, CA..................             120             120
OAKLAND HARBOR, CA......................          11,204          11,204
OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA....................           1,240           1,240
PETALUMA RIVER, CA......................  ..............           1,000
PINE FLAT LAKE, CA......................           2,500           2,500
PORT HUENEME, CA........................              60              60
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA...........           1,148           1,148
RICHMOND HARBOR, CA.....................           4,381           4,381
SACRAMENTO RIVER (30 FOOT PROJECT), CA..           2,189           2,189
SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (DEBRIS           1,271           1,271
 CONTROL), CA...........................
SACRAMENTO RIVER SHALLOW DRAFT CHANNEL,              145             145
 CA.....................................
SAN DIEGO HARBOR, CA....................             150             150
SAN DIEGO RIVER AND MISSION BAY, CA.....              60              60
SAN FRANCISCO BAY, DELTA MODEL                     1,181           1,181
 STRUCTURE, CA..........................
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY (DRIFT                2,072           2,072
 REMOVAL), CA...........................
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA................           1,920           1,920
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, CA...................           2,122           2,872
SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA...............           3,395           3,395
SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA................           1,800           1,800
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CA.....           1,415           1,415
SUCCESS LAKE, CA........................           1,992           1,992
SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA..................           2,815           4,000
TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA...........           1,770           1,770
VENTURA HARBOR, CA......................           2,590           2,590
YUBA RIVER, CA..........................              63              63

                COLORADO

BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO.....................             315             315
CHATFIELD LAKE, CO......................           1,225           1,725
CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO...................             894           1,394
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO.......             136             136
JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO...............           2,148           2,148
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CO.....             242             242
TRINIDAD LAKE, CO.......................           1,309           1,809

               CONNECTICUT

BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT.....................             364             364
COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT................             506             506
HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT..................             284             284
HOP BROOK LAKE, CT......................             906             906
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CT.......              35              35
MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT...............             447             447
NEW HAVEN HARBOR, CT....................           4,546           4,546
NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT...............             337             337
NORWALK HARBOR, CT......................  ..............             200
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CT...........           1,185           1,185
STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT..........             349             349
THOMASTON DAM, CT.......................             565             565
TREATMENT OF MATERIAL FROM LONG ISLAND    ..............             250
 SOUND..................................
WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT..................             506             506

                DELAWARE

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE R TO              12,853          12,853
 CHESAPEAKE BAY, D......................
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, REHOBOTH BAY TO                45              45
 DELAWARE BAY, D........................
MISPILLION RIVER, DE....................             275             275
MURDERKILL RIVER, DE....................             310             310
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DE...........              50              50
WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE...................           4,966           4,966

          DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DC.......               7               7
POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVERS (DRIFT                1,110           1,110
 REMOVAL), DC...........................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DC...........              33              33
WASHINGTON HARBOR, DC...................              50              50

                 FLORIDA

CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL....................           3,960           3,960
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL........           9,347           9,347
FERNANDINA HARBOR, FL...................           3,030           3,030
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL.......             200             200
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, JACKSONVILLE TO               322           2,500
 MIAMI, FL..............................
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL.................           4,040           4,040
JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE                    6,050           6,050
 SEMINOLE, FL, AL AND GA................
MANATEE HARBOR, FL......................           2,780           2,780
MIAMI HARBOR, FL........................           1,508           1,508
MIAMI RIVER, FL.........................           5,550           5,550
OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL.................           2,695           2,695
PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL...................           2,018           2,018
PANAMA CITY HARBOR, FL..................           1,000           1,000
PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL..............           2,350           2,350
PORT ST JOE HARBOR, FL..................           1,000           1,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL...........             780             780
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL...........           3,911           3,911
TAMPA HARBOR, FL........................           8,559           8,559

                 GEORGIA

ALLATOONA LAKE, GA......................           6,456           6,456
APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT              1,444           4,709
 RIVERS, GA, AL &.......................
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GA......             178           2,500
BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA....................           3,993           3,993
BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GA...           8,060           8,060
CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA................           9,958           9,958
HARTWELL LAKE, GA AND SC................          12,896          12,896
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA.......              41              41
J STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA AND SC........          13,553          13,553
RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND             7,548           7,548
 SC.....................................
SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA.....................          12,540          12,540
SAVANNAH RIVER BELOW AUGUSTA, GA........             134             134
WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA AND AL......           5,587           5,587

                 HAWAII

BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI................             354             354
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI.......             275             275
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI...........             544             544

                  IDAHO

ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID....................           1,677           1,677
DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID..........           3,951           3,951
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID.......              81              81
LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID.....................           1,488           1,488
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ID.....             371             371

                ILLINOIS

CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL AND IN.....           3,190           3,190
CARLYLE LAKE, IL........................           4,856           4,856
CHICAGO HARBOR, IL......................           2,616           2,616
CHICAGO RIVER, IL.......................             362             362
FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL...............             204             204
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVR PORTION), IL AND           25,154          25,154
 IN.....................................
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVS PORTION), IL AND            1,683           1,683
 IN.....................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL.......             428             428
KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL..........           1,386           1,386
LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL.............           1,037           1,037
LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL....................           5,073           5,073
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS          41,820          42,320
 (MVR PORTION)..........................
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS          15,443          15,443
 (MVS PORTION)..........................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL...........              30              30
REND LAKE, IL...........................           4,520           4,520
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                    111             111
 WATERS, IL.............................
WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL.....................           1,270           1,270

                 INDIANA

BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN.....................             732             732
BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN...............           3,427           3,427
BURNS WATERWAY SMALL BOAT HARBOR, IN....           1,606           1,606
CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN....................             634             634
CECIL M HARDEN LAKE, IN.................             704             704
INDIANA HARBOR, IN......................              64              64
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN.......             168             168
J EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN.................           1,108           1,108
MICHIGAN CITY HARBOR, IN................           1,132           1,132
MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN...................             853             853
MONROE LAKE, IN.........................             759             759
PATOKA LAKE, IN.........................             727             727
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN...........              55              55
SALAMONIE LAKE, IN......................             649             649
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                    130             130
 WATERS, IN.............................

                  IOWA

CORALVILLE LAKE, IA.....................           3,097           3,097
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA.......              78              78
MISSOURI RIVER-KENSLERS BEND, NE TO                  147             147
 SIOUX CITY, IA.........................
MISSOURI RIVER-RULO TO MOUTH, IA, NE, KS           5,613           6,113
 AND MO.................................
MISSOURI RIVER-SIOUX CITY TO RULO, IA              3,075           3,075
 AND NE.................................
RATHBUN LAKE, IA........................           2,189           2,189
RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA......           3,609           4,409
SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA....................           4,088           4,088

                 KANSAS

CLINTON LAKE, KS........................           1,934           2,300
COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS..................           1,491           1,991
EL DORADO LAKE, KS......................             460             460
ELK CITY LAKE, KS.......................             552             552
FALL RIVER LAKE, KS.....................           1,204           1,204
HILLSDALE LAKE, KS......................             752             752
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KS.......              48              48
JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS......           1,144           1,144
KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS......................           1,521           1,521
MARION LAKE, KS.........................           1,621           1,621
MELVERN LAKE, KS........................           2,034           2,034
MILFORD LAKE, KS........................           1,997           1,997
PEARSON-SKUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS.......           1,052           1,052
PERRY LAKE, KS..........................           2,111           2,111
POMONA LAKE, KS.........................           1,897           1,897
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, KS.....             194             194
TORONTO LAKE, KS........................             424             424
TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS...................           2,106           2,106
WILSON LAKE, KS.........................           1,846           1,846

                KENTUCKY

BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY AND TN.           8,171           8,171
BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY...................           2,074           2,074
BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY....................              35           1,135
BUCKHORN LAKE, KY.......................           1,703           1,703
CARR CREEK LAKE, KY.....................           1,343           1,343
CAVE RUN LAKE, KY.......................             833             833
DEWEY LAKE, KY..........................           1,555           1,555
ELVIS STAHR (HICKMAN) HARBOR, KY........              19              19
FISHTRAP LAKE, KY.......................           1,927           1,927
GRAYSON LAKE, KY........................           1,259           1,259
GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY.............           1,081           1,081
GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY....................           1,769           1,769
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY.......             181             181
KENTUCKY RIVER, KY......................             400             400
LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY...................           1,542           1,542
LICKING RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY.....              28              28
MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY...................             623             623
MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KY..              52              52
NOLIN LAKE, KY..........................           1,992           1,992
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, IN             30,969          30,969
 AND OH.................................
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, IL, IN           5,577           5,577
 AND OH.................................
PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY....................             982             982
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, KY...........               6               6
ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY....................           2,120           2,120
TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY...................             913             913
WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY.....           7,162           8,362
YATESVILLE LAKE, KY.....................           1,156           1,156

                LOUISIANA

ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE,               14,681          15,681
 BOEUF AND BLACK, L.....................
BARATARIA BAY WATERWAY, LA..............  ..............           2,000
BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA..............             794             794
BAYOU LACOMBE, LA.......................  ..............             315
BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP                 1,085           1,085
 WATERWAY, LA...........................
BAYOU PIERRE, LA........................              40              40
BAYOU SEGNETTE, LA......................  ..............             740
BAYOU TECHE, LA.........................  ..............           2,000
CADDO LAKE, LA..........................             166             166
CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA............          15,852          15,852
FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA....................           1,443           1,443
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA..........          19,129          19,500
HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA..............           3,223           3,223
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA.......             772             772
J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA.........           7,297          12,224
LAKE PROVIDENCE HARBOR, LA..............              20             441
MADISON PARISH PORT, LA.................               5             105
MERMENTAU RIVER, LA.....................           1,280           1,280
MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT VENICE, LA.              80              80
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE             57,482          57,482
 GULF OF MEXICO.........................
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, GULF OUTLET, LA......          13,061          13,061
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, LA...........              80              80
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA...........           2,000           2,000
WALLACE LAKE, LA........................             180             180
WATERWAY FROM EMPIRE TO THE GULF, LA....  ..............             280

                  MAINE

BELFAST HARBOR, ME......................           1,305           1,505
CAMDEN HARBOR MAINTENANCE DREDGING......  ..............             470
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ME.......              16              16
NARRAGUAGUS RIVER, ME...................  ..............              50
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME...........           1,720           1,720
ROCKLAND HARBOR, ME.....................           1,110           1,110
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                     17              17
 WATERS, ME.............................

                MARYLAND

BALTIMORE HARBOR (DRIFT REMOVAL), MD....             500             500
BALTIMORE HARBOR (PREVENTION OF                      663             663
 OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS)..................
BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 FOOT),          18,444          18,444
 MD.....................................
CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV.........             168             168
FISHING CREEK, MD.......................  ..............             492
HONGA RIVER AND TAR BAY, MD.............             930           1,330
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD.......              34              34
JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD AND WV.......           1,653           1,653
OCEAN CITY HARBOR AND INLET AND                    1,627           1,627
 SINEPUXENT BAY, MD.....................
POCOMOKE RIVER, MD......................             619             619
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD...........             323             323
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MD.....              91              91
TOLCHESTER CHANNEL, MD..................             180             180
TWICH COVE AND BIG THOROFARE RIVER, MD..  ..............             950
WICOMICO RIVER, MD......................             604           2,000

              MASSACHUSETTS

AUNT LYDIA'S COVE, CHATHAM, MA..........             418             418
BARRE FALLS DAM, MA.....................             533             533
BIRCH HILL DAM, MA......................             498             498
BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA....................             431             431
CAPE COD CANAL, MA......................           7,659           7,659
CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY STORAGE                 260             260
 AREA, MA...............................
CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA...................             174             174
CUTTYHUNK HARBOR, MA....................             174             174
EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA.................             313             313
GREEN HARBOR, MA........................             418             418
HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA..................             416             416
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA.......             112             112
KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA.....................             483             483
LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA....................             441             441
NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET                   322             322
 HURRICANE BARRIER......................
PLYMOUTH HARBOR, MA.....................           1,000           1,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA...........           1,197           1,197
SCITUATE HARBOR, MA.....................           2,950           2,950
TULLY LAKE, MA..........................             486             486
WEST HILL DAM, MA.......................             657             657
WESTVILLE LAKE, MA......................             406             406

                MICHIGAN

ALPENA HARBOR, MI.......................             222             222
ARCADIA HARBOR, MI......................             107             107
BAY PORT HARBOR, MI.....................             299             299
BLACK RIVER HARBOR, MI..................              12              12
BLACK RIVER, PORT HURON, MI.............              14             500
CHANNELS IN LAKE ST CLAIR, MI...........             128             128
CHARLEVOIX HARBOR, MI...................             124             124
CHEBOYGAN HARBOR, MI....................              12              12
CLINTON RIVER, MI.......................              10              10
DETROIT RIVER, MI.......................           3,192           3,192
FRANKFORT HARBOR, MI....................             177             177
GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI..................           1,250           1,250
GRAND TRAVERSE BAY HARBOR, MI...........             227             227
HOLLAND HARBOR, MI......................             505             505
INLAND ROUTE, MI........................              33              33
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI.......             154             154
KEWEENAW WATERWAY, MI...................             450             450
LAC LA BELLE, MI........................             102             102
LELAND HARBOR, MI.......................             174             174
LEXINGTON HARBOR, MI....................             704             704
LITTLE LAKE HARBOR, MI..................             462             462
LUDINGTON HARBOR, MI....................              95              95
MANISTEE HARBOR, MI.....................             247             247
MANISTIQUE HARBOR, MI...................              50              50
MARQUETTE HARBOR, MI....................             193             193
MENOMINEE HARBOR, MI AND WI.............             281             281
MONROE HARBOR, MI.......................             792             792
MUSKEGON HARBOR, MI.....................             387             387
NEW BUFFALO HARBOR, MI..................             156             156
ONTONAGON HARBOR, MI....................           1,745           1,745
PENTWATER HARBOR, MI....................              25              25
PORT SANILAC HARBOR, MI.................             501             501
PORTAGE LAKE HARBOR, MI.................              21              21
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI...........             234             234
ROUGE RIVER, MI.........................             933             933
SAGINAW RIVER, MI.......................           2,351           2,351
SAUGATUCK HARBOR, MI....................           2,803           2,803
SEBEWAING RIVER (ICE JAM REMOVAL), MI...              12              12
SOUTH HAVEN HARBOR, MI..................              54              54
ST CLAIR RIVER, MI......................             694             694
ST JOSEPH HARBOR, MI....................             996             996
ST MARYS RIVER, MI......................          18,181          18,181
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                  2,507           2,507
 WATERS, MI.............................
WHITE LAKE HARBOR, MI...................              67              67

                MINNESOTA

BIGSTONE LAKE WHETSTONE RIVER, MN AND SD             274             274
DULUTH-SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN AND WI.......           4,506           4,506
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN.......             207             207
LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA RIVER, MN           1,031           1,031
MINNESOTA RIVER, MN.....................             130             130
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS          45,405          45,405
 (MVP PORTION)..........................
ORWELL LAKE, MN.........................             481             481
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN...........              72              72
RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN..................             126             126
RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF MISSISSIPPI            4,513           4,513
 RIVER, MN..............................
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                    306             306
 WATERS, MN.............................
TWO HARBORS, MN.........................             167             167

               MISSISSIPPI

BILOXI HARBOR...........................  ..............           1,500
CLAIBORNE COUNTY PORT, MS...............               8             113
EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS..........             170             170
GULFPORT HARBOR, MS.....................           2,002           3,402
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS.......               7               7
MOUTH OF YAZOO RIVER, MS................              25             106
OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS......................           1,618           1,618
PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS...................           3,401           5,001
PEARL RIVER, MS AND LA..................             288             288
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MS...........               5               5
ROSEDALE HARBOR, MS.....................              15             613
WOLF AND JORDAN RIVERS..................  ..............           1,500
YAZOO RIVER, MS.........................              15             105

                MISSOURI

CARUTHERSVILLE HARBOR, MO...............              21             240
CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE,           5,959           5,959
 MO.....................................
CLEARWATER LAKE, MO.....................           1,860           1,860
HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO....          10,253          10,253
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO.......           1,043           1,043
LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO.............             935             935
LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO....................             980             980
MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS            13,878          14,378
 (REG WORKS), MO........................
NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO...................              16             290
POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO.................           2,168           2,168
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MO...........               6               6
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MO.....             296             296
SOUTHEAST MISSOURI PORT, MO.............  ..............             400
SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO.....................           1,070           1,070
STOCKTON LAKE, MO.......................           4,268           4,268
TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO.....................           6,261           6,261
UNION LAKE, MO..........................              10              10

                 MONTANA

FT PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT................           7,354           7,354
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MT.......              40              40
LIBBY DAM, LAKE KOOCANUSA, MT...........           1,505           1,505
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MT.....             100             100

                NEBRASKA

GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK LAKE,            7,199           7,199
 NE AND SD..............................
HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE..................           2,025           2,025
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NE.......              78              78
MISSOURI R MASTER WTR CONTROL MANUAL,                500             500
 NE, IA, KS, MO.........................
MISSOURI RIVER BASIN COLLABORATIVE WATER              45              45
 PLANNING (NWO..........................
PAPILLION CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES LAKES,               669             669
 NE.....................................
SALT CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, NE..........             925             925

                 NEVADA

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV.......              39              39
MARTIS CREEK LAKE, NV AND CA............             556             556
PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV......             194             194

              NEW HAMPSHIRE

BLACKWATER DAM, NH......................             454             454
COCHECO RIVER, NH.......................              50             500
EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH...............             490             490
FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH..................             496             496
HOPKINTON-EVERETT LAKES, NH.............           1,074           1,074
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NH.......              11              11
LITTLE HARBOR, NH.......................             200             200
OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH....................             577             577
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NH...........             273             273
SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH.................             575             575

               NEW JERSEY

BARNEGAT INLET, NJ......................           1,750           1,750
COLD SPRING INLET, NJ...................             425             425
DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ............              20              20
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE SEA,          19,245          19,745
 NJ, PA AND DE..........................
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO                3,470           3,470
 TRENTON, NJ............................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NJ.......              65              65
NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NJ....           2,586           2,586
NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC                    75              75
 RIVERS, NJ.............................
PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD WARNING SYSTEMS, NJ.             425             425
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NJ...........             782             782
RARITAN RIVER, NJ.......................              80              80
SHARK RIVER, NJ.........................             590             590

               NEW MEXICO

ABIQUIU DAM, NM.........................           1,949           3,449
COCHITI LAKE, NM........................           2,124           2,124
CONCHAS LAKE, NM........................           2,032           2,032
GALISTEO DAM, NM........................             510             510
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM.......             175             175
JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM....................             497           1,000
SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM.............           1,400           1,400
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NM.....             112             112
TWO RIVERS DAM, NM......................             369             369
UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS MODEL,              55              55
 NM.....................................

                NEW YORK

ALMOND LAKE, NY.........................             457             457
ARKPORT DAM, NY.........................             246             246
BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR,           1,041           1,041
 NY.....................................
BUFFALO HARBOR, NY......................             643             643
BUTTERMILK CHANNEL, NY..................             300             300
CAPE VINCENT HARBOR, NY.................              11              11
CATTARAUGUS CREEK HARBOR, NY............              50              50
DUNKIRK HARBOR, NY......................             480             480
EAST RIVER, NY..........................              80              80
EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY.................           2,100           2,100
EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY....................             501             501
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY....             175             175
FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY..............              80              80
GLEN COVE CREEK, NY.....................              80              80
GREAT SOUTH BAY, NY.....................              80              80
HUDSON RIVER CHANNEL, NY................              80              80
HUDSON RIVER, NY (MAINT)................           2,245           2,245
HUDSON RIVER, NY (O&C)..................           3,170           3,170
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY.......             639             639
IRONDEQUOIT BAY HARBOR, NY..............              10              10
JAMAICA BAY, NY.........................           1,420           1,420
JONES INLET, NY.........................             100             100
LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR, NY.................              80              80
LONG ISLAND INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NY...           1,284           1,284
MATTITUCK HARBOR, NY....................              80              80
MORICHES INLET, NY......................             600             600
MT MORRIS LAKE, NY......................           2,040           2,040
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS, NY....           3,835           3,835
NEW YORK HARBOR (DRIFT REMOVAL), NY AND            5,300           5,300
 NJ.....................................
NEW YORK HARBOR (PREVENTION OF                       750             750
 OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS)..................
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY.....................           3,720           3,720
OAK ORCHARD HARBOR, NY..................              15              15
OLCOTT HARBOR, NY.......................              10              10
PLATTSBURGH HARBOR, NY..................             590             590
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY...........           2,595           2,595
ROCHESTER HARBOR, NY....................              35              35
SAG HARBOR, NY..........................           2,500           2,500
SHINNECOCK INLET, NY....................           1,346           1,346
SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL                      760             760
 PROJECTS, NY...........................
STURGEON POINT HARBOR, NY...............              20              20
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                    595             595
 WATERS, NY.............................
WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY..................             705             705
WILSON HARBOR, NY.......................              20              20

             NORTH CAROLINA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NC......             806           4,000
B EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC.......           1,829           1,829
BEAUFORT HARBOR, NC.....................             400             400
BOGUE INLET AND CHANNEL, NC.............             867             867
CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC....             587             587
CAROLINA BEACH INLET, NC................           1,060           1,060
FALLS LAKE, NC..........................           2,281           2,281
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC.......              32              32
LOCKWOODS FOLLY RIVER, NC...............             455             455
MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC.............           4,732           4,732
MASONBORO INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS,              45              45
 NC.....................................
MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC................           5,100           5,400
NEW RIVER INLET, NC.....................             815             815
NEW TOPSAIL INLET AND CONNECTING                     640             640
 CHANNELS, NC...........................
PAMLICO AND TAR RIVERS, NC..............             139             139
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC...........              73              73
ROANOKE RIVER, NC.......................             100             100
W KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC......           3,480           3,480
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC...................           8,213           8,213

              NORTH DAKOTA

BOWMAN-HALEY LAKE, ND...................             177             177
GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND........          11,939          12,239
HOMME LAKE, ND..........................             281             281
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND.......              15              15
LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND.....           1,354           1,354
PIPESTEM LAKE, ND.......................             395             395
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ND.....              68              68
SOURIS RIVER, ND........................             370             370

                  OHIO

ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH.....................             775             775
ASHTABULA HARBOR, OH....................           1,915           1,915
BERLIN LAKE, OH.........................           1,857           1,857
CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH...................           1,234           1,234
CLARENCE J BROWN DAM, OH................             773             773
CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH....................           3,520           3,520
CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH.....................             585             585
DEER CREEK LAKE, OH.....................             711             711
DELAWARE LAKE, OH.......................             932             932
DILLON LAKE, OH.........................             576             576
FAIRPORT HARBOR, OH.....................           1,090           1,090
HURON HARBOR, OH........................             860             860
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH.......             233             233
LORAIN HARBOR, OH.......................           3,400           3,400
MASSILLON LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH..              25              25
MICHAEL J KIRWAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, OH..             789             789
MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH.................           1,036           1,036
MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH...............           6,133           6,133
NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, OH....             319             319
PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH....................             778             778
PORT CLINTON HARBOR, OH.................           1,275           1,275
PORTSMOUTH HARBOR, OH...................             150             150
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH...........              90              90
ROCKY RIVER, OH.........................              30              30
ROSEVILLE LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH..              30              30
SANDUSKY HARBOR, OH.....................           1,010           1,010
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                    175             175
 WATERS, OH.............................
TOLEDO HARBOR, OH.......................           3,525           3,525
TOM JENKINS DAM, OH.....................             240             240
TOUSSAINT RIVER, OH.....................             520             520
VERMILION HARBOR, OH....................             205             205
WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH........             461             461
WEST HARBOR, OH.........................              30              30
WILLIAM H HARSHA LAKE, OH...............             992             992

                OKLAHOMA

ARCADIA LAKE, OK........................             451             451
BIRCH LAKE, OK..........................             602             602
BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK.....................           1,627           1,627
CANDY LAKE, OK..........................              19             399
CANTON LAKE, OK.........................           1,620           1,620
COPAN LAKE, OK..........................             821           1,521
EUFAULA LAKE, OK........................           5,546           5,546
FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK....................           4,352           4,352
FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK....................             924             924
GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK..............             209             209
HEYBURN LAKE, OK........................             600             600
HUGO LAKE, OK...........................           1,732           1,732
HULAH LAKE, OK..........................             426           1,076
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OK.......              94              94
KAW LAKE, OK............................           1,931           1,931
KEYSTONE LAKE, OK.......................           4,647           4,647
MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION           3,923           3,923
 SYSTEM, OK.............................
OOLOGAH LAKE, OK........................           2,360           2,360
OPTIMA LAKE, OK.........................              59              59
PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE                      34              34
 CHEROKEES, OK..........................
PINE CREEK LAKE, OK.....................           1,187           1,187
ROBERT S KERR LOCK AND DAM AND                     4,648           4,648
 RESERVOIRS, OK.........................
SARDIS LAKE, OK.........................             912             912
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OK.....             389             389
SKIATOOK LAKE, OK.......................           1,488           1,488
TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK................           3,690           3,690
WAURIKA LAKE, OK........................           1,498           1,498
WEBBERS FALLS LOCK AND DAM, OK..........           4,178           4,178
WISTER LAKE, OK.........................             580             580

                 OREGON

APPLEGATE LAKE, OR......................             729             729
BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR.....................             220             220
BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA......           5,043           5,443
CHETCO RIVER, OR........................  ..............             390
COLUMBIA AND LWR WILLAMETTE R BLW                 14,770          17,770
 VANCOUVER, WA AND PORTLA...............
COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR AND WA..           6,632          10,702
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA AND             526             526
 THE DALLES, O..........................
COOS BAY, OR............................           5,494           5,494
COQUILLE RIVER, OR......................  ..............             330
COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR..................             842             842
COUGAR LAKE, OR.........................             732             732
DEPOT BAY, OR...........................  ..............           3,200
DETROIT LAKE, OR........................             588             588
DORENA LAKE, OR.........................             635             635
FALL CREEK LAKE, OR.....................             419             419
FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR.....................             989             989
GREEN PETER-FOSTER LAKES, OR............           1,122           1,122
HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR....................             401             401
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR.......             172             172
JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA........           3,416           5,000
LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR..................           1,613           1,613
LOST CREEK LAKE, OR.....................           3,028           3,028
MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA..........           4,626           4,626
PORT ORFORD, OR.........................             606             606
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR...........             200             200
ROGUE RIVER AT GOLD BEACH, OR...........  ..............             450
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OR.....              71              71
SIUSLAW RIVER, OR.......................             466             466
SKIPANON CHANNEL, OR....................               5             325
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                    134             134
 WATERS, OR.............................
TILLAMOOK BAY AND BAR, OR...............              15             315
UMPQUA RIVER, OR........................             963             963
WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS, OR             344             344
WILLAMETTE RIVER BANK PROTECTION, OR....              67              67
WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR...................             714             714
YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR..............  ..............           1,450
YAQUINA RIVER, DEPOT SLOUGH, OR.........  ..............             100

              PENNSYLVANIA

ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA.....................           4,070           4,070
ALVIN R BUSH DAM, PA....................             630             630
AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA...............             270             270
BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA.....................           1,171           1,171
BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA.....................           2,513           2,513
CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA................             898             898
COWANESQUE LAKE, PA.....................           1,915           1,915
CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA..................           1,746           1,746
CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA...................             722             722
EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA......           1,318           1,318
ERIE HARBOR, PA.........................              60              60
FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA............             775             775
FRANCIS E WALTER DAM, PA................             782           4,282
GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND RESERVOIR,              341             341
 PA.....................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA.......             170             170
JOHNSTOWN, PA...........................           1,243           1,243
KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PA..           1,231           1,231
LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA.....................             957             957
MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA.................             848             848
MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA...................          14,357          14,357
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, PA, OH AND WV          18,589          18,589
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, PA, OH AND             488             488
 WV.....................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA...........              18              18
PROMPTON LAKE, PA.......................             506             506
PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA........................              13              13
RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA.......................           3,941           3,941
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, PA.....              60              60
SCHUYLKILL RIVER, PA....................              50              50
SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA.................           2,734           2,734
STILLWATER LAKE, PA.....................             392             392
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                     72              72
 WATERS, PA.............................
TIOGA-HAMMOND LAKES, PA.................           2,542           2,542
TIONESTA LAKE, PA.......................           2,032           2,032
UNION CITY LAKE, PA.....................             245             245
WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA.................             761             761
YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA................             543             543
YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA AND MD......           1,895           1,895

              RHODE ISLAND

BLOCK ISLAND HARBOR OF REFUGE, RI.......             502             502
POINT JUDITH POND AND HARBOR OF REFUGE..  ..............             120
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, RI.......               6               6
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, RI...........           2,330           2,330
PROVIDENCE RIVER AND HARBOR, RI.........           8,220          30,000

             SOUTH CAROLINA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC......             264           3,598
CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC...................          10,516          10,516
COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC.....           3,140           7,050
FOLLY RIVER.............................  ..............             257
GEORGETOWN HARBOR, SC...................           3,073           4,373
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC.......              26              26
PORT ROYAL HARBOR, SC...................  ..............           2,222
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC...........              69              69
SHIPYARD RIVER, SC......................             816             816
TOWN CREEK, SC..........................  ..............             396

              SOUTH DAKOTA

BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD...........           9,137           9,137
CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE   ..............           5,000
 SIOUX, SD..............................
COLD BROOK LAKE, SD.....................             211             211
COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD.............             184             184
FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS CASE, SD.           9,016           9,016
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SD.......              24              24
LAKE TRAVERSE, SD AND MN................             504             504
MISSOURI R BETWEEN FORT PECK DAM AND                 500             500
 GAVINS PT, SD, MT......................
OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD AND ND..........          12,885          12,885
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, SD.....              69              69

                TENNESSEE

CENTER HILL LAKE, TN....................           6,031           6,031
CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN...............           6,257           6,257
CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TN....................           1,025           1,025
CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN......           6,407           6,407
DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN....................           5,720           5,720
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN.......             129             129
J PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN....           2,954           2,954
OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN............           6,598           6,598
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TN...........               6               6
TENNESSEE RIVER, TN.....................          15,794          15,794
WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN...................              19             440

                  TEXAS

AQUILLA LAKE, TX........................             743             743
ARKANSAS-RED RIVER BASINS CHLORIDE                 1,373           1,373
 CONTROL--AREA VI.......................
BARBOUR TERMINAL CHANNEL, TX............             606             606
BARDWELL LAKE, TX.......................           1,574           1,574
BAYPORT SHIP CHANNEL, TX................           2,389           2,389
BELTON LAKE, TX.........................           2,707           2,707
BENBROOK LAKE, TX.......................           2,011           2,011
BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TX................           2,143           2,143
BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX.......           3,126           3,126
CANYON LAKE, TX.........................           2,498           2,498
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX.........           5,669           5,669
DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX............           6,132           6,732
ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT,                5               5
 TX.....................................
FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O' THE PINES,            2,682           2,682
 TX.....................................
FREEPORT HARBOR, TX.....................           7,298           7,298
GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX........           4,887           4,887
GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX................           1,612           1,612
GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX......................           2,602           2,602
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX..........          20,829          20,829
HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX....................           1,250           1,250
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX................           8,254          13,300
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX.......             498             498
JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX....................           1,248           1,248
JOE POOL LAKE, TX.......................             823             823
LAKE KEMP, TX...........................             150             150
LAVON LAKE, TX..........................           2,609           2,609
LEWISVILLE DAM, TX......................           3,134           3,134
MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX..............           1,748           1,748
MOUTH OF THE COLORADO RIVER, TX.........           2,604           2,604
NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX..................           1,676           1,676
NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE                     1,835           1,835
 GEORGETOWN, TX.........................
O C FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX.............             872             872
PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX......................           1,116           1,116
PROCTOR LAKE, TX........................           1,623           1,623
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TX...........              50              50
RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX....................             862             862
SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX..............          14,986          14,986
SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX.......           4,559           4,559
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, TX.....             255             255
SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX.....................           2,683           2,683
STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX...............           1,805           1,805
TEXAS WATER ALLOCATION ASSESSMENT, TX...             300             500
TOWN BLUFF DAM, B A STEINHAGEN LAKE, TX.           2,135           2,135
WACO LAKE, TX...........................           2,270           2,270
WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX....................             999             999
WHITNEY LAKE, TX........................           5,205           5,205
WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX..........           2,742           2,742

                  UTAH

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT.......              81              81
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, UT.....             364             364

                 VERMONT

BALL MOUNTAIN LAKE, VT..................             705             780
BURLINGTON HARBOR BREAKWATER, VT........           2,150             800
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VT.......              26              26
NARROWS OF LAKE CHAMPLAIN, VT AND NY....              95              95
NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT.................             576             576
NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT..............             647             722
TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT......................             687             762
UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT...................             538             613

                VIRGINIA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--ACC, VA.           2,035           2,035
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--DSC, VA.           1,159           1,159
CHINCOTEAGUE HARBOR OF REFUGE, VA.......             155             155
CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA..................           1,124           1,124
DAVIS CREEK, VA.........................             350             350
DEEP CREEK, NEWPORT NEW, VA.............  ..............           1,300
GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA.......           1,612           1,612
HAMPTON RDS, NORFOLK AND NEWPORT NEWS              1,200           1,200
 HBR (DRIFT REMOVAL.....................
HORN HARBOR, VA.........................             270             270
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA.......             111             111
JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA.................           3,801           4,800
JOHN H KERR LAKE, VA AND NC.............           9,890           9,890
JOHN W FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA..           1,334           1,334
LYNNHAVEN INLET, VA.....................             225             225
NORFOLK HARBOR (PREVENTION OF                        200             200
 OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS), V...............
NORFOLK HARBOR, VA......................           8,679           8,679
NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA......             297             297
PHILPOTT LAKE, VA.......................           4,377           4,377
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA...........             749             749
QUINBY CREEK, VA........................             400             400
RUDEE INLET, VA.........................           1,030           1,030
WATERWAY ON THE COAST OF VIRGINIA, VA...           1,150           1,150
WHITINGS CREEK, MIDDLESEX CO, VA........             350             350

               WASHINGTON

CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA....................             853             853
COLUMBIA RIVER AT BAKER BAY, WA.........  ..............             764
EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WA..           1,355           1,355
GRAYS HARBOR AND CHEHALIS RIVER, WA.....           8,781          12,281
HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA...................           1,777           1,777
ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA.............           5,065           5,065
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA.......             257             257
LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA..........           7,479           7,479
LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, WA...........           1,268           1,268
LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, WA..........           5,244           5,244
LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA.......           3,291           3,291
MILL CREEK LAKE, WA.....................             947             947
MT ST HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA.......             321             321
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA....................           2,075           2,075
NEAH BAY, WA............................  ..............             750
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA...........             253             253
PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, WA....             999             999
QUILLAYUTE RIVER, WA....................             975             975
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WA.....             439             439
SEATTLE HARBOR, WA......................             640             640
STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA.................             247             247
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                     60              60
 WATERS, WA.............................
TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA..............             127             127
THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM, WA AND OR......           2,264           2,514
WILLAPA RIVER AND HARBOR, WA............             492             492

              WEST VIRGINIA

BEECH FORK LAKE, WV.....................           1,167           1,167
BLUESTONE LAKE, WV......................           1,149           1,149
BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV.....................           1,555           1,555
EAST LYNN LAKE, WV......................           1,832           1,832
ELK RIVER HARBOR, WV....................             440             440
ELKINS, WV..............................              16              16
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV.......             131             131
KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV........           7,544          13,394
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY AND OH          18,991          18,991
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, WV, KY AND           3,260           3,260
 OH.....................................
R D BAILEY LAKE, WV.....................           1,431           1,431
STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV..............             905             905
SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV...................           1,603           1,603
SUTTON LAKE, WV.........................           1,777           1,777
TYGART LAKE, WV.........................           5,546           5,546

                WISCONSIN

ASHLAND HARBOR, WI......................             180             180
EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI................             820             820
FOX RIVER, WI...........................           1,372           1,372
GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI....................           1,924           2,424
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WI.......              31              31
KENOSHA HARBOR, WI......................           1,315           1,315
KEWAUNEE HARBOR, WI.....................              75              75
MANITOWOC HARBOR, WI....................             278             278
MILWAUKEE HARBOR, WI....................             789             789
OCONTO HARBOR, WI.......................              13              13
PORT WASHINGTON HARBOR, WI..............             261             261
PORT WING HARBOR, WI....................               6               6
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WI...........              56              56
SAXON HARBOR, WI........................              45              45
SHEBOYGAN HARBOR, WI....................           1,603           1,603
STURGEON BAY HARBOR AND LAKE MICHIGAN              1,578           1,578
 SHIP CANAL, WI.........................
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                    498             498
 WATERS, WI.............................
TWO RIVERS HARBOR, WI...................             471             471

                 WYOMING

JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY.................           1,233           1,233
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WY.....             101             101

              MISCELLANEOUS

AQUATIC NUISANCE CONTROL RESEARCH.......             725             725
AUTOMATED BUDGET SYSTEM (WINABS)........             285             285
COASTAL INLET RESEARCH PROGRAM..........           2,750           2,750
CULTURAL RESOURCES (NAGPRA/CURATION)....           1,545           1,545
DREDGE WHEELER READY RESERVE............           8,000           8,000
DREDGING DATA AND LOCK PERFORMANCE                 1,180           1,180
 MONITORING SYSTEM......................
DREDGING OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL              6,755           6,755
 RESEARCH (DOER)........................
DREDGING OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT              1,545           1,545
 (DOTS) PROGRAM.........................
EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS PROGRAM FOR BUILDINGS             300             300
 AND LIFELINES..........................
FACILITY PROTECTION.....................          64,000          35,000
GREAT LAKES SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MODELS...           1,000           1,000
HARBOR MAINTENANCE FEE DATA COLLECTION..             675             675
INLAND WATERWAY NAVIGATION PROJECTS.....           4,120           4,120
MONITORING OF COASTAL NAVIGATION                   1,750           1,750
 PROJECTS...............................
NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM.............              45              45
NATIONAL DAM SECURITY PROGRAM...........              30              30
NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAMS           4,120           4,120
 (NEPP).................................
NATIONAL LEWIS AND CLARK COMMEMORATION               310             310
 COORDINATOR............................
PERFORMANCE BASED BUDGETING SUPPORT                  815             815
 PROGRAM................................
PROTECTING, CLEARING AND STRAIGHTENING                50              50
 CHANNELS(SEC 3.........................
RECREATION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT PROGRAM              1,545           1,545
 (RMSP).................................
REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT                       1,545           1,545
 DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM..................
RELIABILITY MODELS PROGRAM FOR MAJOR                 675             675
 REHABILITATION.........................
REMOVAL OF SUNKEN VESSELS...............             500             500
WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT                   725             725
 (WOTS) PROGRAM.........................
WATERBORNE COMMERCE STATISTICS..........           4,745           4,745
HYDROPOWER MAINTENANCE..................  ..............         -49,000
REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND            -19,091         -47,778
 SLIPPAGE...............................
ADJUSTMENT FOR ACTUAL RETIREMENT                    -240  ..............
 ACCRUALS...............................
                                         -------------------------------
      TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE..       1,912,310       1,956,182
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee continues to believe that it is essential to 
provide adequate resources and attention to operation and 
maintenance requirements in order to protect the large Federal 
investment. Yet, current and projected budgetary constraints 
require the Committee to limit the amount of work that can be 
accomplished in the fiscal year. In order to cope with the 
current situation, the Corps has had to defer or delay 
scheduled maintenance activities.
    Maintenance backlogs continue to grow, with much of the 
backlog being essential maintenance dredging needed to keep the 
Nation's ports, harbors, and waterways open and able to 
efficiently handle important national and international trade 
activities. Yet, the Committee is aware that out-year budget 
planning guidance for the Corps of Engineers projects that the 
current appropriations for their critical operation and 
maintenance activities will continue to decline for the 
foreseeable future. If additional resources are not made 
available, the Committee will be forced to cut back on 
services, and begin to terminate and close many projects and 
activities.
    The Committee is aware of the Corps' efforts to stretch the 
limited resources to cover all of its projects and to effect 
savings through a variety of means. With an increasing number 
of projects entering the inventory, and budgetary constraints 
increasing, it is clear that the Corps will have to find 
innovative ways of accomplishing required maintenance work, 
while reducing operational and other costs. Adjustments in 
lower-priority programs and noncritical work should optimize 
limited resources while maximizing the public benefit.
    The budget request has proposed that no navigation project 
with less than one billion ton-miles of cargo be eligible for 
maintenance dredging. The Committee believes that this is in 
direct conflict with the way projects are analyzed. Project 
analysis is based upon Economic and Environmental Principles 
and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources 
Implementation Studies (1983), the Corps of Engineers Planning 
Guidance Notebook (2000), and other polices and procedures. For 
navigation studies, the analysis centers on transportation 
savings to the Nation considering the ultimate origins and 
destinations of commodities to be moved. Operation and 
maintenance costs are considered as a part of this analysis and 
are figured into the benefit to cost ratio utilized to make the 
investment decision. By applying an arbitrary ton-mile figure 
to determine O&M funding decisions, the budget request has 
essentially obviated the need for any of the previous studies 
undertaken to determine the investment decision.
    The Committee is concerned about the annual proposals for 
reductions of maintenance funding for ``low use waterways and 
ports''. These tributary waterways naturally do not enjoy the 
same level of relative efficiencies as mainstem waterways. The 
Mississippi and Ohio Rivers handle tremendous volumes of 
traffic over long distances and so generate impressive ton-mile 
statistics. Tributaries, by nature, provide generally short, 
smaller channels with lower traffic densities. Consequently, 
``ton-mile'' statistics for tributary waterways are dwarfed by 
statistics for the mainstem waterways. It is important to 
recognize that the commerce on the tributaries is usually only 
a small part of the total journey between producer and 
consumer. When these statistics are compared on a system basis, 
nearly all of these waterways appear to ``pay their way'' and 
are performing as the economic analysis indicated when they 
were originally authorized.
    Uncertainties in maintenance funding for lower use 
projects, seriously impact their abilities to compete and 
become higher use facilities. Without funding to provide a 
stable channel and authorized depths and widths, industries and 
shippers are reluctant to make the necessary investments in 
using these projects. The Committee believes that proposed 
elimination of maintenance funding for authorized projects is 
not only a serious disservice to the public, but is 
demonstrates a profound lack of respect for the congressional 
oversight committees that have jurisdiction for authorization 
and deauthorization of such projects.
    The Committee is not in favor of funding projects that are 
no longer economically viable or environmentally sustainable 
however, we believe that they should be proposed for 
deauthorization through the proper congressional oversight 
committees. Therefore, the Committee has restored funding to 
most of the low use waterways and port projects not included in 
the budget request and encourages the administration to budget 
accordingly.
    Alabama Coosa River, AL.--The Committee has provided 
$200,000 above the budgeted amount for implementation of a 
systemwide geographic information system for the Alabama-Coosa 
River.
    Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, AL & MS.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $26,800,000. Within the funds provided, 
$2,000,000 is provided for to maintain mitigation on State 
managed lands and $1,717,000 is provided to accomplish 
additional dredging of navigation channels.
    McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, AR.--The 
Committee has provided $2,000,000 above the budget request to 
perform advance maintenance dredging to assure the authorized 
depth of 9 feet is maintained.
    Ouachita/Black Rivers Navigation Project, AR & LA.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $8,325,000. Funds provided 
above the budget request are for yearly maintenance dredging, 
and backlog maintenance.
    White River, AR.--The Committee has provided $2,200,000 for 
routine operation and maintenance activities and for minimum 
expected dredging and snagging requirements.
    Humbolt Harbor, CA.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $1,500,000 to the administration's budget request of 
$3,426,000 for Humboldt Bay, California, for advanced 
maintenance dredging to remove the source of shoaling that has 
impeded navigational safety in the entry channel to the harbor. 
The shoaling has caused loss of life, property, oil spills and 
interruptions in the flow of commerce to and from Humboldt Bay.
    Los Angeles County Drainage Area, CA.--Within the funds 
provided, $3,160,000 is for the Hansen Dam unit of the project. 
The funds are to be used for restoration of the swim/recreation 
lake facility, and initiation of a design for a playfield and 
campground site. The Committee urges the Corps to work with the 
Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy concerning development and 
management of the natural areas within the Hansen Dam 
Recreation Area.
    Cherry Creek, Chatfield, and Trinidad Lakes, CO.--An 
appropriations request of $1,500,000 over the budget for these 
three lakes has been provided. Frequent inundation of 
recreation areas are causing health and safety concerns 
requiring repair or replacement of the facilities. A total of 
$1,500,000 above the budget request has been provided for these 
three lakes. This action in no way is intended to alter the 
Corps of Engineers' lease and property accountability policies. 
It is the Committee's understanding that the State of Colorado 
has agreed to cost share this project on a 50-50 basis. It is 
also the understanding of the Committee that the Secretary is 
not to assume, nor share in the future cost of the operation 
and maintenance of these recreation facilities.
    Treatment of Dredged Material from Long Island Sound.--
$250,000 is provided to initiate a demonstration program for 
the use of innovative technologies for the treatment of dredged 
materials from Long Island Sound.
    Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, DE 
& MD.--The Committee recommendation is $12,853,000. Funds are 
provided for routine operation and maintenance activities and 
for immediate reimbursement to the State of Delaware for normal 
operation and maintenance costs incurred by the State for the 
SR-1 Bridge, from station 58+00 to station 293+00, between 
October 1, 2002 and September 30, 2003. The reimbursable costs 
include electric lighting and associated late fees, power 
sweeping, drainage cleaning, snow removal, surface deicing, and 
periodic bridge inspections. The Corps shall initiate necessary 
repairs to the SR-1 bridge once repair recommendations from the 
bridge inspections are received.
    Intracoastal Waterway, Jacksonville to Miami, FL.--The 
Committee has provided $2,500,000 for maintenance activities 
along the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway.
    Apalachicola, Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers, GA, FL, & 
AL.--The Committee recommendation includes $4,709,000 which 
includes annual dredging of the river channel, annual 
operations and maintenance of the George W. Andrews Lock, spot 
dredging of shoals continue slough mouth restorations, continue 
restoration efforts at Corley Slough, and routine operations 
and maintenance of the project.
    Missouri River--Sioux City to Rulo, IA & NE.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $500,000 above the budget request to 
continue implementation of actions related to the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service biological opinion.
    Red Rock Dam, Lake Red Rock, IA.--The Committee has 
provided $800,000 above the budget request to complete repairs 
to the SE Des Moines Remedial Works Levee.
    Mississippi River between Missouri River and Minneapolis, 
IL, IA, MN, MO, & WI.--The Committee has provided $500,000 
above the budget request for ongoing major maintenance items 
and initiation of major maintenance activities at Lock and Dam 
11.
    Clinton Lake, KS.--An additional $366,000 has been provided 
above the budget request for Lewis and Clark Commemoration 
events.
    Big Sandy Harbor, KY.--$1,135,000 has been provided by the 
Committee for annual dredging requirements.
    Wolf Creek Dam, Lake Cumberland, KY.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $1,200,000 above the budget request for 
the Corps to make safety and other necessary improvements to 
the boat ramps at Old Fall Creek, Tate Access, Camp Attrahunt 
and Ramsey Point.
    J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, LA.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $12,224,000. Within the funds provided, 
$1,000,000 is provided for bank stabilization repairs, $408,000 
is provided for dredging entrances to oxbow lakes, with the 
remainder provided for routine operation and maintenance 
activities, annual dredging requirements, and backlog 
maintenance items.
    Narraguagus River, Milbridge, ME.--The Committee has 
provided $50,000 for the Corps to complete necessary 
environmental documentation and plans and specifications for 
restoring the project to authorized widths and depths.
    Black River, Port Huron, MI.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $500,000 to complete plans and specifications and 
initiate maintenance dredging of the project.
    Morehead City Harbor, NC.--$300,000 has been provided above 
the budget request to complete the Section 933 study concerning 
placement of maintenance material on the beaches of Bogue 
Banks.
    Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea, ND.--The Committee has 
provided $300,000 above the budget request for mosquito control 
and continued improvements to low water lake accessibility.
    Cocheco River, NH.--$500,000 has been provided for needed 
maintenance dredging of the authorized project.
    Upper Rio Grande Water Operations Model, New Mexico.--The 
Committee is aware of the importance and need for the daily 
water operations model for the Upper Rio Grande Basin.
    Cochiti Partnering Initiative, Cochiti Pueblo, New 
Mexico.--The Committee is aware of the joint efforts made by 
both the Corps of Engineers and the Cochiti pueblo in an 
attempt to resolve residual differences regarding the 
construction of the Cochiti dam and encourages both sides to 
continue to build further on this relationship.
    Delaware River, Philadelphia to the Sea, NJ, PA, & DE.--The 
Committee has provided $500,000 above the budget request to 
continue restoration work at Pea Patch Island.
    Copan Lake, OK.--The Committee is aware of the need to 
complete a study of the need to determine the feasibility of 
reallocating available storage at Copan Lake, OK to meet the 
future water supply needs for the city of Bartlesville, OK. 
Therefore the Committee has provided $1,521,000 for routine 
operations and maintenance and the reallocation study.
    Bonneville Lock and Dam, OR & WA.--The Committee has 
provided $400,000 above the budget request for continue actions 
to implement the Federal Columbia River Power System Biological 
Opinion.
    Columbia River at the Mouth, OR & WA.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $10,702,000. Funds provided are for 
routine operations and maintenance, increased dredging costs, 
jetty evaluation, studies of alternate dredged material 
disposal and a dredged material disposal demonstration project 
at Benson Beach.
    John Day Lock and Dam, OR & WA.--The Committee has provided 
$1,584,000 above the budget request for significant safety 
repairs to the navigation lock, to continue the major 
rehabilitation evaluation report to address significant 
foundation problems, and to continue actions to implement the 
Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion.
    Francis E. Walter Dam, PA.--The Committee has provided 
$3,500,000 above the budget request to complete the relocation 
of the frequently inundated access road.
    Point Judith Pond and Harbor of Refuge, RI.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $120,000 to survey the breakwaters and 
determine if repairs are warranted.
    Providence River and Harbor, RI.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $30,000,000 to initiate dredging of the 
authorized project.
    Cooper River, Charleston Harbor, SC.--The Committee has 
provided $7,050,000 for the Cooper River, Charleston Harbor, SC 
project. Within the funds provided, $3,750,000 is provided to 
make a lump sum payment to the South Carolina Department of 
Natural Resources to perform all future operation of the fish 
lift at St. Stephen, South Carolina.
    Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux, SD.--The 
Committee notes that Title VI of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999, as amended, requires that funding to 
inventory and stabilize cultural and historic sites along the 
Missouri River in South Dakota, and to carry out the 
terrestrial wildlife habitat programs, shall be provided from 
the Operation and Maintenance account. The Committee has 
provided $5,000,000 to protect cultural resource sites and 
provide funding to the State and Tribes for approved 
restoration and stewardship plans and in compliance with the 
requirements of Title VI, directs the Corps to contract with or 
reimburse the State of South Dakota and affected Tribes to 
carry out these duties.
    Texas Water Allocation Assessment, TX.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $500,000 for the Texas Water Allocation 
Assessment for the Corps to work with the Texas regional 
planning groups in the evaluation of technologies and the 
exploration of water supply opportunities in the State 
including (where appropriate) water reuse, aquifer storage and 
recovery, and development of new multi-purpose facilities.
    Burlington Harbor Breakwater, VT.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $800,000 to complete repairs to the 
south breakwater.
    Connecticut River Basin Master Plans, VT.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $300,000 to complete master plans for 
Ball Mountain, North Springfield, Townshend, and Union Village 
Reservoirs in Vermont.
    Grays Harbor and Chehalis River, WA.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $12,281,000 for routine operation and 
maintenance, to complete the North Jetty rehabilitation 
contract, to continue entrance channel study, for maintenance 
of the South Jetty.
    Facility Protection.--The Committee has provided 
$35,000,000. The Committee has been informed that this is the 
average annual cost for guards at critical facilities.

                           REGULATORY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $127,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     144,252,000
Committee recommendation................................     144,252,000

    An appropriation of $144,252,000 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, 2002....................................    $140,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     140,298,000
Committee recommendation................................     140,298,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $140,298,000 
to continue activities related to the Formerly Utilized Sites 
Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) in fiscal year 2003.
    The responsibility for the cleanup of contaminated sites 
under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program was 
transferred to the Army Corps of Engineers in the Fiscal Year 
1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, Public 
Law 105-62.
    FUSRAP is not specifically defined by statute. The program 
was established in 1974 under the broad authority of the Atomic 
Energy Act and, until fiscal year 1998, funds for the cleanup 
of contaminated defense sites had been appropriated to the 
Department of Energy through existing appropriation accounts. 
In appropriating FUSRAP funds to the Corps of Engineers, the 
Committee intended to transfer only the responsibility for 
administration and execution of cleanup activities at eligible 
sites where remediation had not been completed. It did not 
intend to transfer ownership of and accountability for real 
property interests that remain with the Department of Energy.
    The Corps of Engineers has extensive experience in the 
cleanup of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive wastes through its 
work for the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies. 
The Committee always intended for the Corps' expertise be used 
in the same manner for the cleanup of contaminated sites under 
FUSRAP. The Committee expects the Corps to continue programming 
and budgeting for FUSRAP as part of the Corps of Engineers--
Civil program.
    The Committee notes that portions of the Iowa Army 
Ammunition Plant in Middleton, Iowa, has recently been deemed 
eligible for inclusion into the FUSRAP program. The Committee 
encourages the Corps to reprogram available FUSRAP funds to 
initiate work on this site as soon as practicable and to budget 
for this site in future budget submissions.

                            GENERAL EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $153,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     155,651,000
Committee recommendation................................     155,651,000

    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 eight division offices supervise work in 
38 district offices.
    Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity.--This support 
center provides administrative services (such as personnel, 
logistics, informatino management, and finance and accounting) 
for the Office of the Chief of Engineers and other separate 
field operating activities.
    Institute for Water Resources.--This institute performs 
studies and analyses amd develops planning techniques for the 
management and development of the Nation's water resources.
    United States Army Corps of Engineers Finance Center.--This 
center provides centralizes support for all Corps finance and 
accounting sites.
    The Committee has included statutory language for the past 
several years prohibiting any funds from being used to fund an 
Office of Congressional Affairs within the executive office of 
the Chief of Engineers. The Committee believes that an Office 
of Congressional Affairs for the Civil Works Program would 
hamper the efficient and effective coordination of issues with 
the Committee staff and Members of Congress. The Committee 
believes that the technical knowledge and managerial expertise 
needed for the Corps headquarters to effectively address Civil 
Works authorization, appropriation, and Headquarters policy 
matters resides in the Civil Works organization. Therefore the 
Committee strongly recommends that the office of Congressional 
Affairs not be a part of the process by which information on 
Civil Works projects, programs, and activities is provided to 
Congress.
    The Committee reminds the Corps that the General Expenses 
Account is to be used exclusively for executive oversight and 
management of the Civil Works Program.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $155,651,000.

                 FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

Appropriations, 2002....................................................
    Recissions..........................................    -$25,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      20,227,000
Committee recommendation................................      20,227,000

    This account provides funds for preparedness activities for 
natural and other disasters, response, and emergency flood 
fighting and rescue operations, hurricane response, and 
emergency shore protection work. It also provides for emergency 
supplies of clean water where the source has been contaminated 
or where adequate supplies of water are needed for consumption.
    The Committee is aware of the successful testing of the 
Rapid Deployment Flood Wall at the Engineering Research and 
Development Center in Vicksburg, Mississippi. This technology 
has proven to be promising in the effort to fight floods, cost-
effective, quick to deploy and successful in protecting 
property from flood damage, damages which total millions each 
year.
    The Committee is aware that the Corps of Engineers intends 
to revise 33 CFR 203.82 and implement cost-sharing conditions 
for emergency response and recovery activities funded by the 
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies (FCCE) account. Public 
Law 8499 provides the Secretary of the Army, acting through the 
Chief of Engineers, with broad discretionary authority to 
respond to disasters, preserve human life, and protect critical 
infrastructure. Appropriations to the FCCE account allow the 
Corps to provide assistance to distressed areas before, during 
and after natural disasters--events that usually require rapid 
response and extract heavy tolls on community resources. Under 
such urgent and extreme circumstances, Federal cost-sharing 
should not impose delay and unreasonable financial burdens on 
state and local governments trying to rebuild their 
communities. The Committee expects the Secretary to administer 
the FCCE program in accordance with the terms and conditions of 
Public Law 84-99 in a fair, reasonable and balanced manner, and 
to inform the Appropriations Committees of any specific cost 
sharing required in law for the FCCE program and to modify 33 
CFR 203.82 accordingly. Further, the Appropriations Committees 
shall be informed of any Corps of Engineers proposal intended 
to be published in the Federal Register.

             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.
    Sec. 103. The Committee has included language to make 
changes to Sec. 595(h)(1) of Public Law 106-53.
    Sec. 104. The Committee has included language concerning 
private sector contracting percentages.
    Sec. 105. The Committee has included language making 
technical corrections to the St. Paul Harbor, Alaska project.
    Sec. 106. The Committee has included language making 
technical corrections to the Abiquiu Dam Emergency gate 
project.
    Sec. 107. The Committee has included language concerning 
relocations credit for the Tropicana Flamingo project.
    Sec. 108. The Committee has included language concerning 
rehabilitation of the dredge McFARLAND. The Committee believes 
that a determination for how the dredge is to be utilized 
following this rehabilitation should be deferred until after 
the GAO report requested in Public Law 107-66 has been received 
and has undergone a thorough review by the appropriate 
Committees.

                  TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                Central Utah Project Completion Account

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $36,228,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      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 $23,643,000 has been 
provided for Central Utah project construction; $11,259,000 for 
fish, wildlife, and recreation, mitigation and conservation. 
The Committee recommendation provides $1,326,000 for program 
administration and oversight.
    The Central Utah Project Completion Act (titles II-VI of 
Public Law 102-575) provides for the completion of the central 
Utah project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. 
The Act also authorizes the appropriation of funds for fish, 
wildlife, recreation, mitigation, and conservation; establishes 
an account in the Treasury for the deposit of these funds and 
of other contributions for mitigation and conservation 
activities; and establishes a Utah Reclamation Mitigation and 
Conservation Commission to administer funds in that account. 
The Act further assigns responsibilities for carrying out the 
Act to the Secretary of the Interior and prohibits delegation 
of those responsibilities to the Bureau of Reclamation.

                         Bureau of Reclamation

                      WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $762,531,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     726,147,000
Committee recommendation................................     816,147,000

    An appropriation of $816,147,000 is recommended by the 
Committee for general investigations of the Bureau of 
Reclamation. The water and related resources account supports 
the development, management, and restoration of water and 
related natural resources in the 17 Western States. The account 
includes funds for operating and maintaining existing 
facilities to obtain the greatest overall level of benefits, to 
protect public safety, and to conduct studies on ways to 
improve the use of water and related natural resources. Work 
will be done in partnership and cooperation with non-Federal 
entities and other Federal agencies.
    The Committee is aware the Bureau has undertaken an 
investigation into the extent to which alkali silica reactivity 
effects projects within the Bureau's domain. The Committee 
commends the Bureau for this initiative. The Committee requests 
that information from the investigations be provided to the 
relevant Senate and House authorizing and appropriating 
Subcommittees within 6 months of enactment, along with 
recommendations for a course of action to prevent and mitigate 
ASR in the future's.
    The amounts recommended by the Committee are shown on the 
following table along with the budget request.

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

AK CHIN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT.................  ...........        6,200  ...........        6,200
CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT, COLORADO RIVER BASIN...............       34,709           74       34,709           74
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT, TITLE I......          731       10,240          731       10,240
COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE SYSTEM..................        3,450  ...........        4,450  ...........
FORT MCDOWELL SETTLEMENT ACT................................          500  ...........          500  ...........
NORTHERN ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.....................          422  ...........          422  ...........
PHOENIX METROPOLITAN WATER REUSE PROJECT....................          250  ...........          250  ...........
SALT RIVER PROJECT..........................................           39  ...........           39  ...........
SOUTHERN ARIZONA WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJ-  ECT.....        4,825  ...........        4,825  ...........
SOUTH/CENTRAL ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM................          797  ...........          797  ...........
TRES RIOS WETLANDS DEMONSTRATION............................          200  ...........          500  ...........
TUCSON AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE STUDY...............          100  ...........          100  ...........
YUMA AREA PROJECTS..........................................        1,658       19,107        1,658       19,107

                         CALIFORNIA
                                                              ...........
CACHUMA AREA PROJECTS.......................................          778          557          778          557
CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...........................          417  ...........          417  ...........
CALLEGUAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT RECYCLING PLANT..........        1,000  ...........        1,000  ...........
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT:
    AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION.................................        2,043        9,658        2,043        9,658
    AUBURN-FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT................................        7,707           44        7,707           44
    DELTA DIVISION..........................................       11,095        5,323       18,845        5,323
    EAST SIDE DIVISION......................................        1,230        3,855        1,230        3,855
    FRIANT DIVISION.........................................        2,276        3,024        4,026        3,024
    MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS..........................       12,726        1,027       27,726        1,027
    REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND EXTRAORDINARY  MAINT.......  ...........       16,000  ...........       16,000
    SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION...............................        4,921        1,780        5,821        1,780
    SAN FELIPE DIVISION.....................................          519  ...........          519  ...........
    SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION....................................          249  ...........          249  ...........
    SHASTA DIVISION.........................................        1,543        8,042        4,543        8,042
    TRINITY RIVER DIVISION..................................        7,727        5,572        7,727        5,572
    WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS..............................        1,791        7,614        1,791        7,614
    WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS UNIT................        5,989        6,018        5,989        6,018
    YIELD FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION.........................        1,000  ...........        1,000  ...........
LAKE TAHOE REGIONAL WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT....................          200  ...........        3,000  ...........
LONG BEACH AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROJ-  ECT......        1,500  ...........        1,800  ...........
LONG BEACH DESALINATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT....  ...........  ...........        1,000  ...........
MISSION BASIN BRACKISH GROUNDWATER DESALTING DEMO...........  ...........  ...........          300  ...........
NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY AREA WATER RECYCLING PROJ-  ECT......        1,800  ...........        2,500  ...........
ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL WATER RECLAMATION PROJECT, PHAS......        1,800  ...........        1,800  ...........
ORLAND PROJECT..............................................           39          430           39          430
SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT.................................        1,000  ...........        1,000  ...........
SAN DIEGO AREA WATER RECLAMATION PROGRAM....................        6,000  ...........        6,000  ...........
SAN GABRIEL BASIN PROJECT...................................        1,800  ...........        1,800  ...........
SAN JOSE WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM................        2,000  ...........        2,000  ...........
SOLANO PROJECT..............................................        1,248        1,513        1,248        1,513
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM..................          842  ...........          842  ...........

                          COLORADO

ANIMAS LAS PLATA PROJECT, CRSP SECTION 5 AND 8..............       33,000  ...........       35,000  ...........
COLLBRAN PROJECT............................................          122        1,212          122        1,212
COLORADO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.............................           75  ...........           75  ...........
COLORADO-BIG THOMPSON PROJECT...............................           12       10,265           12       10,265
COLORADO-BIG THOMPSON PROJECT--HORSETOOTH DAM...............  ...........       31,100  ...........       31,100
FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT....................................           41          118           41          118
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT..................................  ...........        6,785  ...........        6,985
GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II.........................          224          612          224          612
LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY PROJECT...................          582        1,552          582        1,552
MANCOS PROJECT..............................................           28           50           28           50
PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II.......................           50        1,968           50        1,968
PINE RIVER PROJECT..........................................           58           65           58           65
SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT.....................................          399        4,066          399        4,066
UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT.........................................          143          113          143          113

                            IDAHO

BOISE AREA PROJECTS.........................................        2,714        3,192        2,714        3,192
COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY PROJECT............       15,000  ...........       15,500  ...........
DRAIN WATER MANAGEMENT STUDY, BOISE PROJECT.................          100  ...........          100  ...........
IDAHO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM................................          578  ...........          578  ...........
MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS......................................        3,282        2,194        3,282        2,194
MINIDOKA NORTHSIDE DRAIN WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM...........          200  ...........          200  ...........

                           KANSAS

KANSAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...............................          235  ...........          235  ...........
WICHITA PROJECT.............................................  ...........          285  ...........          285

                           MONTANA

FORT PECK DRY PRAIRIE RURAL WATER SYSTEM....................  ...........  ...........        7,000  ...........
HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT........................................  ...........          300  ...........          300
MILK RIVER PROJECT..........................................          320          826          320          826
MONTANA INVESTIGATIONS......................................          475  ...........          475  ...........
ROCKY BOYS INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT...................        4,600  ...........        4,600  ...........

                          NEBRASKA

MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT........................................  ...........           78  ...........           78
NEBRASKA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.............................           71  ...........           71  ...........

                           NEVADA

HALFWAY WASH PROJECT STUDY..................................  ...........  ...........          390  ...........
LAHONTAN BASIN PROJECT......................................        6,215        2,339        6,215        2,339
LAKE MEAD/LAS VEGAS WASH PROGRAM............................        1,000  ...........        2,000  ...........
SOUTHERN NEVADA WATER RECYCLING PROJECT.....................  ...........  ...........        3,000  ...........

                         NEW MEXICO

ALBUQUERQUE METRO AREA WATER AND RECLAMATION  REUSE.........  ...........  ...........          400  ...........
CARLSBAD PROJECT............................................        1,644        1,126        1,644        1,126
EASTERN NEW MEXICO WATER SUPPLY.............................  ...........  ...........          250  ...........
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT...................................        7,200        8,263       19,200       18,763
NAVAJO GALLUP WATER SUPPLY PROJECT..........................          300  ...........          300  ...........
NAVAJO NATION INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM........................          300  ...........          300  ...........
PECOS RIVER BASIN WATER SALVAGE PROJECT.....................  ...........           27  ...........          500
RIO GRANDE PROJECT..........................................        1,054        2,953        1,054        2,953
SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.................          243  ...........          243  ...........
SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO/WEST TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.......          196  ...........          196  ...........
TUCUMCARI PROJECT...........................................           19  ...........           19  ...........
UPPER RIO GRANDE BASIN INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...............          165  ...........          165  ...........

                        NORTH DAKOTA

DAKOTAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM..............................          239  ...........          239  ...........
DAKOTAS TRIBES INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.......................          400  ...........          400  ...........
GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT.....................................       20,662        4,577       24,000        4,577

                          OKLAHOMA

ARBUCKLE PROJECT............................................  ...........          193  ...........          193
MCGEE CREEK PROJECT.........................................  ...........          452  ...........          452
MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT.......................................  ...........          306  ...........          306
NORMAN PROJECT..............................................          225          208          225          208
OKLAHOMA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.............................          207  ...........          507  ...........
WASHITA BASIN PROJECT.......................................  ...........          742  ...........          742
W.C. AUSTIN PROJECT.........................................  ...........          293  ...........          293

                           OREGON

CROOKED RIVER PROJECT.......................................          301          546          301          546
DESCHUTES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT.....................          500  ...........          750  ...........
DESCHUTES PROJECT...........................................          382          152          382          152
DESCHUTES PROJECT-WICKUP DAM................................  ...........       12,300  ...........       12,300
DESCHUTES PROJECT, TUMALO, BEND FEED CANAL..................  ...........  ...........        1,300  ...........
EASTERN OREGON PROJECTS.....................................          308          275          308          275
GRANDE RONDE WATER OPTIMIZATION STUDY.......................          150  ...........          150  ...........
KLAMATH PROJECT.............................................       13,644          623       19,377          623
OREGON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...............................          333  ...........          333  ...........
ROUGE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, SAVAGE RAPIDS PUMPING  PLANT.....  ...........  ...........          250  ...........
ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT DIVISION..................          454          169          454          169
TUALATIN PROJECT............................................          238          125          238          125
TUALATIN VALLEY WATER SUPPLY FEASIBILITY STUDY..............           25  ...........           25  ...........
UMATILLA BASIN PROJECT, PHASE III STUDY.....................           50  ...........          300  ...........
UMATILLA PROJECT............................................          408        2,363          408        2,363
WILLOW LAKE NATURAL TREATMENT SYSTEM........................  ...........  ...........          650  ...........

                        SOUTH DAKOTA

LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM..........................        2,000  ...........        7,000  ...........
MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT..............................       10,000           40       17,860           40
MNI WICONI PROJECT..........................................       23,292        8,228       30,772        8,228
PERKINS COUNTY RURAL WATER SALVAGE PROJECT..................  ...........  ...........        4,300  ...........
RAPID VALLEY PROJECT, DEERFIELD DAM.........................  ...........           27  ...........           27

                            TEXAS

BALMORHEA PROJECT...........................................  ...........           71  ...........           71
CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT......................................  ...........          109  ...........          109
LEON CREEK QUARRY/MITCHELL LAKE WATER REUSE PRO-  JECTA.....  ...........  ...........          500  ...........
LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY WATER RESOURCE CONSERVA-  TION......  ...........  ...........          500  ...........
NUECES RIVER................................................  ...........          392  ...........          392
SAN ANGELO PROJECT..........................................  ...........          307  ...........          307
TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM................................          217  ...........          217  ...........

                            UTAH

HYRUM PROJECT...............................................          120           24          120           24
MOON LAKE PROJECT...........................................           43           53           43           53
NAVAJO SANDSTONE AQUIFER RECHARGE STUDY.....................          100  ...........          100  ...........
NEWTON PROJECT..............................................           52           21           52           21
NORTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM........................          301  ...........          301  ...........
OGDEN RIVER PROJECT.........................................          350           44          350           44
PROVO RIVER PROJECT.........................................          677          493          677          493
SCOFIELD PROJECT............................................           97           27           97           27
SOUTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM........................          279  ...........          279  ...........
STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT...................................          107            7          107            7
WEBER BASIN PROJECT.........................................        1,455          399        1,455          399
WEBER RIVER PROJECT.........................................           52           71           52           71

                         WASHINGTON

COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT......................................        4,485        6,346        4,885        6,346
SALMON CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION, WA......................  ...........  ...........          250  ...........
WASHINGTON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...........................          518  ...........          518  ...........
YAKIMA PROJECT..............................................          598        6,156          598        6,156
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT................       11,900  ...........       15,775  ...........

                           WYOMING

KENDRICK PROJECT............................................            4        2,568            4        2,568
NORTH PLATTE PROJECT........................................           10        1,324           10        1,324
SHOSHONE PROJECT............................................           10        1,232           10        1,232
WYOMING INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM..............................           37  ...........           37  ...........

                           VARIOUS

COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL, TITLE II: 1PROGRAM          10,087  ...........       10,087  ...........
 AND COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMEN................
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, SECTION 5...................        7,178        2,302        7,178        2,302
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, SECTION 8, R&F&WL...........        3,970           22        3,970           22
COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM............          150  ...........          150  ...........
DAM SAFETY PROGRAM:
    DEPARTMENT DAM SAFETY PROGRAM...........................  ...........        1,275  ...........        1,275
    INITIATE SOD CORRECTIVE ACTION..........................  ...........       21,910  ...........       21,910
    SAFETY EVALUATION OF EXISTING DAMS......................  ...........       14,315  ...........       14,315
    SAFETY OF DAMS CORRECTIVE ACTION STUDIES................  ...........           50  ...........           50
DEPARTMENTAL IRRIGATION DRAINAGE PROGRAM....................        2,600  ...........        3,350  ...........
DROUGHT EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE................................          899  ...........        5,399  ...........
EFFICIENCY INCENTIVES PROGRAM...............................        3,087  ...........        3,087  ...........
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND DISASTER RESPONSE PROGRAM............  ...........          334  ...........          334
ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION..................       12,747  ...........       12,747  ...........
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION........................        1,706  ...........        1,706  ...........
ENVIRONMENTAL AND INTERAGENCY COORDINATION ACTIVIT-  IES....        1,890  ...........        1,890  ...........
EXAMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES..........................  ...........        5,597  ...........        5,597
FEDERAL BUILDING SEISMIC SAFETY PROGRAM.....................  ...........        1,390  ...........        1,390
GENERAL PLANNING STUDIES....................................        2,195  ...........        2,195  ...........
LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM...........................        9,689  ...........        9,689  ...........
LOWER COLORADO RIVER INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.................          275  ...........          275  ...........
LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM.....................       12,421  ...........       12,421  ...........
MISCELLANEOUS FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS......................  ...........          594  ...........          594
NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION.......................          850  ...........          850  ...........
NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM.............................        8,500  ...........        8,500  ...........
NEGOTIATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF WATER MARKETING...........        1,185  ...........        1,185  ...........
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT................          420          921          420          921
PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN--OTHER PROJECTS...................        2,828       30,759        2,828       30,759
POWER PROGRAM SERVICES......................................          969          244          969          244
PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY PROGRAM............................          420  ...........          420  ...........
RECLAMATION LAW ADMINISTRATION..............................        4,469  ...........        4,469  ...........
RECLAMATION RECREATION MANAGEMENT--TITLE XXVIII.............        2,800  ...........        2,800  ...........
RECREATION & FISH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM ADMINISTRA-  TION....        2,292  ...........        2,292  ...........
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY:
    ADVANCED WATER TREATMENT DESALINATION PROGRAM...........        1,310  ...........        1,310  ...........
    APPLIED SCIENCE /TECHNOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT.............        3,490  ...........        3,490  ...........
    DESALINATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM...........          100  ...........        4,000  ...........
    HYDROELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION/ENHANCEMEN......          900  ...........          900  ...........
    TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT..................................          350  ...........          350  ...........
    WATERSHED/RIVER SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM..............        1,000  ...........        1,000  ...........
SITE SECURITY...............................................  ...........       28,440  ...........       28,440
SOIL AND MOISTURE CONSERVATION..............................          326  ...........          326  ...........
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO STATES..............................        1,942  ...........        1,942  ...........
TITLE XVI, WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM..............        1,500  ...........        3,500  ...........
UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER ISSUES--TECHNICAL SUP-  PORT....           67  ...........           67  ...........
WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PROGRAM...................        6,581  ...........        7,081  ...........
WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT........................................        3,117  ...........        3,117  ...........
UNDISTRIBUTED REDUCTION BASED ON ANTICIPATED DELAYS.........      -37,942  ...........      -74,341  ...........
                                                             ===================================================
      TOTAL, WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES....................      381,164      344,983      459,991      356,156
                                                             ===================================================
                        LOAN PROGRAM

                         CALIFORNIA

CASTROVILLE IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLY PROJECT.................        1,239  ...........        1,239  ...........
SALINAS VALLEY WATER RECLAMATION............................          401  ...........          401  ...........
SAN SEVAINE CREEK WATER PROJECT.............................        5,575  ...........        5,575  ...........

                           VARIOUS

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

    Colorado River Front Work and Levee System, AZ.--The 
Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000 for the Bureau 
of Reclamation to continue design and Environmental compliance 
activities for water management reservoirs to be constructed 
along the All American Canal.
    Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, CO.--The Committee has provided 
an additional $200,000 for the reevaluation report.
    Central Valley Project, CA.--The Committee recommendation 
provides an additional $30,000,000 for this project for 
activities in support of the California Bay-Delta Restoration. 
These activities are more fully described under the heading for 
the California Bay-Delta Restoration.
    CVP, Sacramento Division.--The Committee has provided 
$400,000 above the budget request to continue the Colusa Basin 
Integrated Resource Management Plan.
    Lake Tahoe Regional Wetlands Development, California.--The 
Committee has provided $3,000,000 to continue the environmental 
restoration projects in the vicinity of Lake Tahoe, California 
and Nevada.
    The Bureau of Reclamation is authorized hereafter to 
negotiate and enter into financial assistance agreements with 
public and private agencies, organizations, and institutions 
for activities under the Lake Tahoe Regional Wetlands 
Development Program. Costs associated with such activities will 
be non-reimbursable.
    Animas Las-Plata Project, Colorado.--The bill contains 
$35,000,000 for the Animas Las-Plata, Colorado Project. 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.
    Arrowrock Dam, Idaho.--The Committee expects continued and 
full compliance by the Bureau with Section 206 of Public Law 
107-066, with regard to the Valve Rehabilitation Project at the 
Arrowrock Dam on the Arrowrock Division of the Boise Project in 
Idaho, for the full period of recovery of expenses prescribed 
in that Section.
    Columbia and Snake River Salmon Recovery Project, ID, OR, 
and WA.--The Committee has provided $500,000 above the budget 
request for continued fishery habitat improvements in the John 
Day River Subbasin Project, OR.
    Lucky Peak, Idaho.--The Committee is aware of the Bureau 
collecting from water users for NEPA compliance work associated 
with the Lucky Peak water service contract renewals. The 
Committee believes that, with respect to these water service 
contracts, the Bureau of Reclamation should incur these costs 
as part of its regular activities and shall report to the 
Committee within 180 days within enactment of this bill on how 
it intends to address this situation.
    Halfway Wash, NV.--The Committee recommendation has 
provided $390,000 to studies of Halfway Wash in Mesquite, 
County, NV.
    Middle Rio Grande Project, NM.--The Committee is aware of 
the pending biological opinion in effect on the Rio Grande. 
When combined with the drought conditions facing New Mexico, 
and municipalities, farmers and the silvery minnow all 
competing for the same scarce resource, water, a delicate 
balance must be maintained. The recommendation includes funding 
for the following activities: $5,100,000 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; $130,000 to combat non-native species 
endangering the silvery minnow; $650,000 for Bureau of 
Reclamation's repayment obligations under the agreement; 
$950,000 for water quality studies and improvements; and 
$2,500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation's purchase of water. 
In addition, the Committee directs the Bureau of Reclamation to 
consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service on silvery minnow 
monitoring and habitat efforts. Finally, the Committee has 
included statutory language which requires the Bureau to submit 
a report on the status and results of fiscal year 2002 funding 
and, to submit to the Committee for approval, a detailed 
spending plan for fiscal year 2003 within 60 days of enactment.
    Middle Rio Grande Levees, New Mexico.--The Committee is 
very concerned about the state of disrepair of the Middle Rio 
Grande levees due to the lack of sufficient and regular 
maintenance within the river bed, including both the levees and 
the low-flow channel. The Committee has included an additional 
$10,000,000 to address this problem and expects the Bureau to 
expedite its work in order to begin the repair of the project 
in order to address the life and safety issues. Additionally, 
the Committee expects that the Bureau will take all steps 
necessary to maintain the project in a responsible manner such 
that additional levees will not be at risk. Finally the 
Commissioner is directed to submit an annual report to the 
Senate Appropriations Committee on the status of the levee 
repairs.
    Pecos River Basin Water Supply Salvage Project, New 
Mexico.--The Committee is aware that the Bureau of Reclamation 
carries out the Pecos River Basin Water Supply Salvage project 
in collaboration with the State of New Mexico. The Committee 
directs the Bureau of Reclamation, within funds appropriated 
for the Facility Maintenance and Rehabilitation, not to provide 
less than $500,000 for this eradication effort.
    Bandon Cranberry Water Control District, Oregon.--The 
Committee is aware that over the last several years, the Bureau 
of Reclamation has been working with the Bandon Cranberry Water 
Control District on several proposals for water storage 
capacity and reservoir upgrades. The Committee encourages the 
Bureau of Reclamation to continue its work in an effort to 
determine the Federal interest in these projects and the needs 
of the water district.
    Garrison Diversion Unit, ND.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $24,000,000. While this is an increase over the budget 
request, it is still far below the amount needed to fund the 
project at an optimum level.
    Klamath Project, OR.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$19,377,000. The additional funds are for continued 
construction of the A-Canal fish screen.
    Mni Wiconi Project, SD.--The Committee has provided 
$30,772,000 for the Mni Wiconi Project. While this is an 
increase over the budget request, it is still far below the 
amount needed to fund the project at an optimal level.
    Columbia Basin Project, WA.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $400,000 above the president's request for design 
documents, plans and specifications for stream habitat 
restoration along Icicle Creek, WA.
    Salmon Creek Watershed Restoration Feasibility Study, WA.--
The Committee has provided $250,000 for feasibility studies to 
improve fisheries habitat in the Salmon Creek Watershed.
    Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program.--The 
Committee recognizes the progress the WateReuse Foundation 
program has accomplished in providing important research into 
the science and technological aspects of water reclamation and 
public health. The Committee is further aware that the 
Foundation has continued to meet its cost share is requirement 
as directed. Accordingly, the Committee provides that within 
funds provided, the Bureau of Reclamation is to provide 
$2,000,000 to support the WateReuse Foundation in its research 
activities. A high priority of this research shall be related 
to aquifer storage and recovery.
    Within funds provided for the Title XVI Program, the Bureau 
is directed to undertake feasibility studies of the potential 
for water reclamation and reuse in North Las Vegas, NV in 
cooperation with the Southern Nevada Water Authority.
    Science and Technology, Desalination Research and 
Development Program.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$4,000,000 for desalination research and development. Within 
the funds provided, the Commissioner is directed to assess the 
potential use of advanced water treatment technologies as a 
resource to create net new water supplies and to evaluate 
project benefits, economic values and environmental effects. 
Further, the Commissioner should identify resource needs that 
can be met through these technologies and interparty transfers 
and to identify obstacles to be overcome (physical, financial, 
institutional, and regulatory). The assessment should include 
an assessment of life cycle cost effectiveness and validate new 
technology and practices.
    Drought Emergency Assistance.--The Committee has provided 
$5,399,000. Within the funds provided, $3,500,000 is for a 
regional weather damage modification program and $1,000,000 is 
for assistance to the State of Montana, now in its fourth year 
of drought.
    The Committee is concerned about the impact of the current 
drought on farmers, municipalities, and other water users. 
Unfortunately, being that this issue was unanticipated, the 
President's budget did not contain any significant funds to 
address drought. Therefore, the Committee expects that the 
Bureau will utilize its drought emergency assistance program 
which enables the Bureau to construct temporary facilities and 
provide assistance in the form of contingency planning for 
communities in an effort to minimize the impacts of drought.
    From the funds appropriated for drought emergency 
assistance, the Committee urges the Bureau to provide full and 
fair consideration of the request for drought assistance from 
the State of Hawaii and fund, if meritorious.
    Water Management and Conservation Program.--The Committee 
has provided $500,000 above the President's budget for urban 
water conservation programs within the service area of the 
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.
    Departmental Irrigation Drainage Program.--The Committee 
has provided $750,000 above the budget request for the 
Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association Selenium Remediation 
Demonstration Project.
    Nonreimbursability of Security Funding.--Funds made 
available in Public Law 107-117 for Water and Related Resources 
to respond to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the 
United States and sums appropriated under this heading for 
increased site security/counter-terrorism activity shall be 
nonreimbursible.

                   BUDGET LIMITATIONS AND REDUCTIONS

    Constrained spending limits have made it difficult for the 
Committee to formulate a balanced Energy and Water Development 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003. In order to adhere to 
the subcommittee's allocations, address the critical ongoing 
activities, correct program imbalances contained in the 
President's fiscal year 2003 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.

                CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $55,039,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      48,904,000
Committee recommendation................................      48,904,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $48,904,000, 
the same as the budget request for the Central Valley Project 
Restoration Fund.
    The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund was authorized 
in the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, title 34 of 
Public Law 102-575. This fund was established to provide 
funding from project beneficiaries for habitat restoration, 
improvement and acquisition, and other fish and wildlife 
restoration activities in the Central Valley project area of 
California. Revenues are derived from payments by project 
beneficiaries and from donations. Payments from project 
beneficiaries include several required by the Act (Friant 
Division surcharges, higher charges on water transferred to 
non-CVP users, and tiered water prices) and, to the extent 
required in appropriations acts, additional annual mitigation 
and restoration payments.

                    CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2002....................................................
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     $15,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................

    This account funds activities that are consistent with the 
CALFED Bay-Delta Program, a collaborative effort involving 18 
State and Federal Agencies and representatives of California's 
urban, agricultural, and environmental communities. The goals 
of the program are to improve fish and wildlife habitat, water 
supply reliability, and water quality in the San Francisco Bay-
San Joaquin River Delta, the principle hub of California's 
water distribution system.
    The CALFED Program was established in May 1995, for the 
purpose of developing a comprehensive, long-term solution to 
the complex and inter-related problems in the San Francisco 
Bay-Delta area of California. The program's focus is on the 
health of the ecosystem and improving water management. In 
addition, this program addresses the issues of uncertain water 
supplies, aging levees, and threatened water quality.
    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 $30,000,000 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.--$15,000,000 to acquire 
water and ground water storage.

                   PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

    Delta Division Oversight.--$2,500,000 to continue 
coordination, administration, planning, performance tracking 
and science activities in coordination with CALFED Program 
Implementation Plan.

                                STORAGE

    Shasta Division.--$3,000,000 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. 
$2,000,000 for Reclamation to continue participating in 
planning activities associated with enlarging Los Vaqueros 
reservoir.
    Friant Division.--$1,750,000 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.--$5,000,000 to construct the Tracy Test 
Fish Facility.

                       POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $52,968,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      54,870,000
Committee recommendation................................      54,870,000

    The Committee recommendation for general administrative 
expenses is $54,870,000. 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 
natural desert terminal lakes.
    Section 204 of the bill includes language concerning 
private sector contracting percentages.
    Section 205 of the bill includes language directing the 
Bureau to undertake studies for the North Central Montana Rural 
Water Supply project using prior appropriated funds.
    Section 206 of the bill includes language to make changes 
to Section 8 of Public Law 104-298.
    Section 207 of the bill includes language regarding the San 
Luis Unit and the Kesterson Reservoir in California.

                    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 2003, 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.

                             Energy Supply

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $666,726,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     693,934,000
Committee recommendation................................     815,306,000

                       RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $396,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     407,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     448,062,000

    The Committee recommendation provides $448,062,000, for 
renewable energy resources.
    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.
    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.
    Each year the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Conference Report contains a handful of ``Congressionally-
directed activities'' (to use the Department's description). To 
date, the Renewable Energy Resources Office has funded fifteen 
of these Congressionally-mandated activities for fiscal year 
2002. This is an unacceptable rate at this point in the fiscal 
year. These activities are not optional and are to be given the 
same priority as the rest of the fiscal year spending program. 
The Committee fully expects the Department to address this 
situation before the Conference Committee completes action on 
the final funding bill.
    Although the Renewable Energy Resources Office is currently 
undergoing a reorganization, it is not yet complete. It is both 
unwise and impractical to appropriate funds to accounts that 
may or may not exist at the start of the fiscal year. For that 
reason, the Committee recommendation appropriates funds 
generally in accordance with the Administration's fiscal year 
2003 budget request. If the reorganization is complete when the 
Conference Committee convenes, the Committee will consider re-
aligning the accounts.
    Solar energy.--The Committee recommendation for solar 
energy programs is $95,000,000. This account is broken up into 
three sub-accounts, each of which is described below.
    Solar building technology research.--The Committee 
recommends $12,000,000 to fund solar building technology 
development, including enhanced support to the zero energy 
building program.
    Photovoltaic energy systems.--The Committee recommends 
$77,000,000 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 
$6,000,000 for concentrating solar power. The Department is 
directed to begin implementation of a program to deploy 1000 MW 
of new solar capacity supplying the Southwestern United States 
by the year 2006.
    Biomass/biofuels--energy systems.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $100,000,000 for biomass/biofuels 
energy systems. The final Energy and Water Development 
Conference Report for fiscal year 2002 combined the power 
systems and transportation subaccounts to increase the 
programmatic flexibility available to the Department. Thus far, 
the Committee is encouraged with the results of this 
consolidation and has maintained the new program structure.
    Not less than $27,000,000 shall be used for a competitive 
solicitation for Biomass Integrated Biorefinery Process 
Development which shall be funded from within the totals 
available under the biomass/biofuels energy account.
    The Department has indicated a desire to end direct support 
to the Regional Biomass Energy Program (RBEP). The Committee 
believes that the RBEP has been a successful partnership with 
the five distinct regions it has served. The Committee 
recommendation includes $5,000,000 and directs the Department 
to work with regional governors' organizations to make RBEP 
even more successful. The Committee recommendation also 
includes $2,500,000 for the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology 
Research, a successful consortium of 34 universities and 33 
agribusinesses and trade associations.
    Wind.--The Committee recommendation includes $50,000,000 
for wind. The Committee expects the Department to utilize the 
additional funds to accelerate development and deployment of 
low wind speed turbines. The Wind Powering America initiative 
is to be continued at last year's funding level. The Committee 
continues to recognize the need for a set-aside for small wind 
programs.
    Renewable energy production incentive.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $5,000,000 for the renewable energy 
production incentive.
    Renewable program support.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $6,059,000 for technical analysis and assistance 
within renewable program support. The Committee recommendation 
includes $4,000,000 to continue the collaboration and 
integration of multi-program activities by the National 
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to develop renewable energy 
resources and address the electric power needs of the 
Southwestern United States. NREL will provide expertise through 
a virtual laboratory or site office in Nevada that enables 
partnerships among universities, researchers, technology 
developers, and those interested in deployment.
    Departmental Energy Management.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $3,000,000 for departmental energy 
management.
    International renewable programs.--The Committee strongly 
supports the U.S. international joint implementation program 
funded in this account and recommends $6,500,000 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. 
The Committee is pleased that the Administration has decided to 
expand its international renewable energy activities.
    National Renewable Energy Laboratory.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $6,800,000, 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 and $800,000 is for construction.
    Geothermal.--The Committee recommends $37,000,000 for 
geothermal technology development, including continued funding 
(at current year levels) for GeoPowering the West. The 
Committee is concerned that the Department appears to be 
cutting funds for these important research efforts prematurely. 
The decision to cut funds for geothermal technology development 
flies in the face of the recommendations of the President's 
Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) made in 
1997. The PCAST report recommends an escalation of funding over 
a short period of time to $50,000,000-$60,000,000. 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.
    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 $45,000,000.
    The Committee continues to encourage demonstration of a 
dedicated fleet of vehicles, including buses, powered by 
hydrogen.
    Industrial consumption of hydrogen, especially by the 
petro-chemical and fertilizer communities is large and growing. 
The rate of petro-chemical hydrogen consumption necessary for 
gasoline-powered vehicles will accelerate as global reserves of 
sweet crude oil diminish. The dominant resource for hydrogen 
production today is natural gas whose reformation into hydrogen 
and carbon dioxide contributes significantly to atmospheric 
greenhouse gases. Moreover, natural gas reserves are 
insufficient to service simultaneously domestic heating and 
electricity requirements, industrial hydrogen consumption, and 
future demands by hydrogen powered vehicles and other fuel cell 
applications that would accompany the future ``Hydrogen 
Economy.'' Accordingly, the Committee supports investment in 
exploration of feasible concepts for renewable production of 
hydrogen with no greenhouse gas emissions and no other waste 
products by adding $2,000,000 for an engineering study and 
evaluation of solar-powered thermo-chemical production of 
hydrogen from water.
    Hydropower.--The Committee recommends $7,489,000 for 
hydropower.
    Renewable Indian energy resources.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $9,307,000 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. Within 
available funds, the Committee recommendation includes 
$1,000,000 for the Council of Renewable Energy Resource Tribes 
(CERT) to provide technical expertise and training of Native 
Americans in renewable energy resource development and electric 
generation facilities management.
    Electric energy systems and storage.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $75,000,000 for electric energy systems 
and storage.
    This program provides funding for transmission reliability, 
energy storage systems and high temperature superconductivity 
research and development.
    The Committee strongly supports the activities of the high 
temperature superconductor development program, which will 
revolutionize the way electric power is generated, transmitted 
and ultimately used by the consumer, and therefore urges the 
Department of Energy to submit as part of future budgets an 
independent funding request for HTS research and development, 
as it does for programs such as wind, solar and geothermal 
power.
    The Committee recommendation includes $50,000,000 for high 
temperature superconductor research and development and 
$25,000,000 for distributed energy systems. The Committee 
recommendation includes the budget request of $9,000,000 for 
the effort jointly led by Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Los 
Alamos National Laboratory to develop high-performance, low-
cost, second-generation, high-temperature superconducting wire.
    Renewable program direction.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $16,907,000 for program direction within this account.
    Use of prior year balances.--The recommendation includes 
the use of $15,000,000 of prior year funds to be carried over 
from fiscal year 2002 to offset the fiscal year 2003 funding 
requirements. The Department may not cut congressionally-
directed activities to implement this offset.

                        NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAMS

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $226,773,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     249,798,000
Committee recommendation................................     324,108,000

    The Committee recommendation provides $324,108,000 for 
nuclear energy.
    Nuclear energy presently contributes about 21 percent of 
our nation's electrical power and emits no atmospheric 
pollutants, although disposal of spent fuel remains a major 
technical and social challenge. 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. The Committee recommendation includes 
enhanced funding for the advanced accelerator applications 
program as described below.
    University reactor fuel assistance and support.--The 
Committee recommends $19,500,000 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.
    The Committee notes the progress of the Department in 
carrying out congressional direction to establish and support 
regional university reactor consortia. Although progress is 
visible, the Committee remains concerned about the ability of 
the Nation to respond to the growing demand for trained experts 
in nuclear science and technology in the face of financial and 
other challenges affecting engineering programs and research 
reactor facilities at American universities. The Committee 
recommendation includes an increase of $3,000,000 over the 
request to fund additional consortia and strongly encourages 
the Department to request sufficient funding in future years to 
fund all meritorious proposals.
    Nuclear energy plant optimization.--The Committee 
recommends a total of $5,000,000, an increase of $5,000,000 
over the budget request. The Department is encouraged to 
continue 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 $29,000,000, an increase of $4,000,000 
over the budget request. The Department's budget request would 
not allow for any new NERI projects in the coming year. The 
proposed increase is necessary to continue to grow the scope of 
the technology and the people for a growing nuclear industry.
    Nuclear Energy Technologies.--The Committee recommends a 
total of $48,500,000. The Committee directs the Department to 
prepare a report by March 31, 2003, regarding how it intends to 
carry out the results of the Generation IV Roadmap.
    To further the introduction of advanced reactors, 
especially those that are not conventional, it is important to 
establish a process by which research/demonstration reactors 
can be built and tested in a manner that will allow a 
regulatory process to focus on the safety of the technologies 
for which there is not a large regulatory history. It is thus 
recommended that $1,000,000 be allocated to a joint DOE and NRC 
development of a licensing process employing ``risk 
information'' that would be technology neutral for future 
licensing of advanced reactors that would lead to eventual 
certification.
    The Committee supports the Department's efforts to 
establish the fuels resource and infrastructure ultimately 
essential to the realization of the President's vision for the 
future ``Hydrogen Economy.'' Accordingly, the Committee 
provides an additional $3,000,000 for the purpose of 
accelerating the engineering evaluation of an integrated 
sulfur/iodine thermo-chemical water-splitting cycle for 
coupling with a high temperature nuclear reactor power source. 
Of the additional $3,000,000, the Committee directs that 
$1,000,000 be provided to the Research Foundation of the 
University of Nevada, Las Vegas for the purpose of establishing 
a public-private partnership to develop and evaluate innovative 
high temperature heat exchangers.
    The Committee remains interested in the potential use and 
application of small modular reactors with attractive 
characteristics for remote communities that otherwise must rely 
on shipments of relatively expensive and environmentally 
undesirable fuels for their electric power. To be acceptable, 
such a reactor would have to be inherently safe, be relatively 
cost effective, contain intrinsic design features which would 
deter sabotage or diversion, require infrequent refuelings, and 
be largely factory constructed and deliverable to remote sites. 
The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 to begin 
design work for a plant to demonstrate the viability of such 
small modular reactors.
    Radiological facilities management.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $92,699,000, $9,600,000 above the 
request, for radiological facilities management.
    The Committee funding recommendation includes $600,000 in 
additional funding for the Cyclotron Isotope Research Center. 
Within available funds the Department is also directed to 
provide $7,000,000 for hot cell upgrades/establishment of the 
Bethel Valley Hot Cell Complex; and $5,000,000 for Pu238 
production and Np237 storage. Construction projects are funded 
at the level of the administration's request.
    Production of Medical Isotopes.--The Committee commends the 
Department for issuing a request for proposal to dispose of 
U233 in building 3019 at the Oak Ridge Reservation and to 
process that material to produce medical isotopes. The 
Committee's long support of this effort is a matter of record, 
and the Committee again emphasizes the importance of this 
project for the treatment of cancer. Initial human trials 
utilizing thorium-229, which can be derived from the uranium-
233 stored in Building 3019, have yielded tremendously 
encouraging results which indicate this radio-isotope may be 
able to effectively treat leukemia and other cancers. The 
Committee also recognizes that an essential part of this 
project is the disposition of the U233 at the Oak Ridge 
Reservation. The Committee, cognizant that 1,800 people in the 
United States die every month of leukemia, is frustrated that 
the Department is now 2 years behind schedule on this project 
and has proposed a schedule that includes unusually long pauses 
between phases (such as the proposed 6 months between 
completion of phase I and initiation of phase II). The 
Committee recommendation makes available $5,000,000 for this 
project in fiscal year 2003. The Department is directed to 
fully fund the disposition of U233 and the processing of the 
material to produce medical isotopes in future years and 
proceed with this project as swiftly as possible.
    Fast flux test facility.--The Committee has provided the 
budget request of $36,100,000 for the FFTF. The Committee 
expects the Department to move forward quickly on the permanent 
deactivation of this facility.
    Advanced fuel cycles program.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $77,870,000 for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Program of 
which $18,000,000 is allocated to EBR-II Spent Fuel Treatment.
    This program subsumes the Advanced Accelerator Applications 
program and its activities and will focus on the development of 
advanced fuel cycles, including recycle or reprocessing of 
spent fuel, and transmutation technologies. The Committee 
intends the Department to use national laboratory, university 
and industrial expertise to perform research in advanced 
nuclear materials recycle technologies, proliferation-resistant 
nuclear fuels, and transmutation systems, including both 
reactor- and accelerator-based approaches. The program goals 
shall include enabling better utilization of uranium resources 
and minimizing the amount and toxicity of final waste products. 
The program shall begin pre-conceptual design of an advanced 
recycle facility for performing research on scalable recycle 
technologies that are proliferation resistant, economical, and 
minimize environmental impact. The program shall use 
international collaborations to provide cost effective use of 
research funding and expand both university collaborations and 
domestic industry participation.
    The University of Nevada Las Vegas shall continue research 
activities in the area of transmutation science and testing of 
spallation target technology established under the Advanced 
Accelerator Applications program. Funding of $4,500,000 is 
provided for these efforts. The program shall undertake 
evaluation and may initiate design and development of a fuels 
and materials testing station using the LANSCE accelerator 
facility.
    Finally, the program shall be coordinated with other 
programs such as Generation IV and Nuclear Power 2010, but 
shall maintain separate program and financial management. 
Within the increased funding levels, the Department is directed 
to continue the advanced accelerator applications program, 
including funding for the UNLV program at current year levels 
and the Idaho Accelerator Program at $3,500,000. Additionally, 
the Department is directed to restore the nuclear energy 
program funding to current year levels at Argonne National Lab 
and ANL-West.
    Left unchecked, the administration's budget cut would 
dismantle the last remaining nuclear development team in the 
United States. Such an action is completely inconsistent with 
the Administration's Nuclear Power 2010 goals. The Committee is 
pleased that the Department has agreed that the Nuclear Energy 
Program is an appropriate home for this robust research and 
development effort.
    University Consortium for Transmutation Research.--As 
discussed above, the right mix of treatment and transmutation 
technologies must be found to reduce the amount of highly-toxic 
spent nuclear fuel and waste slated to be buried in a geologic 
repository, and to avoid the need for more repositories. High-
energy accelerators could be central to a future strategy to 
transmute spent nuclear fuel into less toxic, shorter-lived 
materials.
    Innovative transmutation technologies promise to be the 
most cost-effective and proliferation-resistant means of 
reducing nuclear waste toxicity. Accelerator-based research on 
transmutation of radioactive waste would also supply facilities 
for medical diagnostics and therapy and become a national 
source of large-scale isotope production for radio-
pharmaceuticals.
    The Department of Energy is urged to establish a consortium 
of U.S. universities to develop accelerator-based technologies 
for transmutation of radioactive waste. The consortium should 
include, at a minimum, the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, 
University of New Mexico, New Mexico State University, 
Washington State University, Idaho State University, the 
University of Texas, Texas A&M University, and the University 
of California at Santa Barbara, Berkeley and Davis.
    Program direction.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$23,439,000 for program direction, the amount of the request.

                    ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY, AND HEALTH

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $30,500,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      29,211,000
Committee recommendation................................      19,211,000

    The Committee recommendation includes $19,211,000 for non-
defense environment, safety, and health which includes 
$13,871,000 for program direction.

                       ENERGY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2002....................................      $7,770,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................       7,925,000
Committee recommendation................................       6,925,000

    Technical information management.--The Committee 
recommendation for the technical information management program 
is $1,400,000.
    Program direction.--The Committee recommendation for 
program direction is $5,525,000.

                      ENERGY SUPPLY INFRASTRUCTURE

Appropriations, 2002....................................................
Budget estimate, 2003...................................................
Committee recommendation................................     $17,000,000

    The Committee recommendation provides $17,000,000 for 
energy supply infrastructure.
    The energy supply infrastructure program provides 
assistance, technical support, and project funding to specific 
energy projects. The Committee recommendation includes 
$5,000,000 for the Upper Lynn Canal power supply project, 
$5,000,000 to the Swan Lake-Lake Tyee segment of the 
Southeastern Alaska Intertie System, and $2,000,000 to the Tok 
to Glenallen transmission project.
    The Committee recommendation also includes $5,000,000 for 
the National Center on Energy Management and Building 
Technologies.

                        Environmental Management

                              (NONDEFENSE)

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $236,372,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     166,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     176,000,000

    The Committee recommendation provides $176,000,000 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.
    Site Closure.--The Committee directs the Department to 
continue to monitor the groundwater at the Weldon Springs, 
Missouri, site and to immediately utilize whatever funds may be 
necessary to completely remediate the site if the results from 
the on-going monitoring or other studies indicate additional 
treatment is required.
    Site completion.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$67,272,000 for site completion. The Committee recommendation 
includes an additional $15,000,000 for the Brookhaven National 
Laboratory; and $1,000,000 in additional funding for the 
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
    Post 2006 completion.--The Committee recommendation 
provides $123,887,000. The Committee recommendation includes an 
additional $3,134,000 for remediation of the Atlas mill 
tailings site at Moab, Utah; and an additional $3,000,000 for 
the Energy Technology Engineering Center in California.
    West Valley.--The Committee recommendation includes an 
additional $5,000,000 for the West Valley Demonstration 
Project. The Committee is concerned that the Department and 
State of New York have not yet entered into an agreement 
regarding the scope of the clean-up at the site.
    Excess Facilities.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$1,841,000 for the transfer of excess facilities at the 
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, 
and Oak Ridge from other DOE organizations.

             Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $418,425,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     382,154,000
Committee recommendation................................     471,154,000

    Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning.--
The Committee recommendation provides $334,523,000 for the 
uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund.
    The Committee provides a total of $134,048,000, an increase 
of an additional $34,000,000 for clean-up at the Paducah 
Gaseous Diffusion Plant to ensure compliance with applicable 
State and Federal obligations. The Committee directs the 
Department to fund the Kentucky Consortium for Energy and 
Environment from within available funds.
    The Committee recommendation also includes $65,000,000 in 
additional funding for the East Tennessee Technology Park.
    Other Uranium Activities.--The Committee recommends 
$136,631,000. The Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 
in support of preliminary environmental planning, siting 
studies, and related activities for the Depleted Uranium 
Hexafluoride (DUF-6) projects at that gaseous diffusion plants 
at Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio, consistent with the 
direction (ignored for many years by the Department but 
reiterated legislatively by Congress this year) of Section 1 of 
Public Law 105-204 (112 Stat. 681) as amended.
    The Committee recommendation includes uranium program 
activity funding of $16,381,000 for East Tennessee Technology 
Park, $19,737,000 for the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, and 
$89,714,000 for the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant.

                      Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $95,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     209,702,000
Committee recommendation................................      56,000,000

    The Committee recommendation includes $336,000,000 for 
nuclear waste disposal. Of that amount, $56,000,000 is derived 
from the nuclear waste fund, and $280,000,000 shall be 
available from the ``Defense nuclear waste disposal'' account.
    The Committee has provided $6,000,000 for the State of 
Nevada and $2,500,000 for affected units of local government in 
accordance with the statutory restrictions contained in the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
    The Committee directs that $2,500,000 from within the 
amount provided to Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal for Yucca 
Mountain Site Characterization be provided to the Research 
Foundation of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas for the 
purpose of continuing and expanding its efforts in ground water 
characterization and research into the transport and fate of 
radionuclides in the vicinity of the proposed Yucca Mountain 
repository.

                                Science

Appropriations, 2002....................................  $3,233,100,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................   3,279,456,000
Committee recommendation................................   3,329,456,000

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

                          HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $716,100,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     724,990,000
Committee recommendation................................     729,980,000

    The Committee recommendation includes $729,980,000 for high 
energy physics. The Committee has included an additional 
$5,000,000 for the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. The 
Committee recognizes that the High Energy Physics Advisory 
Panel has recommended that the Next Linear Collider (NLC) at 
the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center should proceed into 
design and construction.

                            NUCLEAR PHYSICS

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $360,510,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     382,370,000
Committee recommendation................................     387,370,000

    The Committee recommends $387,370,000 for nuclear physics. 
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, 2002....................................    $527,405,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     504,215,000
Committee recommendation................................     531,215,000

    The Committee recommendation includes $531,215,000 for 
biological and environmental research. The recommendation 
includes an additional $10,000,000 above the requested level 
for the Genomes to Life program and $25,000,000 in total 
funding for the low dose effects program. The recommendation 
also continues the free air carbon dioxide experiments at the 
current year level and $3,000,000 in additional funding for the 
EMSL computer.
    The Committee strongly encourages the Department to budget 
for additional resources for the Genomes to Life Program in 
fiscal year 2004. This program shows tremendous potential and 
deserves enhanced support.
    Environmental Remediation.--The Committee recommendation 
includes an additional amount of $6,000,000 for a program to 
evaluate improved technologies for removal of arsenic from 
municipal water supplies, with a focus on minimization of 
operating costs and reducing energy requirements. This program 
shall include peer-reviewed research projects as well as cost-
shared demonstration projects conducted with municipal water 
systems. Demonstration programs shall focus on technologies 
applicable in the arid southwestern United States. The program 
shall be administered through contracts with the American Water 
Works Association Research Foundation, which shall utilize 
capabilities of WERC, A Consortium for Environmental Education 
and Technology Development, for evaluations of cost 
effectiveness of alternative treatment methodologies.

                         BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

Appropriations, 2002....................................  $1,003,705,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................   1,019,600,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,044,600,000

    The Committee recommendation includes $1,044,600,000. 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 $4,500,000 in additional funding to complete 
preliminary engineering and design (PED) and move to 
construction at the Center for Integrated Nanotechnology. 
Within available funds the Committee recommendation includes 
full funding for the operation of the National Synchrotron 
Light Source, the Spallation Neutron Source, and the Nanoscale 
Science Centers Initiative, including $24,000,000 for design 
and construction of the Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences 
and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Construction projects are 
all funded at the level of the administration's request.
    The Committee is pleased with the progress of the 
Department's Nanoscience Initiative. The Committee understands 
the Department has recently announced its intention to fund a 
Nanocenter at Brookhaven National Laboratory. The Committee has 
included $1,000,000 to begin preliminary engineering and design 
in fiscal year 2003 for the Nanocenter at Brookhaven (Project 
02-SC-2). The Committee strongly supports the nanoscale science 
research centers.
    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.
    Advanced Scientific Computing Research.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $169,625,000 for advanced scientific 
computing research.

                        SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

    The Committee recommendation provides $48,127,000 for 
safeguards and security.

                       SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION

    The Committee recommendation provides $134,837,000 for 
science program direction.

                SCIENCE LABORATORIES FACILITIES SUPPORT

    The Committee recommends $42,735,000, the amount of the 
request, for science energy laboratories facilities support. 
The program supports infrastructure activities at the five 
national labs under the direction of the Office of Science.

                         FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $248,495,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     257,310,000
Committee recommendation................................     259,310,000

    The Committee recommendation for fusion energy sciences is 
$259,310,000, an amount that is $2,000,000 above the budget 
request. The Committee is aware of significantly increased 
neutron yields from compressed fuel elements heated by an 
extremely short pulse, high power laser beam. Such advances 
promise significant acceleration of the schedule for achieving 
ignition of compressed fusion pellets. Accordingly, the 
Committee adds $2,000,000 to Fusion Energy Sciences for the 
purpose of evaluating this so-called ``fast ignition'' concept. 
The Department is directed to report back to the Committee no 
later than August 1, 2003 with the results of this evaluation 
along with any recommendations the Department would make 
regarding the schedule and milestones of the High Energy 
Density Physics Program.

                      Departmental Administration

                                (GROSS)

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $210,853,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     299,220,000
Committee recommendation................................     235,000,000

                        (MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES)

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $137,810,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     137,524,000
Committee recommendation................................     137,524,000

    The Department recommends $235,000,000 for departmental 
administration, a net appropriation of $97,476,000.
    The Committee has been underwhelmed by the timeliness and 
level of detail in the Department's responses to the 
Committee's requests for the additional budget information 
required to evaluate the administration's requests to Congress. 
The Department needs to focus on providing timely, detailed, 
and transparent budget information to Congress when making 
requests for appropriations.
    International affairs.--The Committee strongly urges the 
Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, U.S. AID, and 
other Federal agencies associated with the Clean Energy 
Technology Exports Program to finalize and implement the 
strategic plan and establish the advisory board. The strategic 
plan is a critical component of a broad range of international 
and domestic policy interests, including those promoting 
economic development, energy, trade, employment, environmental, 
and climate change policies.

                           Inspector General

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $32,430,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      37,671,000
Committee recommendation................................      37,671,000

    The Committee has provided $37,671,000 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, 2002....................................  $5,429,238,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................   5,867,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   6,108,959,000

    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 spirit 
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 capitalized and maintained 
physical plants and supporting infrastructure, and 
exceptionally focused and dedicated management.

                        DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK

    An appropriation of $1,234,467,000 is recommended for the 
directed stockpile work of the NNSA.
    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 $467,149,000, the same as the budget request. 
Stockpile R&D provides for assessment, certification, 
surveillance and maintenance research and development for 
systems comprising our enduring nuclear weapons stockpile. The 
additional $118,149,000 above the current year is meant to 
support acceleration in stockpile life extension research and 
development activities for the W80 and W76 systems, necessary 
additional sub-critical experiments at the Nevada Test Site for 
pit certification, and a vigorous program in advanced concepts 
research and development.
    Stockpile maintenance.--The Committee recommends 
$401,157,000 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 
$197,184,000 to support new material laboratory tests, new 
material flight tests, stockpile laboratory tests, stockpile 
flight tests, quality evaluations, special testing, and 
surveillance of weapons systems to support assessment of the 
safety and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile, all of 
which contributes to the Annual Certification to the President.
    Dismantlement/disposal.--The Committee recommends 
$24,378,000. The program includes all activities associated 
with weapon retirement and disassembly. The slight decrease 
below current year reflects reduced activity involving the W-56 
at Y-12 and contractor efficiencies at Pantex.
    Production Support.--The Committee recommends $137,706,000.

                               CAMPAIGNS

    An appropriation of $2,148,210,000 is recommended for the 
campaigns of the NNSA, an increase of $80,376,000 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 
$47,159,000 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 
$90,594,000. The Committee commends the administration for its 
investment in the future through university grants, 
partnerships and cooperative agreements. Using $5,000,000 of 
the available funds, the Administration is directed to make 
full use of existing and developing capabilities for materials 
properties studies, including the subcritical experiments at 
the U1a facility, Joint Actinide Shock Physics Experimental 
Research facility and the Atlas facility at the Nevada Test 
Site, and the High Pressure Collaborative Access Team facility 
at the synchrotron light source at Argonne National Laboratory. 
The Committee understands that this materials work is essential 
to predicting the safety and reliability of nuclear weapons in 
the absence of nuclear weapons testing.
    The Committee recommendation includes $8,110,000 for 
University Partnerships, a reduction of $5,000,000 from the 
request.
    Advanced radiography.--The Committee recommends 
$82,925,000, an increase of $30,000,000 over the request. The 
recommendation includes $25,000,000 to continue research, 
development, and conceptual design activities for an advanced 
hydrodynamics test facility, including further development and 
evaluation of proton radiography. 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. The additional $5,000,000 is provided to fund other 
experiments that might be conducted in the Contained Firing 
Facility, the U1a tunnel complex, or other appropriate 
experimental facilities. The Committee also directs the 
Department to fully support the DHART facility, proton 
radiography, and radiation flow diagnostics.
    Secondary certification and nuclear systems margins.--The 
Committee recommends $47,790,000 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, partnerships and 
cooperative agreements.
    Enhanced surety.--The Committee recommends $32,000,000, an 
amount comparable to current year, to develop and demonstrate 
advanced initiation concepts and enhanced use denial concepts, 
and to enhance efforts to establish high precision, micro 
system technologies for enhanced surety of future weapon 
systems.
    Weapons systems engineering certification.--The Committee 
recommends $27,007,000 to accelerate the acquisition of 
experimental data necessary to validate new models and 
simulation tools being developed in the Advanced Simulation and 
Computing Campaign.
    Nuclear survivability.--The Committee recommends 
$23,394,000 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.--The Committee recommends 
$487,293,000.
    The Committee recommendation includes $214,045,000 for 
National Ignition Facility construction, Project 96-D-111, and 
$273,248,000 is for the ICF ignition and high yield program.
    The National Ignition Facility (NIF) was originally 
justified as a way of attracting, training, and evaluating the 
next generation of nuclear weapons scientists, who would then 
help maintain the capabilities of our existing nuclear 
stockpile. The Department of Energy has long maintained that 
achieving ignition with this multibillion dollar facility was a 
top priority for the Stockpile Stewardship and Management 
Program, because the scientific and engineering challenges of 
achieving ignition with the NIF could be used to induce first-
rate scientists to contribute to the nuclear weapons program. 
It was the ignition objective that determined the original 
size, performance criteria, and cost of the multibillion dollar 
NIF construction project, and the ignition objective that has 
justified continued support by this Committee in spite of large 
cost overruns and long delays.
    The Committee is therefore disturbed to see that the NNSA 
has now changed the title of its campaign from ``Inertial 
Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield'' to ``High Energy 
Density Physics'', in other words, from a focus on achieving 
the specific goal of ignition to a generalized physics research 
program. Ignition is now only one of several objectives for the 
NIF.
    The Committee is likewise concerned that the NNSA will 
downgrade the NIF Project's long-standing ``Functional 
Requirements and Primary Criteria'' into a set of ``eventual 
goals'' and adopt new reduced performance criteria for 
acceptance testing of the NIF beams that are significantly 
below what is required to support ignition experiments.
    The possibility of these various changes leaves the 
Committee with the overall impression that NNSA is not 
committed to the NIF Project and might down scope the project 
to the point where laser performance that is needed to evaluate 
ignition targets would never be realized. And that would raise 
the question of the appropriate size for the NIF, and its 
future funding level. This is an alarming prospect, given NIF's 
estimated project cost of more than $3,500,000,000, and the 
greater amounts that will eventually be required to operate and 
maintain the facility for various experiments.
    At this late stage in the construction project, the 
Committee has every right to expect that the confidence in 
achieving the ignition objective should be increasing, not 
decreasing. The apparent retreat from ignition signified in 
this budget request raises anew the question of the appropriate 
size and role of the NIF Project within the overall Stewardship 
Program, and its future level of funding.
    The Committee rejects this re-prioritization and down-
scoping. Ignition is now and will remain the primary objective 
for the National Ignition Facility. The Committee fully expects 
the NIF to meet its original ``Functional Requirements and 
Primary Criteria'' and to perform at the levels required for 
ignition and directs the NNSA to maintain the original scope of 
the project. Additionally, the Committee rejects the proposed 
name change and expects the fiscal year 2004 request to revert 
to Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield.
    The Committee is disappointed that the administration, 
while apparently committed to the construction of the multi-
billion dollar National Ignition Facility (NIF), has not 
requested funds that are essential to the achievement of the 
ignition goal. Accordingly, the Committee adds $15,000,000 to 
the administration's request for the NIF Director to support 
the development of cryogenic targets and essential NIF 
diagnostics. The Committee, recognizing the ``national'' 
character of NIF, encourages the participation of appropriate 
entities of the national technical community in these 
activities.
    Petawatt lasers.--Short pulse, petawatt class lasers will 
significantly increase the capabilities of the administration's 
high energy density facilities such as the Z-pinch pulsed power 
facility at Sandia National Laboratories, the Trident Laser at 
Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Omega Laser at the 
Laboratory for Laser Energetics of the University of Rochester, 
and the National Ignition Facility at the Lawrence Livermore 
National Laboratory.
    The Committee recommendation includes an additional 
$13,000,000 to realize the benefits of such laser technology. 
Within this amount, $5,000,000 is provided to modify the 
beamlet laser at Sandia National Laboratories; $3,000,000 is 
provided to continue petawatt laser development at Lawrence 
Livermore National Laboratory; $2,000,000 is provided for 
technical community activities in developing critical short-
pulse, high power laser technology, such as damage resistant 
gratings; and $3,000,000 is provided for petawatt laser 
development at the Laboratory for Laser Energetics (LLE) at the 
University of Rochester. This funding will allow the LLE to 
continue operations of the OMEGA laser at full capacity. The 
Department should provide a report before December 31, 2002, 
addressing the need for a new high energy OMEGA-EP (extended 
performance). The Committee is concerned that the existing 
facility will be unable to meet national science-based 
stockpile stewardship requirements in light of the current 
oversubscription of OMEGA.
    The Committee also includes an additional $4,500,000 for 
university grants and other support. Within this amount, 
$2,000,000 is provided for short pulse, high power laser 
development at the University of Texas; and $2,500,000 is 
provided to continue short pulse, high power laser development 
and research at the University of Nevada, Reno.
    Advanced simulation and computing.--The Committee 
recommends $704,335,000, an amount that is $20,527,000 below 
the budget request.
    The Committee notes the intriguing development of the 
Japanese vector-based Earth Simulator Computer which is now 
several times faster than any current ASCI computer and 33 
percent faster than the NNSA's newest platform, the Q machine. 
The NNSA has put forth a credible case for their decision to 
abandon custom-designed chips and vector architecture for the 
much cheaper commodity chip-based, massively parallel, scalar 
systems which are the foundation of ASCI.
    However, the Committee is not convinced that the NNSA is 
aggressively pursuing alternative hardware architectures or 
software solutions that will result in better interconnection 
and more efficient use of the NNSA's substantial computer 
investment. The Committee requires more evidence that the 
current ASCI approach is the most cost-effective and efficient 
way of achieving the desired capability and capacity when 
needed.
    While the Committee recognizes the central importance of 
the ASCI program to the success of stockpile stewardship, the 
Committee remains unconvinced that the NNSA's platform 
acquisition strategy is driven by identified requirements, 
rather than a well intentioned, but insufficiently justified, 
desire to aggressively acquire larger and faster computing 
assets on an accelerated time-scale. The NNSA procurements 
represent a very small percentage of the U.S. supercomputing 
market, and the Committee is not convinced that the NNSA's 
acquisition strategy is taking full advantage of the steady 
fall in the price per teraflop that characterizes this market.
    The NNSA is directed to commission an independent National 
Academy of Sciences (NAS) report that includes the following 
elements. First, the report should include an assessment of the 
alternative computer architectures and the applicability of the 
requirements of the stockpile stewardship program.
    In addition to the NNSA, the NAS should consult with the 
Department's Office of Science and the National Security Agency 
and include their perspectives as to the appropriate computer 
architectures necessary to meet the needs of the broader 
scientific community and other elements of the national 
security community.
    Second, the report should identify the distinct 
requirements of the stockpile stewardship program and its 
relation to the ASCI acquisition strategy. The report should 
clearly describe the linkage between the development of 
software applications and the acquisition of hardware 
capability and capacity, with the needs of the stockpile life 
extension programs and the underlying science programs.
    Finally, the report should include an evaluation of the 
cost trade-offs between the dates on which specific computing 
resources are required and reduced future costs for 
computational power. This report is due to the appropriate 
congressional committees on May 1, 2002.
    The Committee recommends the following amounts for ASCI 
construction projects:
    Project 01-D-101 Distributed information systems 
laboratory, SNL, Livermore, CA.--The Committee recommends 
$13,305,000.
    Project 00-D-103 Terascale simulation facility, LLNL, 
Livermore, CA.--The Committee recommends $35,030,000.
    Project 00-D-107 Joint computational engineering 
laboratory, SNL, Albuquerque, NM.--The Committee recommends 
$7,000,000.
    Pit manufacturing and certification.--The Committee 
recommendation includes a total of $246,000,000 for the Pit 
Manufacturing and Certification Campaign, an increase of 
$51,516,000 over the budget request. This amount includes 
$242,000,000 to support the manufacturing and certification of 
a W88 pit as the September, 2001, project baseline indicated. 
The recommendation also includes the requested amount of 
$2,000,000 for pit manufacturing capability and $2,000,000 for 
the modern pit facility.
    The Committee remains greatly concerned about the NNSA's 
refusal to request funds consistent with its own project plan 
submitted less than 1 year ago. Although the Committee 
acknowledges the NNSA is reporting substantial progress in the 
effort, the NNSA has not revised its September, 2001, project 
baseline to reflect a lower and presumably more accurate cost 
projection.
    Instead, the Committee has been forced to reduce other 
items in the budget request to fully fund a program both the 
Congress and the NNSA have identified as one of the most 
important tests of the success of the Stockpile Stewardship and 
Management program. The Committee directs the NNSA to revise as 
appropriate the pit production and certification plan and 
submit the report to the relevant congressional committees 
before the end of the current fiscal year, and annually 
thereafter.
    Stockpile readiness campaign.--The Committee recommends 
$61,027,000 for the stockpile readiness campaign. This program, 
initiated in fiscal year 2001, enables the Y-12 National 
Security Complex to replace or restore production capability 
and to modernize aging facilities. At present, the critical 
manufacturing capabilities required for weapons refurbishments 
at Y-12 do not exist. The Committee agrees that ``stockpile 
readiness campaign'' is a more appropriate and indicative 
program title than ``secondary readiness campaign''.
    High explosives manufacturing and weapons assembly/
disassembly readiness.--The Committee recommends $12,093,000 to 
establish production-scale high explosives manufacturing and 
qualification; to deploy and validate technologies and 
facilities for production re-qualification; and, to demonstrate 
and validate Enterprise Integration and Collaborative 
Manufacturing.
    Non-nuclear readiness.--The Committee recommends 
$22,398,000 to deploy commercial products and processes for 
components supporting the B61, W80, and W76 stockpile life 
extension programs; to modify existing tritium loading and 
cleaning facilities to support stockpile life extension 
programs; and, to support neutron target loading and detonator 
production.
    Tritium readiness.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$112,899,000 for the tritium readiness campaign, including the 
budget request of $70,165,000 for construction and $42,734,000 
for operations, a reduction of $13,400,000 from the request. 
The NNSA has acknowledged that the Tritium Extraction Facility 
construction project has experienced serious cost-overruns and 
schedule delays. The NNSA has proposed initiating the use of 
commercial reactors for the irradiation of tritium producing 
rods in fiscal years 2004 and 2005. This schedule would have 
required the delivery of fuel in the fourth quarter of fiscal 
year 2003. However, the delays in the construction of the 
Tritium Extraction Facility and the resulting delays in start 
of facility operations will necessitate a delay in the 
commercial light water reactor tritium production program. As 
such the Committee recommends a reduction of $13,400,000 from 
the budget request.
    Cooperative agreements.--The Committee recognizes that 
cooperative agreements with universities are important 
resources for developing essential technical data for stockpile 
stewardship. Additionally, such long-term relationships with 
universities allow considerable opportunity for promoting 
advanced studies and recruiting the future workforce in 
technical areas that are critical to the continuing stewardship 
enterprise. The Committee understands that the NNSA has 
established a new office to be responsible for administering 
university partnerships, cooperative agreements and/or other 
long-term university relationships. The Committee remains 
supportive of this activity and directs the administration to 
honor existing cooperative agreements as this new office 
implements its responsibilities.

               READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES

    An appropriation of $1,849,812,000 is recommended for 
readiness in technical base and facilities. 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 
$1,026,000,000 to maintain warm standby readiness for all RTBF 
facilities with some allowance for inflation. Within available 
funds, $6,000,000 is provided for full single shift operations 
of Sandia National Laboratories' Z-pinch pulsed power facility, 
and $56,725,000 is provided for continuing operations of the 
Device Assembly Facility, the Joint Actinide Shock Physics 
Experimental Research facility, operations associated with the 
Atlas relocation project, U1a operations, general plant 
projects and other NTS support facilities.
    For continued facility upgrades, refurbishments, operations 
and maintenance costs associated with and for the National 
Center for Combating Terrorism, an additional $27,000,000 is 
provided.
    The Committee recommendation also includes an additional 
$10,000,000 for facility operations at Pantex and an additional 
$10,000,000 for operation of facilities at Y-12.
    Technology transfer and industrial partnerships.--The 
Committee recognizes that partnerships with industry may enable 
the weapons complex to accomplish its mission more efficiently. 
Such partnership can provide access to new technologies, 
processes and expertise that improve NNSA's mission 
capabilities. One of the most successful technology transfer 
and commercialization efforts in the Department of Energy has 
occurred with the not-for-profit Technology Ventures 
Corporation around Sandia National Laboratories, resulting in 
over 30 start-up ventures and thousands of jobs created. The 
Committee has included an additional $3,000,000 and directs the 
NNSA to use this successful public/private partnership at the 
other interested NNSA laboratories and the Nevada Test Site.
    Program readiness.--The Committee recommends $218,000,000, 
an increase of $9,911,000 above the budget request, to enhance 
readiness and maintain materials processing and component 
manufacturing readiness.
    Within available funds $64,201,000 is provided for test 
site readiness including archiving, resumption planning, 
activities required for enhanced test readiness planning 
including test scenarios and cost/benefit trade offs. Funds are 
also provided for Testing Drillback Borehole management as well 
as experimental and direct stockpile activities included in DSW 
and campaigns which contribute to the test readiness posture.
    Special projects.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$50,500,000 for special projects. Within available funds, 
$600,000 is provided as the Federal contribution to the Oral 
History of the Nevada Test Site; $6,900,000 is provided for the 
New Mexico Education Enrichment Foundation; $2,500,000 is 
provided for the National Museum of Nuclear Science and History 
relocation project; $500,000 for the design, fabrication, and 
installation of exhibits at the Atomic Testing History 
Institute; and $1,000,000 is provided for the UNLV Research 
Foundation, which is integrating the Nevada community reuse 
organization during fiscal year 2003, for operations in support 
of stockpile stewardship and homeland security activities at 
the Nevada Test Site. The Los Alamos County Schools Program is 
funded at the level of the President's request.
    As a result of the events of September 11, 2001, which have 
placed increased demands, and a heightened availability 
requirement on the aircraft required for Aerial Measurements, 
Sensing and Monitoring, the Committee is concerned that asset 
deployed at NNSA facilities at Nellis Air Force Base and 
Andrews Air Force Base may not be safely deployed due to dated 
avionics. In order to assure the safety and reliability of 
these assets under all conditions, the Committee recommends 
$4,000,000 to update aircraft navigational and other related 
avionics.
    The Committee encourages the Administration to support a 
joint Air Force/NNSA research and development program in 
physical security systems and technologies at the Sandia 
National Laboratory.
    The National Laboratories have long served as test beds for 
the development and deployment of advanced technologies. The 
Committee is impressed with laboratory work designed to protect 
critical U.S. transportation infrastructure and encourages the 
Department to continue research and deployment in this area. 
Within available funds, the Department is directed to conduct a 
field installation of the truck stopping device developed at 
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and to build a prototype 
of a portable, remotely controlled truck stopping device for 
positive control of trucks in critical areas. The Committee 
further directs the Department to continue research regarding 
suspension bridges and new techniques for scanning shipping 
containers.
    Material recycle and recovery.--The Committee recommends 
$98,816,000, the amount of the budget request.
    Nuclear weapons incident response.--The Committee 
recommends $96,000,000, to enhance the state of response 
readiness at various locations, particularly in light of the 
events of September 11, 2001. The Committee is very pleased 
with the performance of DOE's Emergency Response assets in the 
aftermath of September 11, 2001. These emergency response teams 
have done remarkable work with relatively meager resources. The 
Department is encouraged to maintain these programs in a robust 
posture and provides $5,000,000 in additional funding for this 
purpose.
    Construction projects.--The Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $328,182,000, 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 01-D-108 Microsystems and engineering science 
applications, SNL.--The Committee recommends $123,000,000, an 
increase of $48,100,000 above the budget request.
    Project 03-D-102 LANL administration building (SM-43) 
replacement project, LANL.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $16,000,000, an increase of $16,000,000 above the 
Administration's request.
    01-D-103 PED, Various locations, TA-18 relocation at 
LANL.--As a result of the NNSA's announced preferred option 
that this equipment and material be transferred to the Device 
Assembly Facility, the Committee recommends the NNSA suspend 
planning related to relocation of the facility at Los Alamos 
and instead utilize previously appropriated funds to support 
planning consistent with the eventual Record of Decision. The 
Committee recommends no funding.

                     FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

    The Committee recommends $242,512,000, to support re-
capitalization of existing operational facilities to halt their 
deterioration and restore the robust and enduring mission 
readiness that relies on them.

                      SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET

    The Committee recommends $152,989,000. Of the amount 
appropriated, $100,863,000 is provided for operations and 
equipment, and $52,126,000 is provided for program direction.

                        SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $509,954,000. 
The Committee recommendation includes $8,900,000 for 
construction of the nuclear material safeguard and security 
upgrade project at Los Alamos.
    The Committee directs the NNSA to continue to improve its 
ability to build an integrated multiyear budgeting process and 
eliminate the separate line-item treatment of the security 
budget in a manner consistent with April 2002 Report of the 
Commission on Science and Security (``Hamre Commission'').

                    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $803,586,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................   1,113,630,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,115,630,000

    The Committee recommendation provides $1,115,630,000 for 
defense nuclear nonproliferation.
    The fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act provided $861,419,000 for nuclear 
nonproliferation activities. Since that time, Congress has 
appropriated an additional $326,000,000 for defense nuclear 
nonproliferation in supplemental appropriations bills. 
Unfortunately, a substantial portion of the total appropriated 
funding for fiscal year 2002 remains unspent and unobligated.
    These programs of are critical interest to this Committee 
and to Congress as a whole. However, the Committee is concerned 
that the rate of expenditure for nonproliferation programs lags 
substantially behind that of the rest of the National Nuclear 
Security Administration. Carry-over rates of 40 percent are not 
uncommon. Although the Committee recognizes the difficulty in 
implementing nonproliferation activities in Russia, the 
Committee strongly urges the Department to improve on this 
level of performance. However, the Committee does not expect 
the Department to carry out these programs with any less 
rigorous oversight in ensuring efficient and cost-effective 
implementation. The securing and safeguarding of fissile 
nuclear material abroad is a critical component of our Nation's 
terrorism prevention effort.
    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation activities of the NNSA are 
directed to reducing the serious global danger of the 
proliferation 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 to implement its nonproliferation programs. 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 and secure manner pending 
disposition. The Committee continues to strongly support these 
important national security programs.
    Nonproliferation and verification research and 
development.--The Committee recommends $293,407,000.
    The recommended level continues the important remote 
sensing and verification technology research, development and 
deployment, and continues to invest in the development of 
essential technologies for responding to the growing threat of 
chemical and 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, the Committee has provided 
$15,000,000 to support on-going activities at the Remote 
Sensing Test and Evaluation Center including sensor test bet 
development, support for field testing, and deployment of 
sensors, applied technology activities, the HAZMAT Spill 
Center, the RSL, and the STL. Within available funds, the 
Committee recommendation also includes $500,000 for the Remote 
Sensing Test and Evaluation Center to conduct a site-wide 
survey of the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant (IAAP) in Middletown, 
Iowa, for radiological contamination. This study shall be done 
in conjunction with the Army Corps of Engineers and the State 
of Iowa. The Committee recommends $2,500,000 in support of the 
3-year research effort by the Caucasus Seismic Information 
Network. The Committee recommendation includes $5,250,000 for 
the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology PASSCAL 
Instrument Center.
    The Committee recommendation includes an additional 
$10,000,000 in support of the nuclear and radiological national 
security program. The NNSA is directed to provide for the 
sustained development of advanced technologies needed to 
counter nuclear terrorism threats and should focus on improving 
capabilities through research and development in threat 
assessment and prediction, basic nuclear understanding, sensors 
and detection systems, consequence mitigation, forensics and 
attribution and render-safe technologies.
    Nonproliferation and International Security.--The Committee 
recommends $92,668,000 for Nonproliferation and International 
Security.
    The Department's Nonproliferation and International 
Security program 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 Committee recommendation includes 
$8,100,000 for continuing the efforts for disposition of spent 
nuclear fuel in Kazakhstan.
    The Committee commends the NNSA for engaging the wider US 
scientific community in contributions to the treaty monitoring 
program. The Committee will not continue direction that the 
NNSA compete a specific portion of the treaty monitoring 
program, but strongly encourages the laboratories to continue 
to incorporate more industry and academic involvement and to 
establish metrics that will allow the Committee to track 
progress in this effort.
    Russian Transition Initiatives.--The Committee recommends 
$39,334,000 for Russian Transition Initiatives. The 
recommendation is meant to continue important activities that 
counter ``brain drain'' to potential proliferant states and 
terrorist organizations from the nuclear weapons complex 
laboratories and production plants of the former Soviet Union. 
The request includes $16,748,000 for the Nuclear Cities 
Initiative (NCI), and $22,586,000 for Initiatives for 
Proliferation Prevention (IPP).
    International materials protection, control, and 
accounting.--The recommendation provides $233,077,000 for 
international material protection, control, and accounting 
(MPC&A) activities. 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 from fiscal year 2002 supplemental 
appropriations and the fiscal year 2003 recommendation 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. In addition, the 
Committee supports the NNSA pursuing opportunities to work with 
the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces in securing additional 
weapon sites. The Committee continues to believe that these 
activities are critical elements of the United States non-
proliferation efforts.
    Within available funds, the Committee recommendation 
includes $10,000,000 to accelerate the blend-down of highly 
enriched uranium. The Administrator of the NNSA is directed to 
explore new approaches, in addition to the current 500 MT HEU 
blend-down program, that could increase the rate at which HEU 
is modified to render it incapable of weapons use in a manner 
consistent with section 3157 of S. 2514, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003.
    Second Line of Defense.--From within available funds, an 
additional $10,000,000 is provided for expanded activities 
within NNSA's Second Line of Defense (SLD) program. This 
program is responsible for improving border and transportation 
security against the illicit movement of material used in 
weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The Committee supports 
expanded program work in major transit/transportation hubs and 
ports in countries other than Russia and the Newly Independent 
States.
    HEU (Highly Enriched Uranium) Transparency 
Implementation.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$17,229,000, 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 
$14,576,000 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.
    Elimination of weapons-grade plutonium production.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $49,339,000 for the 
elimination of weapons-grade plutonium production program. The 
Committee supports the administrations request to transfer the 
Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium program (EWGPP) from the 
Department of Defense to the NNSA. However the Committee is 
concerned with the inherent complexity, and the concomitant 
problems of cost increases and schedule slippage, when working 
in the Russian weapons complex closed cities. The Committee 
directs the department to provide a report by December 31, 
2002, detailing the proposed program plan, including cost, 
schedule, and project milestones that can be used to track 
program progress.
    Fissile materials disposition.--The Committee recommends 
$448,000,000, to maintain operations in the United States and 
in Russia according to the plan under the budget request.
    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 $194,000,000 for U.S. 
surplus materials disposition, the same as the budget request.
    The Committee urges the Department to continue the thorium-
based fuel cycle program currently being conducted by the 
Russian Research Initiative in conjunction with their U.S. 
industrial partners.
    Construction.--
    Project 99-D-141 Pit Disassembly & Conversion Facility.--
The Committee recommends $33,000,000, the same as the budget 
request.
    Project 99-D-143 Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication 
Facility.--The Committee recommends $93,000,000, the same as 
the budget request.
    Project 01-D-407 Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) Blend Down 
Project.--The Committee recommends $30,000,000, the same as the 
budget request.

                             Naval Reactors

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $688,045,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     706,790,000
Committee recommendation................................     706,790,000

    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 $706,790,000, the amount of the 
budget request.

                      OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $312,596,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     335,929,000
Committee recommendation................................     335,929,000

    The Committee has included $335,929,000 for the expenses of 
the Office of the Administrator of the National Nuclear 
Security Administration (NNSA).
    The NNSA is taking the long-overdue steps necessary to re-
engineer the entire nuclear weapons complex to reflect new 
national security realities. In the field, the Operations 
Offices are being converted to Service Centers and the 8 Site 
Offices are being given greater authority over the contractors. 
The NNSA has announced its first major Headquarters re-
engineering to consolidate management and oversight.
    When fully implemented, the layers of Federal Headquarters 
management will be reduced. The Committee recognizes that there 
will be increased cost for permanent change of station 
associated with re-deploying existing staff. The committee 
expects the NNSA to aggressively pursue these efforts without 
negatively impacting critical national security missions.
    The National Nuclear Security Administration Act and 
subsequent Appropriations Acts have included requirements or 
direction to develop and implement a planning, programming, and 
budgeting system. The Committee directs the Department conduct 
an independent assessment of the NNSA's PPBS process and 
structure, including its comparability to that of the 
Department of Defense. The review should also determine whether 
the NNSA's PPBS is capable of being used as the central 
decision making process for resource allocation decisions and 
the extent to which it has been incorporated by NNSA M&O 
contractors.

                        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, 2002....................................  $5,234,576,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................   4,544,133,000
Committee recommendation................................   5,406,532,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,406,532,000 
for Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management 
programs for fiscal year 2003. This is $862,399,000 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.

                ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CLEAN-UP REFORM

    The Department's top-to-bottom review of the Environmental 
Management Program concluded that cleaning up the legacy of the 
Cold War is costing billions more than it should and will take 
many years longer than anticipated to complete. The 
Department's position, correct in the view of the Committee, is 
that the status quo is unacceptable. The Department, during the 
last year, has embarked on a mission to quickly and markedly 
improve the program's performance in achieving clean-up and 
closure, and ensure that the primary goal is reducing risk to 
workers, the public, and the environment.
    In the fiscal year 2003 budget submittal, the Department 
recommended the creation of an $800,000,000 clean-up reform 
account in an attempt to lure sites and States into re-
negotiating binding agreements to accelerate clean-ups 
throughout the DOE complex. In a relatively flat budget 
request, this pot of money was created by cutting fiscal year 
2003 funding levels at nearly every DOE clean-up site. The 
Department wanted the $800,000,000 to be completely unallocated 
by Congress as an incentive to bring States and sites to the 
bargaining table quickly rather than risk not receiving any of 
the funding. The general unfairness and inequity of such a 
tactic is not lost on the Committee.
    This approach seems to have worked because the Department 
has entered into negotiations with the vast majority of the 
sites in the complex. There was no shortage of States or sites 
willing to line up to accept additional funding now in exchange 
for, at best, a vague promise to complete work on their clean-
up years ahead of schedule. The Committee remains skeptical 
that the addition of a relatively small increase in funds today 
at, for example, Hanford, will result in a savings of 35 years 
and $40,000,000,000-$50,000,000,000. The Department has 
utilized this ``more money now, great savings later'' strategy 
in a number of other areas, with limited success to date. 
However, the Committee is in full agreement that the current 
situation is untenable.
    Of greater concern to the Committee is the fact that the 
budget tally for the re-negotiated agreements totals 
approximately $1,100,000,000, a figure that the Department has, 
since early in this year's budget process, treated as if it was 
the actual budget request. It is completely unacceptable for 
the Department to enter into binding legal agreements with 
States when it is clear there is no money in the budget request 
to fully fund the final agreements. This behavior is in no way 
mitigated by the submittal of a budget amendment weeks after 
the Committee had issued 302(b) allocations to each of the 
Subcommittees.
    The result of such a cynical action is to force the 
Committee into making one of two equally unappealing choices: 
(1) Forego funding for critically important nuclear non-
proliferation and nuclear weapons stockpile programs, including 
the pit manufacturing and certification program that is the 
cornerstone of science-based stockpile stewardship; or (2) 
allow the Department to renege on agreements with States, due 
to insufficient funding, mere months after entering into them.
    The Committee reluctantly chooses the former approach if 
only because this administration has already proved far too 
eager to trample on the rights of the States if it serves its 
interests to do so. This administration has also shown no 
greater long-term commitment to fulfilling legally binding 
clean-up agreements with States than its immediate 
predecessors.
    The Committee recommendation does not include a separate 
clean-up reform account. The Committee is unwilling to provide 
a completely unallocated $1,100,000,000 to the Department. 
Rather, the recommendation appropriates funds to each of the 
affected sites in accordance with the State agreements and in 
the existing clean-up appropriation accounts.
    The fact that the (less than timely) $300,000,000 budget 
amendment arrived with less detail about the uses and sites for 
the dollars than was contained in the public affairs press 
releases trumpeting each new State agreement, provides the 
Committee with no confidence whatsoever that the Department is 
planning to fulfill each individual clean-up commitment. The 
complete lack of detailed information from the Department to 
Congress concerning the specific tasks to be performed with 
$1,100,000,000 of the taxpayers money is as shocking as it is 
arrogant.
    Given the lack of adequate budget justification material 
for each of the sites, the Committee is compelled to withdraw 
the internal reprogramming authority that has traditionally 
been provided to the Assistant Secretary for Environmental 
Management. Any proposed reprogramming shifts between accounts 
and sites of all Environmental Management funds, both current 
and prior years, available to the Department during fiscal year 
2003, must be submitted to the appropriate House and Senate 
Committees for approval.
    In conclusion, the Committee reiterates its support for the 
Department's efforts to expedite the clean-up of the legacy of 
the Cold War in an efficient and effective manner. To the 
extent that the clean-up reform initiative has improved the 
legally binding agreements between the Department and the 
States, the Committee is pleased. However, once these 
agreements are in place, the Committee expects the annual 
budget submission from this and future administrations to fully 
fund the Federal portion of each of these agreements. If not, 
the balances will be made up from the Environmental Management 
Program Direction and Departmental Administration accounts.
    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 concerning the need and 
requirement for each individual support service contract, and 
duplicative and overlapping organizational arrangements and 
functions.

                      SITE AND PROJECT COMPLETION

    An appropriation of $981,350,000 is recommended for site 
and project completion activities, including $973,106,000 for 
operation and maintenance, and $8,244,000 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.
    The Committee recommendation includes additional funding 
above the level of the administration's request for the 
following activities: $40,000,000 to accelerate cleanup at 
Savannah River Site in South Carolina; $5,000,000 for cleanup 
activities at Idaho National Engineering and Environmental 
Laboratory in Idaho; $141,000,000 for accelerated cleanup at 
the Hanford site in Washington; $8,000,000 to accelerate 
cleanup activities at Sandia National Lab in New Mexico; and 
$5,000,000 for accelerated cleanup at the Pantex site in Texas.
    The Committee provides $1,000,000 to the State of Oregon to 
cover costs of its clean-up effort, including emergency drills, 
planning activities, technical review of DOE's waste management 
and clean-up plans, participation in the Hanford Advisory Board 
meetings and other meetings at Hanford.
    The Committee recommendation includes an additional 
$1,500,000 for the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory and 
recommends that the Department continue its relationship with 
the University of South Carolina's Center for Water Resources 
at current year levels.
    The Committee understands the Department is prepared to 
transfer up to 2,000 acres for the use of Pueblo of San 
Ildefonso and approximately 100 acres to the County of Los 
Alamos. The Committee recommendation includes an additional 
$4,000,000 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 $3,353,098,000, which includes $2,211,240,000 in 
operating expenses for post-2006 completion, $455,256,000 in 
operating expenses for the Office of River Protection, and 
$671,732,000 for ORP 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 above the level of 
the administration's request for the following activities: 
$229,000,000 for vitrification plant work at the Office of 
River Protection in Washington; $176,000,000 to accelerate 
cleanup and nuclear materials stabilization at Savannah River 
Site in South Carolina; $105,000,000 for cleanup activities at 
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in 
Idaho; $63,000,000 for accelerated cleanup of the River 
Corridor and tank waste management at the Hanford site in 
Washington; $54,000,000 to accelerate remediation, waste 
management, and nuclear materials stewardship activities at Los 
Alamos National Lab in New Mexico; $40,000,000 for accelerated 
cleanup at the Oak Ridge National Lab and Oak Ridge Reservation 
in Tennessee; $33,000,000 for accelerated cleanup at the Nevada 
Test Site in Nevada; $22,000,000 for accelerated cleanup at the 
Lawrence Livermore National Lab; and $2,000,000 for cleanup 
activities in Alaska.
    The Department is expected to continue making PILT payments 
to counties that have the Hanford reservation within their 
boundaries at last year's level.
    Within available funds, the Committee also directs the 
Department to fund the Hazardous Waste Worker Training Program 
and the HAMMER programs at levels consistent with fiscal year 
2001 levels.
    The Department is directed to pay its Title V air 
permitting fees at the INEEL consistent with prior year levels.
    Last year the Committee encouraged the Department to 
utilize alternative dispute resolution to resolve the Pit 9 
issue currently in Federal court. The Committee is aware the 
district court has ordered the parties to enter into mediation. 
The Committee commends that initiative and encourages the 
pursuit of the action to avert continued costly and protracted 
litigation. The Committee expects the Department to participate 
directly in that mediation, not through the M&O contractor. If 
mediation is not successful, the Committee expects the 
Department to initiate and participate in arbitration to 
resolve this dispute.
    Carlsbad Field Office.--The recommendation includes an 
additional $14,000,000 for Carlsbad to accelerate shipping and 
disposing of transuranic waste around the complex; an 
additional $5,000,000 to continue the U.S. Mexico Border Health 
Commission/Materials Corridor Partnership Initiative. The 
recommendation also includes an additional $3,500,000 which 
shall be made available to the Carlsbad community for 
educational support, infrastructure improvements, and related 
initiatives to address the impacts of accelerated operations.
    In order to provide more timely information in a useable 
format to citizens, researchers, stakeholders and regulators, 
the Committee directs the Department to consolidate at Carlsbad 
all record archives relevant to the operations of WIPP and the 
TRU waste in the repository.

                         SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

    The Committee recommendation includes $77,000,000 for 
science and technology, $15,000,000 below the administration's 
request. The Committee notes that the administration's request 
is a cut of nearly $164,000,000 from the current year.
    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 is aware of the Department's plan to ``re-
focus'' the Science and Technology Program and to discontinue 
all focus area activities, all technology applications 
activities, as well as other university and industry programs 
under this account. This recommendation is a result of the 
Department of Energy's recent Top-to-Bottom Review of the 
Environmental Management program.
    The Committee disagrees with this decision and is skeptical 
that a robust Science and Technology program can be maintained 
given the $164,000,000 cut. Long-term investment in research 
and development is the single most important thing the 
Department can do to ensure that clean-ups are completed 
quickly and efficiently. The solutions to many of the technical 
problems facing clean-up sites throughout the DOE complex have 
not yet been invented. Sharp cuts to science and technology are 
not the answer and the Committee hopes the Department will 
reconsider for fiscal year 2004.
    Within available funds, the Committee provides $7,000,000 
for the Western Environmental Technology Office; $3,150,000 to 
conduct advanced conceptual design of the Subsurface 
Geosciences Laboratory; $6,000,000 for the Subsurface Science 
Research Institute (operated by the Inland Northwest Research 
Alliance and INEEL; $5,000,000 for the National Spent Nuclear 
Fuel Program; $6,000,000 for the Diagnostic Instrumentation and 
Analysis Laboratory; $3,000,000 to continue micro-sensing 
technology development and prototype development and prototype 
deployment for the Underground Test Area; and $4,350,000 for 
the University Research Programs in Robotics.
    An additional $5,000,000 is provided to establish the 
Critical Infrastructure Testbed at INEEL to implement the 
recommendations of the Energy Infrastructure Assurance Task 
Force.
    Within available funds, the Committee provides additional 
funding of $7,500,000 to INEEL for the research and development 
of technologies to address environmental challenges.
    The Committee urges the Department to continue its previous 
commitment to seek alternative cost-effective technologies from 
outside the Department in cleaning up legacy waste. The 
Committee is aware that the international agreement with AEA 
Technology has been successful in accomplishing this vital task 
and urges the Department to expand use of this Agreement.
    The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 for basic 
science experiments requiring the specialized underground 
environment of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, including 
continuation of evaluation of the mass of the neutrino through 
study of double beta decay of xenon-136 as initiated in fiscal 
year 2002. The Committee recommends close coordination between 
the Office of Science and the Assistant Secretary for 
Environmental Management to assure that basic science studies 
at WIPP do not interfere with the TRU waste responsibilities of 
WIPP. The Committee also notes with concern that funds provided 
to initiate this work in fiscal year 2002 were not released by 
the Department until well into that fiscal year, seriously 
jeopardizing progress, and directs that funds be promptly 
released in fiscal year 2003.
    The Committee agrees with DOE testimony that proven 
innovative technology should be deployed in clean-up operations 
as quickly as possible. As in previous years, the Committee 
continues to support proving out the advanced vitrification 
technology, which holds the potential to significantly lower 
clean-up costs and future appropriation requirements. The 
advanced vitrification system also represents technology and 
innovation which have been invented, developed, and produced in 
the United States and should be a national security priority 
for government-funded nuclear waste management programs.
    Therefore, the Committee directs the Department, from 
within available funds, to develop the vitrification-in-the-
final-disposal-container AVS system in accordance with the work 
plan.
    Finally, the Department is directed to renew its 
cooperative agreement with the University of Nevada-Las Vegas 
through its Research Foundation.

                           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 2003 
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.

                               MULTI-SITE

    The Committee recommendation includes $479,871,000 for 
multi-site activities.
    This program account supports management and oversight for 
various crosscutting Environmental Management and Department 
initiatives, including the program's contribution to the 
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund.
    Within available funds, the Committee provides $14,000,000 
for the National Energy Technology Laboratory to support the 
implementation of an integrated program for closing small DOE 
clean-up sites and to serve as the DOE field service center for 
the long-term stewardship of former DOE sites in the eastern 
United States. The Committee further directs that no action 
shall be taken to diminish the fiscal year 2002 Environmental 
Management employee levels at NETL in any was as the 
laboratory's workload transitions from the science and 
technology program.
    The Department shall continue its support of WERC, the 
Consortium for Environmental Education and Technology 
Development, at current year levels consistent with its 
contractual obligations and shall extend the Tribal Colleges 
Initiative grant, involving Crownpoint Institute of Technology, 
Dine College, Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute, to 
develop high-quality environmental programs at tribal colleges.
    Within available funds, the Committee provides additional 
funding of $7,500,000 to INEEL for the research and development 
of technologies to address environmental challenges.

                        SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

    The Committee recommendation for safeguards and security is 
$228,260,000, the same as the budget request.

                           PROGRAM DIRECTION

    The Committee recommendation for program direction totals 
$324,000,000, 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.
    The Assistant Secretary shall provide a report to the 
relevant House and Senate Appropriations Committees by November 
1, 2002, detailing the reassignment of all the Senior Executive 
Service (SES) employees paid in fiscal year 2001 and fiscal 
year 2002 from the Environmental Management program direction 
account. The report should name all reassigned Federal 
managers, their title and position at the beginning of the 
calendar year 2001, date of reassignment, title and position as 
of September 30, 2002, rationale for reassignment, and the 
unique capabilities or experience the individual brings to the 
reassignment position.

                   Defense Facility Closure Projects

Appropriations, 2002....................................  $1,092,878,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................   1,091,314,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,125,314,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,125,314,000 
for the site closure program, an increase of $34,000,000 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 
Columbus sites.
    The Committee recommendation includes additional funding 
above the administration's request to maintain the 2006 closure 
goal at the following sites in Ohio: $25,000,000 for Fernald; 
$4,000,000 for the Mound site; $5,000,000 for the Columbus 
Environmental Management Project.

             Defense Environmental Management Privatization

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $153,537,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     158,399,000
Committee recommendation................................     158,339,000

    An appropriation of $158,339,000 is recommended for the 
environmental management privatization initiative.

                        RECOMMENDATION SUMMARIES

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

                        Other Defense Activities

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $544,044,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     468,664,000
Committee recommendation................................     537,664,000

                     ENERGY SECURITY AND ASSURANCE

    The Committee recommendation for energy security and 
assurance is $56,686,000. This program supports the national 
security of the United States by working to protect the Nation 
against severe energy supply disruptions by working with the 
private sector and the National Infrastructure Simulation and 
Analysis Center (NISAC) to provide technical response support 
during an emergency. The Committee recommendation includes 
$5,000,000 for a pilot project in Washington, DC, to be carried 
out in conjunction with the local power provider and the 
Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments, to protect and 
harden electricity infrastructure in the Nation's Capital, an 
area uniquely susceptible to terrorist attack.
    The Committee recommendation includes a total of 
$30,000,000 in support of the National Infrastructure 
Simulation and Analysis Center. This funding will enable the 
continuation of work authorized in the USA Patriot Act to 
develop sophisticated models and simulation capabilities for 
critical infrastructures. The additional resources are to be 
available for additional operations, construction of general 
plant projects and acquisition of equipment to support the 
center.
    The Committee recommendation also includes $16,000,000 for 
the National Energy Technology Laboratory to assist the Office 
of Energy Assurance in support of research and development to 
monitor and protect the physical assets of the U.S. energy 
infrastructure, including power plants, pipelines, 
transmissions lines, gaseous and liquid fuel storage, and 
depots, processing plants, and refineries.
    The Committee strongly urges the Department, when 
conducting critical infrastructure assessments, use entities 
with a proven global information technology infrastructure, and 
with experience in cyber security and energy information 
management.

                              INTELLIGENCE

    The Committee recommendation totals $41,246,000 for 
intelligence.
    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

    The Committee recommendation for security and emergency 
operations is $185,515,000.
    Nuclear Safeguards.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$91,102,000 for nuclear safeguards.
    Security Investigations.--The Committee recommendation 
provides $45,870,000, the amount of the budget request.
    Program Direction.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$48,543,000 for program direction.
    Coordination with local communities.--The Committee 
recognizes the unique emergency response role carried out by 
local governments adjacent to Departmental facilities and 
directs the Department to use available resources to improve 
local government emergency response capabilities through better 
communications and stronger coordination of training and 
response activities.

            INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT AND PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE

    The Committee recommendation provides $22,430,000 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 $45,955,000, the amount of the request, 
is provided for the counterintelligence activities of the 
Department of Energy.
    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.

                     ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

    The Committee recommendation provided $114,041,000 for 
Environmental, Safety and Health activities including 
$17,149,000 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 recommendation includes $5,000,000 to 
continue the DOE worker records digitization project through 
the Research Foundation at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas.
    The Committee continues to be concerned that the Department 
has failed to recognize the importance of automating records 
management processes and continues to encumber extraordinary 
costs by employing labor intensive procedures in support of 
these requirements. Though the Committee recommended a 
Department-wide standardization of processes to ensure data 
preservation and access, the Committee is not aware of a 
comprehensive coordinated effort being undertaken within the 
Department. The Committee is also aware that even within the 
Environment Safety & Health organization, parallel activities 
were undertaken to digitize worker records while another part 
of the organization sought the digitization of similar worker 
records to support the Employee Compensation Initiative. To the 
extent that there is a desire to digitize records in support of 
the ECI, the Committee strongly encourages the Department to 
utilize the existing program at UNLV.
    The Committee is concerned that the Department is waivering 
in its commitment to medical screening and health studies of 
current and former workers. Many of these medical screenings 
are required by law. The Committee expects the Department to 
expend $60,000,000, a slight increase above the current year 
rather than the $7,000,000 cut proposed by the Administration, 
on health studies.
    The Committee recommends $5,200,000, an increase of 
$4,150,000 above the request, for medical monitoring at the 
gaseous diffusion plants at Paducah, Kentucky, Portsmouth, 
Ohio, and Oak Ridge, Tennessee. This will fully fund, as 
required by law, the worker screening program for both current 
and former workers. The Committee strongly supports and 
requires the continued use of helical low-dose CAT scanning for 
early lung cancer detection in workers with elevated risks of 
lung cancer. Such tests may detect lung cancers at an early 
stage even when they are not visible with conventional x-rays. 
The program in place at the gaseous diffusion plants is 
successfully identifying early lung cancers at a stage when 
they are treatable and can be expected to dramatically increase 
survival rates. The recommendation also includes $1,000,000 for 
health studies at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant.
    The Committee directs the Department to initiate a 
beryllium screening and outreach program for those workers 
employed at vendors in the Worcester, Massachusetts, area who 
supplied beryllium to the Atomic Energy Commission for use in 
the nuclear weapons program. The DOE is directed expedite the 
screening program by using one of the DOE's existing former 
worker medical screening program providers. The Committee 
recommends $250,000 for this program.
    Energy Employees Compensation Initiative.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $16,000,000, the amount of the request, 
for the Energy Employees Compensation Initiative. Title 36 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act of 2001 (Public Law 106-
398) established the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 
Compensation Program to provide benefits to DOE contractor 
workers made ill as a result of exposures from nuclear weapons 
production. The Department is responsible for establishing 
procedures to assist workers in filing compensation claims.
    The Committee understands that a proposed final rule 
implementing Part D of the Energy Employees Occupational 
Illness Compensation Program is currently under review within 
the Administration. Any final rule implementing Part D should 
prohibit contractor challenges, specify that a majority 
determination of the Physicians' Panel is sufficient, and rely 
on the independent judgment of a physicians' panel with respect 
to burden of proof and medical causation.

                    WORKER AND COMMUNITY TRANSITION

    The Committee has provided an appropriation of $25,683,000 
for these activities for fiscal year 2003. 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.

           NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

    The Committee recommendation includes $50,587,000 for 
national security programs administrative support. This fund 
pays for departmental services that are provided in support of 
the National Nuclear Security Administration.

                     OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

    An appropriation of $2,933,000 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, 2002....................................    $280,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     315,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     280,000,000

    The Committee recommends $280,000,000 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.
    Purchase power and wheeling.--The Committee is recommending 
the elimination of the phase out by the end of fiscal year 2004 
of the use of receipts by the Southeastern Power 
Administration, the Southwestern Power Administration, and the 
Western Area Power Administration for purchase power and 
wheeling.
    This approach was originally proposed in the 
Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget request and endorsed 
in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, Fiscal 
Year 2002 (Public Law 106-377). In recognition of the Western 
energy crisis during the previous year, the Committee did not 
adhere to the Public Law 106-377 limitations on purchase power 
and wheeling in fiscal year 2002, with the largest increase 
being for the Western Area Power Administration. The budget 
request for fiscal year 2003 proposed resuming the phase-out of 
purchase power and wheeling along the schedule contained in 
Public Law 106-377. However, the Committee finds that there is 
no compelling reason to continue the phase out of purchase 
power and wheeling, particularly since this activity is budget 
neutral.
    The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2003 maintains 
purchase power and wheeling activities at the fiscal year 2002 
level. The Committee will continue to establish ceilings on the 
use of receipts for purchase power and wheeling, and also 
establish the amount of offsetting collections.

                  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.
    Borrowing Authority.--Bonneville Power Administration 
presently has available $3,750,000,000 in permanent borrowing 
authority, authorized by the Transmission System Act (Public 
Law 93-454). For fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommendation 
includes an estimate of use of $630,800,000 of authorized 
borrowing authority, the same as the budget request and 
$256,300,000 more than fiscal year 2002. This borrowing 
authority is available for capital investments in power systems 
(including fish and wildlife measures), transmission systems, 
and capital equipment. Bonneville forecasts that it will fully 
utilize its remaining borrowing authority during fiscal year 
2004.
    The Administration has submitted a legislative proposal to 
increase the current Bonneville borrowing authority by 
$700,000,000, for a new total borrowing authority of 
$4,450,000,000. The Committee recommendation does not include 
this additional borrowing authority at this time because the 
matter is presently committed to the House-Senate conference on 
energy legislation.
    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.
    The Committee recommendation includes $34,463,000 for 
purchase power and wheeling activities, the same as the current 
year and consistent with the terms described above.

      OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2002....................................      $4,891,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................       4,534,000
Committee recommendation................................       4,534,000

    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.

      OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $28,038,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      27,378,000
Committee recommendation................................      27,378,000

    The Southwestern Power Administration is the marketing 
agent for the power generated at Corps of Engineers' 
hydroelectric plants in the six-State area of Kansas, Oklahoma, 
Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana with a total installed 
capacity of 2,158 megawatts. It operates and maintains some 
1,380 miles of transmission lines, 24 generating projects, and 
24 substations, and sells its power at wholesale primarily to 
publicly and cooperatively owned electric distribution 
utilities.
    The Committee recommendation includes $2,200,000 for 
purchase power and wheeling activities, the same as the current 
year and consistent with the terms described above.

 CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE WESTERN AREA 
                          POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $171,938,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     162,758,000
Committee recommendation................................     168,858,000

    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, $6,100,000 shall be transferred to the Utah 
Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission.
    The Committee recommendation includes $186,124,000 for 
purchase power and wheeling activities, the same as the current 
year and consistent with the terms described above.

           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 $2,734,000, 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, 2002....................................    $184,155,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     192,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     192,000,000

                SALARIES AND EXPENSES--REVENUES APPLIED

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $184,155,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     192,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     192,000,000

    The Committee recommendation provides $192,000,000, 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]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Budget         Committee
              Project title                  estimate     recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              ENERGY SUPPLY

       RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

Renewable energy technologies:
    Biomass/biofuels energy systems.....          86,005         100,000
    Geothermal technology development...          26,500          37,000
    Hydrogen research...................          39,881          45,000
    Hydropower..........................           7,489           7,489
    Solar energy........................          87,625          95,000
    Wind energy systems.................          44,000          50,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Total, Renewable energy                    291,500         334,489
       technologies.....................

Electric energy systems and storage.....          70,447          75,000

Renewable support and implementation:
    Departmental energy management......           3,000           3,000
    International renewable energy                 6,500           6,500
     program............................
    Renewable energy production                    4,000           5,000
     incentive program..................
    Renewable Indian energy resources...           8,307           9,307
    Renewable program support...........           2,059           6,059
                                         -------------------------------
      Total, Renewable support and                23,866          29,866
       implementation...................

National renewable energy laboratory....           4,200           6,000

Construction: 02-E-001 Project                       800             800
 engineering and design, NREL Golden, CO
                                         -------------------------------
      Total, National renewable energy             5,000           6,800
       laboratory.......................

Program direction.......................          16,187          16,907
                                         -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Renewable Energy                 407,000         463,062
       Resources........................
                                         ===============================
Use of prior year balances..............  ..............         -15,000
                                         -------------------------------
      TOTAL, RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES.         407,000         448,062
                                         ===============================
             NUCLEAR ENERGY

Advanced radioisotope power system......  ..............  ..............
Isotopes:
    Isotope support and production......  ..............  ..............
    Construction........................  ..............  ..............
    99-E-201 Isotope production facility  ..............  ..............
     (LANL).............................
                                         -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Isotope support and       ..............  ..............
       production.......................

Offsetting collections..................  ..............  ..............
                                         -------------------------------
      Total, Isotopes...................  ..............  ..............

University reactor fuel assistance and            17,500          19,500
 support................................

Research and development:
    Nuclear energy plant optimization...  ..............           5,000
    Nuclear energy research initiative..          25,000          29,000
    Nuclear energy technologies.........          46,500          48,500
                                         -------------------------------
      Total, Research and development...          71,500          82,500

Fast flux test facility (FFTF)..........          36,100          36,100

Radiological facilities management:
    Radiological facilities.............          78,977          88,638
    ANL-West operations.................  ..............  ..............
    Test reactor area landlord..........  ..............  ..............
                                         -------------------------------
      Subtotal..........................          78,977          88,638

Construction:
    99-E-2-1 Isotope production facility           1,721           1,721
     (LANL).............................
    99-E-200 Test reactor area                     1,840           1,840
     electrical utility upgrade, Idaho
     National Engineering Lab, ID.......
    95-E-201 Test reactor area fire and              500             500
     life safety improvements, Idaho
     National Engineering Lab, ID.......
                                         -------------------------------
        Subtotal, Construction..........           4,061           4,061
                                         -------------------------------
        Total, Radiological facilities            83,038          92,699
         management.....................

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

Advanced fuel cycle.....................          18,221          77,870
Program direction.......................          23,439          23,439
                                         -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Nuclear Energy..........         249,798         332,108
                                         ===============================
Use of prior year balances..............  ..............          -8,000
                                         -------------------------------
      TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY.............         249,798         324,108
                                         ===============================
     ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

Office of Environment, Safety and Health          10,340           5,340
 (non-defense)..........................
Program direction.......................          18,871          13,871
                                         -------------------------------
      TOTAL, ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND              29,211          19,211
       HEALTH...........................
                                         ===============================
        ENERGY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES

Technical information management program           1,400           1,400
    Program direction...................           6,525           5,525
                                         -------------------------------
      TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES..           7,925           6,925
                                         ===============================
      ENERGY SUPPLY INFRASTRUCTURE

Energy Supply Infrastructure............  ..............          17,000
                                         -------------------------------
      TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPLY                ..............          17,000
       INFRASTRUCTURE...................
                                         ===============================
      Subtotal, Energy supply...........         693,934         815,306
                                         ===============================
General reduction.......................  ..............  ..............
                                         ===============================
      TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPLY..............         693,934         815,306
                                         ===============================
  NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Site closure............................  ..............  ..............
Site/project completion.................          51,272          67,272
Post 2006 completion....................         112,887         123,887
Fast flux test facility (FFTF)..........  ..............  ..............
Long-term stewardship...................  ..............  ..............
Excess facilities.......................           1,841           1,841
                                         -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Non-Defense                      166,000         193,000
       Environmental Management.........
                                         ===============================
Use of prior year balances..............  ..............         -17,000
                                         ===============================
      TOTAL, NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL           166,000         176,000
       MANAGEMENT.......................
                                         ===============================
   URANIUM FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND
               REMEDIATION

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and
 Decommissioning Fund:
    Decontamination and decommissioning.         234,523         333,523
    Uranium/thorium reimbursement.......           1,000           1,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Total, Uranium enrichment D&D fund         235,523         334,523

Other Uranium Activities:
    Maintenance and pre-existing                 146,631         136,631
     liabilities........................
    02-U-101 Depleted uranium             ..............  ..............
     hexafluoride conversion project,
     Paducah, KY and Portsmouth, OH.....
    96-U-201 DUF6 cylinder storage yard,  ..............  ..............
     Paducah, KY........................
                                         -------------------------------
      Total, Other uranium activities...         146,631         136,631

Use of prior year balances..............  ..............  ..............
                                         ===============================
      TOTAL, URANIUM FACILITIES                  382,154         471,154
       MAINTENANCE AND REMEDIATION......

                 SCIENCE

High Energy Physics:
    Research & Technology...............         258,545         263,555
    Facility operations.................         446,352         446,332
    Construction: 98-G-304 Neutrinos at           20,093          20,093
     the main injector, Fermilab........
                                         -------------------------------
      Total, High energy physics........         724,990         729,980

Nuclear physics.........................         382,370         387,370
Biological and environmental research...         504,215         531,215
Construction: 01-E-300 Laboratory for     ..............  ..............
 Comparative and Functional Genomics,
 ORNL...................................
                                         -------------------------------
      Total, Biological and                      504,215         531,215
       environmental research...........

Basic energy sciences:
    Research:
        Materials sciences and                   547,883         553,383
         engineering research...........
        Chemical sciences, geosciences           220,146         234,146
         and energy biosciences.........
        Engineering and geosciences.....  ..............  ..............
        Energy biosciences..............  ..............  ..............
                                         -------------------------------
          Subtotal, Research............         768,029         787,529

Construction:
    03-SC-002 Project engineering &                6,000           6,000
     design (PED) SLAC..................
    03-R-312 Center for nanophase                 24,000          24,000
     materials sciences, ORNL...........
    03-R-313 Center for Integrated        ..............           4,500
     Nenotechnology.....................
    02-SC-002 Project engineering and             11,000          12,000
     design (VL)........................
    99-E-334 Spallation neutron source           210,571         210,571
     (ORNL).............................
                                         -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Construction............         251,571         257,071
                                         -------------------------------
      Total, Basic energy sciences......       1,019,600       1,044,600

Advanced scientific computing research..         169,625         169,625
Energy research analyses................           1,020           1,020
Science laboratories infrastructure:
    Infrastructure support..............           1,020           1,020
    Oak Ridge landlord..................           5,079           5,079
    Excess facilities disposal..........           5,055           5,055
    Construction:
        03-SC-001 Science laboratories             3,355           3,355
         infrastructure project
         engineering and design (PED),
         various loc....................
        MEL-001 Multiprogram energy               28,226          28,226
         laboratory infrastructure
         projects, various locations....
        02-SC-001 Multiprogram energy     ..............  ..............
         laboratories, project
         engineering design, various
         locations......................
                                         -------------------------------
            Subtotal, Construction......          31,581          31,581
                                         -------------------------------
            Total, Science laboratories           42,735          42,735
             infrastructure.............

Fusion energy sciences program..........         257,310         259,310
Safeguards and security.................          48,127          48,127
Science workforce development...........  ..............  ..............
Science program direction:
    Field offices.......................          70,163          65,000
    Headquarters........................          58,224          64,377
    Science education...................           5,460           5,460
    Technical information management      ..............  ..............
     program............................
    Energy research analyses............  ..............  ..............
                                         -------------------------------
      Total, Science program direction..         133,847         134,837
                                         -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Science.................       3,283,839       3,348,819
                                         ===============================
General reduction.......................  ..............         -14,980
Less security charge for reimbursable             -4,383          -4,383
 work...................................
                                         -------------------------------
      TOTAL, SCIENCE....................       3,279,456       3,329,456
                                         ===============================
         NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Repository program......................         146,713  ..............
Program direction.......................          62,989          56,000
                                         ===============================
      TOTAL, NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL.....         209,702          56,000
                                         ===============================
       DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

Administrative operations:
    Salaries and expenses:
        Office of the Secretary.........           4,645           4,645
        Board of contract appeals.......             743             743
        Chief information officer.......          30,862          28,862
        Congressional and                          4,953           4,953
         intergovernmental affairs......
        Economic impact and diversity...           5,121           5,121
        General counsel.................          22,813          21,813
        International affairs...........  ..............  ..............
        Office of Management, Budget and         106,536          94,536
         Evaluation.....................
        Policy office...................  ..............  ..............
        Policy and international affairs          16,840          14,840
        Public affairs..................           4,531           4,531
                                         -------------------------------
          Subtotal, Salaries and                 197,044         180,044
           expenses.....................

    Program support:
        Minority economic impact........           1,400           1,400
        Policy analysis and system                   800             800
         studies........................
        Energy security and assurance...           2,000           2,000
        Environmental policy studies....           1,200           1,200
        Engineering and construction      ..............  ..............
         management reviews.............
        Cybersecurity and secure                  32,027          32,027
         communications.................
        Corporate management information          20,420           8,420
         program........................
                                         -------------------------------
          Subtotal, Program support.....          57,847          45,847
                                         -------------------------------
          Total, Administrative                  254,891         225,891
           operations...................

Cost of work for others.................          69,916          69,916
                                         -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Departmental                     324,807         295,807
       Administration...................
                                         ===============================
Use of prior year balances and other      ..............         -10,000
 adjustments............................
Funding from other defense activities...         -25,587         -50,587
                                         -------------------------------
      Total, Departmental administration         299,220         235,000
       (gross)..........................
                                         ===============================
Miscellaneous revenues..................        -137,524        -137,524
                                         ===============================
      TOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION         161,696          97,696
       (net)............................
                                         ===============================
       OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Office of Inspector General.............          37,671          37,671
                                         ===============================
      TOTAL, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL          37,671          37,671
                                         ===============================
    ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

           WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Directed stockpile work:
    Stockpile research and development..         467,149         467,149
    Stockpile maintenance...............         401,157         401,157
    Stockpile evaluation................         197,184         197,184
    Dismantlement/disposal..............          24,378          24,378
    Production support..................         137,706         137,706
    Field engineering, training and                6,893           6,893
     manuals............................
                                         -------------------------------
      Total, Directed stockpile work....       1,234,467       1,234,467

Campaigns:
    Science campaigns:
        Primary certification...........          47,159          47,159
        Dynamic materials properties....          87,594          90,594
        Advanced radiography............          52,925          82,925
        Secondary certification and               47,790          47,790
         nuclear systems margins........
                                         -------------------------------
          Subtotal, Science campaigns...         235,468         268,468

    Engineering campaigns:
        Enhanced surety.................          37,713          32,000
        Weapons system engineering                27,007          27,007
         certification..................
        Nuclear survivability...........          23,394          23,394
        Enhanced surveillance...........          77,155          77,155
        Advanced design and production            74,141          74,141
         technologies...................
                                         -------------------------------
          Subtotal, Engineering                  239,410         233,697
           campaigns....................

Inertial confinement fusion ignition and         237,748         273,248
 high yield.............................
    Construction: 96-D-111 National              214,045         214,045
     ignition facility, LLNL............
                                         -------------------------------
      Subtotal, ILF Ignition............         451,793         487,293

Advanced simulation and computing.......         669,527         649,000
    Construction:
        01-D-101 Distributed information          13,305          13,305
         systems laboratory, SNL,
         Livermore, CA..................
        00-D-103, Terascale simulation            35,030          35,030
         facility, LLNL, Livermore, CA..
        00-D-105 Strategic computing      ..............  ..............
         complex, LANL, Los Alamos, NM..
        00-D-107 Joint computational               7,000           7,000
         engineering laboratory, SNL,
         Albuquerque,  NM...............
                                         -------------------------------
          Subtotal, Construction........          55,335          55,335
                                         -------------------------------
          Subtotal, Advanced simulation          724,862         704,335
           and computing................

Pit manufacturing and certification.....         194,484         246,000
Readiness campaigns:
    Stockpile readiness.................          61,027          61,027
    High explosives manufacturing and             12,093          12,093
     weapons assembly/disassembly
     readiness..........................
    Non-nuclear readiness...............          22,398          22,398
    Materials readiness.................  ..............  ..............
    Tritium readiness...................          56,134          42,734
    Construction: 98-D-125 Tritium                70,165          70,165
     extraction facility, SR............
                                         -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Tritium readiness.......         126,299         112,899
                                         -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Readiness campaigns.....         221,817         208,417
                                         -------------------------------
      Total, Campaigns..................       2,067,834       2,148,210

Readiness in technical base and
 facilities:
    Operations of facilities............         949,920       1,026,000
    Program readiness...................         208,089         218,000
    Special projects....................          37,744          50,500
    Material recycle and recovery.......          98,816          98,816
    Containers..........................          17,721          17,721
    Storage.............................          14,593          14,593
    Nuclear weapons incident response...          91,000          96,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Readiness in technical         1,417,883       1,521,630
       base and fac.....................

    Construction:
        03-D-101 Sandia underground                2,000           2,000
         reactor facility SURF, SNL,
         Albuquerque, NM................
        03-D-102 LANL Administration      ..............          16,000
         Building (LANL)................
        03-D-103 Project engineering and          15,539          15,539
         design various locations.......
        03-D-121 Gas transfer capacity             4,000           4,000
         expansion, Kansas City Plant,
         Kansas City, MO................
        03-D-122 Prototype purification           20,800          20,800
         facility, Y-12 plant, Oak
         Ridge, TN......................
        03-D-123 Special nuclear                   3,000           3,000
         materials requalification,
         Pantex plant, Amarillo, TX.....
        02-D-103 Project engineering and          27,245          27,245
         design, various locations......
        02-D-105 Engineering technology           10,000          10,000
         complex upgrade, LLNL..........
        02-D-107 Electrical power                  7,500           7,500
         systems safety communications
         and bus upgrades, NV...........
        01-D-103 Project engineering and           6,164  ..............
         design (PE&D), various
         locations......................
        01-D-107 Atlas relocation,                 4,123           4,123
         Nevada test site...............
        01-D-108 Microsystems and                 75,000         123,000
         engineering sciences
         applications complex (MESA),
         SNL............................
        01-D-124 HEU materials facility,          25,000          25,000
         Y-12 plant, Oak Ridge, TN......
        01-D-126 Weapons Evaluation Test           8,650           8,650
         Laboratory Pantex Plant,
         Amarillo, TX...................
        01-D-800 Sensitive compartmented           9,611           9,611
         information facility, LLNL.....
        99-D-103 Isotope sciences                  4,011           4,011
         facilities, LLNL, Livermore, CA
        99-D-104 Protection of real                5,915           5,915
         property (roof reconstruction--
         Phase II), LLNL, Livermore, CA.
        99-D-106 Model validation &       ..............  ..............
         system certification center,
         SNL, Albuquerque, NM...........
        99-D-108 Renovate existing        ..............  ..............
         roadways, Nevada Test Site, NV.
        99-D-125 Replace boilers and      ..............  ..............
         controls, Kansas City plant,
         Kansas City,  MO...............
        99-D-127 Stockpile management             29,900          29,900
         restructuring initiative,
         Kansas City plant, Kansas City,
         MO.............................
        99-D-128 Stockpile management                407             407
         restructuring initiative,
         Pantex consolidation, Amarillo,
         TX.............................
        98-D-123 Stockpile management             10,481          10,481
         restructuring initiative,
         Tritium factory modernization
         and consolidation, Savannah
         River, SC......................
        98-D-124 Stockpile management     ..............  ..............
         restructuring initiative, Y-12
         consolidation, Oak Ridge, TN...
        97-D-123 Structural upgrades,     ..............  ..............
         Kansas City plant, Kansas City,
         MO.............................
        96-D-102 Stockpile stewardship             1,000           1,000
         facilities revitalization
         (Phase VI), various locations..
                                         -------------------------------
            Subtotal, Construction......         270,346         328,182
                                         -------------------------------
            Total, Readiness in                1,688,229       1,849,812
             technical base and
             facilities.................

Facilities and infrastructure                    242,512         242,512
 recapitalization program...............
Secure transportation asset:
    Operations and equipment............         100,863         100,863
    Program direction...................          52,126          52,126
                                         -------------------------------
      Total, Secure transportation asset         152,989         152,989

Safeguards and security.................         501,054         501,054
    Construction: 99-D-132 SMRI nuclear            8,900           8,900
     material safeguards and security
     upgrade project (LANL), Los Alamos,
     NM.................................
                                         -------------------------------
        Total, Safeguards and security..         509,954         509,954
                                         -------------------------------
        Subtotal, Weapons activities....       5,895,985       6,137,944
Use of prior year balances..............  ..............  ..............
General reduction.......................  ..............  ..............
Less security charge for reimbursable            -28,985         -28,985
 work...................................
                                         -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Weapons activities......       5,867,000       6,108,959
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107- ..............  ..............
 117)...................................
                                         ===============================
      TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES.........       5,867,000       6,108,959
                                         ===============================
DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION........       5,055,873  ..............
Nonproliferation and verification, R&D..         283,407         293,407
    Construction:
        00-D-192 Nonproliferation and     ..............  ..............
         international security center
         (NISC), LAN....................
                                         -------------------------------
          Total, Nonproliferation and            283,407         293,407
           verification, R&D............

Nonproliferation and international                92,668          92,668
 security...............................
Nonproliferation programs with Russia:
    International materials protection,          233,077         233,077
     control, and cooperation...........
    Russian transition initiative.......          39,334          39,334
    HEU transparency implementation.....          17,229          17,229
    International nuclear safety........          14,576          14,576
    Elimination of weapons-grade                  49,339          49,339
     plutonium production program.......
    Fissile materials disposition:
    U.S. surplus materials disposition..         194,000         194,000
    Russian surplus materials                     98,000          98,000
     disposition........................
    Construction:
        01-D-407 Highly enriched uranium          30,000          30,000
         (HEU) blend down, Savannah
         River, SC......................
        99-D-141 Pit disassembly and              33,000          33,000
         conversion facility Savannah
         River, SC......................
        99-D-143 Mixed oxide fuel                 93,000          93,000
         fabrication facility, Savannah
         River, SC......................
                                         -------------------------------
          Subtotal, Construction........         156,000         156,000
                                         -------------------------------
          Subtotal, Fissile materials            448,000         448,000
           disposition..................
                                         -------------------------------
          Total, Nonproliferation                801,555         801,555
           programs with Russia.........

Program direction.......................  ..............  ..............
                                         -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Defense nuclear                1,177,630       1,187,630
       nonproliferation.................

Use of prior year balances..............         -64,000         -72,000
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107- ..............  ..............
 117)...................................
                                         ===============================
      TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR                   1,113,630       1,115,630
       NONPROLIFERATION.................
                                         ===============================
             NAVAL REACTORS

Naval reactors development..............         671,290         671,290
    Construction:
        03-D-201 Cleanroom technology              7,200           7,200
         facility, Bettis atomic power
         lab, West Mifflin, PA..........
        01-D-200 Major office                      2,100           2,100
         replacement building,
         Schenectady, NY................
        90-N-102 Expended core facility            2,000           2,000
         dry cell project, Naval
         Reactors Facility, ID..........
                                         -------------------------------
          Subtotal, Construction........          11,300          11,300
                                         -------------------------------
          Total, Naval reactors                  682,590         682,590
           development..................
Program direction.......................          24,200          24,200
                                         ===============================
      TOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS.............         706,790         706,790
                                         ===============================
       OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

Office of the Administrator.............         335,929         335,929
                                         ===============================
      TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR         335,929         335,929
                                         ===============================
      TOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY         8,023,349       8,267,308
       ADMINISTRATION...................
                                         ===============================
  DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND
               WASTE MGMT.

Site/project completion:
    Operation and maintenance...........         779,706         973,106
    Construction:
        02-D-402 Intec cathodic                    1,119           1,119
         protection system expansion
         project, INEEL, Idaho Falls, ID
        02-D-420 Plutonium packaging and           2,000           2,000
         stabilization, Savannah River..
        01-D-414 Preliminary project,              5,125           5,125
         engineering and design (PE&D),
         various locations..............
        99-D-402 Tank farm support        ..............  ..............
         services, F&H area, Savannah
         River site, Aiken, SC..........
        99-D-404 Health physics           ..............  ..............
         instrumentation laboratory
         (INEL), ID.....................
        98-D-453 Plutonium stabilization  ..............  ..............
         and handling system for PFP,
         Richland,  WA..................
        96-D-471 CFC HVAC/chiller         ..............  ..............
         retrofit, Savannah River site,
         Aiken, SC......................
        86-D-103 Decontamination and      ..............  ..............
         waste treatment facility
         (LLNL), Livermore, CA..........
                                         -------------------------------
            Subtotal, Construction......           8,244           8,244
                                         -------------------------------
            Total, Site/project                  787,950         981,350
             completion.................

Post 2006 completion:
    Operation and maintenance...........       1,702,241       2,211,240
    Construction: 93-D-187 High-level             14,870          14,870
     waste removal from filled waste
     tanks, Savannah River, SC..........
    Office of River Protection:                  226,256         455,256
     Operation and maintenance..........
    Construction:
        03-D-403 Immobilized high-level            6,363           6,363
         waste interim storage facility,
         Richland,  WA..................
        01-D-416 Hanford waste treatment         619,000         619,000
         plant, Richland, WA............
        97-D-402 Tank farm restoration            25,424          25,424
         and safe operations, Richland,
         WA.............................
        94-D-407 Initial tank retrieval           20,945          20,945
         systems, Richland, WA..........
                                         -------------------------------
          Subtotal, Construction........         671,732         671,732
                                         -------------------------------
          Subtotal, Office of River              897,988       1,126,988
           Protection...................
                                         -------------------------------
          Total, Post 2006 completion...       2,615,099       3,353,098

Uranium enrichment D&D fund contribution  ..............  ..............
Science and technology..................          92,000          77,000
Excess facilities.......................           1,300           1,300
Multi-site activities...................         479,871         479,871
Safeguards and security.................         228,260         228,260
Program direction.......................         344,000         324,000
                                         -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Defense environmental          4,548,480       5,444,879
       management.......................

Use of prior year balances..............  ..............         -34,000
General reduction.......................  ..............  ..............
Less security charge for reimbursable             -4,347          -4,347
 work...................................
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107- ..............  ..............
 117)...................................
                                         ===============================
      TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRON.                  4,544,133       5,406,532
       RESTORATION AND WASTE MGMT.......
                                         ===============================
 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CLEANUP REFORM

Environmental management cleanup reform.         800,000  ..............

   DEFENSE FACILITIES CLOSURE PROJECTS

Site closure............................       1,054,153       1,088,153
Safeguards and security.................          37,161          37,161
                                         -------------------------------
      TOTAL, DEFENSE FACILITIES CLOSURE        1,091,314       1,125,314
       PROJECTS.........................
                                         ===============================
    DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
              PRIVATIZATION

Privatization initiatives, various               158,399         158,399
 locations..............................
                                         -------------------------------
      TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT.         158,399         158,399
       PRIVATIZATION....................
                                         ===============================
      TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL             6,593,846       6,690,245
       MANAGEMENT.......................
                                         ===============================
        OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Other national security programs:
    Energy security and assurance:
        Energy security.................          23,411          52,411
        Program direction...............           4,275           4,275
                                         -------------------------------
          Subtotal, Energy security and           27,686          56,686
           assurance....................

    Office of Security:
        Nuclear safeguards and security.          91,102          91,102
        Security investigations.........          45,870          45,870
        Corporate management information  ..............  ..............
         program........................
        Cyber security and secure         ..............  ..............
         communications.................
        Program direction...............          48,543          48,543
                                         -------------------------------
          Subtotal, Office of Security..         185,515         185,515

    Intelligence........................          41,246          41,246
    Counterintelligence.................          45,955          45,955
    Independent oversight and                     22,430          22,430
     performance assurance..............
    Advanced accelerator applications...  ..............  ..............
    Environment, safety and health                81,892          96,892
     (Defense)..........................
    Program direction--EH...............          17,149          17,149
                                         -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Environment, safety &             99,041         114,041
       health (Defense).................

    Worker and community transition.....          22,965          22,965
    Program direction--WT...............           2,718           2,718
                                         -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Worker and community              25,683          25,683
       transition.......................

    National Security programs                    25,587          50,587
     administrative support.............
    Office of hearings and appeals......           2,933           2,933
                                         -------------------------------
        Subtotal, Other defense                  476,076         545,076
         activities.....................

Use of prior year balances..............          -6,700          -6,700
Less security charge for reimbursable               -712            -712
 work...................................
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107- ..............  ..............
 117)...................................
                                         ===============================
      TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES...         468,664         537,664
                                         ===============================
     DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Defense nuclear waste disposal..........         315,000         280,000
                                         ===============================
      TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE            15,400,859      15,775,217
       ACTIVITIES.......................
                                         ===============================
     POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

    SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance:
    Purchase power and wheeling.........          20,000          34,463
    Program direction...................           4,606           4,606
                                         -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Operation and                     24,606          39,069
       maintenance......................

Offsetting collections..................  ..............          -8,000
Offsetting collections (Public Law 106-          -20,000         -26,463
 377)...................................
Use of prior year balances..............             -72             -72
                                         -------------------------------
      TOTAL, SOUTHEASTERN POWER                    4,534           4,534
       ADMINISTRATION...................
                                         ===============================
    SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance:
    Operating expenses..................           3,814           3,814
    Purchase power and wheeling.........             288           2,200
    Program direction...................          17,933          17,933
    Construction........................           6,031           6,031
                                         -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Operation and                     28,066          29,978
       maintenance......................

Offsetting collections..................  ..............          -1,912
Offsetting collections (Public Law 106-             -288            -288
 377)...................................
Use of prior year balances..............            -400            -400
                                         -------------------------------
      TOTAL, SOUTHWESTERN POWER                   27,378          27,378
       ADMINISTRATION...................
                                         ===============================
    WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance:
    Construction and rehabilitation.....          17,784          17,784
    System operation and maintenance....          37,796          37,796
    Purchase power and wheeling.........          30,000         186,124
    Program direction...................         108,378         108,378
    Utah mitigation and conservation....  ..............           6,100
                                         -------------------------------
      Subtotal, Operation and                    193,958         356,182
       maintenance......................

Offsetting collections..................  ..............        -152,624
Offsetting collections (Public Law 106-          -30,000         -33,500
 377)...................................
Use of prior year balances..............          -1,200          -1,200
                                         -------------------------------
      TOTAL, WESTERN AREA POWER                  162,758         168,858
       ADMINISTRATION...................
                                         ===============================
    FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND
            MAINTENANCE FUND

Operation and maintenance...............           2,734           2,734
                                         ===============================
      TOTAL, POWER MARKETING                     197,404         203,504
       ADMINISTRATIONS..................
                                         ===============================
  FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Federal energy regulatory commission....         192,000         192,000
FERC revenues...........................        -192,000        -192,000
                                         ===============================
    GRAND TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY...      20,528,876      20,961,784
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    The following list of general provisions are recommended by 
the Committee. The recommendation includes several provisions 
which have been included in previous Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Acts and new provisions as follows:
    Language under section 301 prohibits the use of funds to 
award, amend or modify a contract in a manner that deviates 
from the Federal Acquisition Regulations unless on a case-by-
case basis, a waiver is granted by the Secretary of Energy. 
Similar language was contained in last year's Energy and Water 
Development Act, Public Law 107-66.
    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, 2002, Public 
Law 107-66.
    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, 2002, Public Law 107-66.
    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, 2002, Public Law 107-66.
    Language is included under section 306 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, 2002, Public Law 107-66.
    Language is included under section 307 which provides that 
the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration may authorize 2 percent of the amount allocated 
to a nuclear weapons production plant for the production plant 
to engage in research, development, and demonstration 
activities with respect to the Engineering and manufacturing 
capabilities of the plant in order to maintain and enhance such 
capabilities at the plant. A similar provision was contained in 
the Energy and Water Development Act, 2002, Public Law 107-66.
    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 
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.

                     TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                    Appalachian Regional Commission

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $71,290,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      66,290,000
Committee recommendation................................      74,400,000

    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 $74,400,000, $8,000,000 more than the 
request.
    The Committee recommendation includes $8,000,000 for the 
newly authorized telecommunications program within the ARC. 
This program will broaden the availability of advanced 
telecommunications services throughout Appalachia.
    Consistent with the administration's budget request, the 
Committee recommendation does not include funding for ARC 
highways. Funding for ARC development highways is provided 
through the highway trust fund in fiscal years 1999 through 
2004 consistent with provision contained in the Intermodal 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act.
    The Committee recognizes the importance of trade and 
investment opportunities to the Appalachian region, and is 
encouraged by a preliminary trade report determining that 
Appalachian firms might find significant trade and investment 
opportunities, particularly in the energy, high technology, and 
transportation sectors, in the Republic of Turkey and the 
surrounding region. In this regard, the Committee supports the 
Appalachian-Turkish Trade Project (ATTP), a project to promote 
opportunities to expand trade, encourage business interests, 
stimulate foreign studies, and to build a lasting and mutually 
meaningful relationship between the Appalachian States and the 
Republic of Turkey, as well as the neighboring regions, such as 
Greece. The Committee commends the ARC for its leadership role 
in helping to implement the mission of the ATTP. The Committee 
expects the ARC to continue to be a prominent ATTP sponsor.

                Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $18,500,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      19,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      19,000,000

    An appropriation of $19,000,000, the amount of the request, 
is recommended for fiscal year 2003. 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, 2002....................................     $10,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      10,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      15,000,000

    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 $15,000,000 
for the Delta Regional Authority. The recommended 
appropriations will be used to carry out the activities of 
Authority during fiscal year 2003.

                           Denali Commission

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $38,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      29,939,000
Committee recommendation................................      50,000,000

    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 $50,000,000 for the 
Denali Commission.
    From within those funds, $5,000,000 shall be made available 
for basic infrastructure and facilities for those communities 
without running water including Red Devil and Kaktovik; 
$10,000,000 for community facilities that can serve multiple 
purposes in villages such as Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Brevig 
Mission, Elim, Gambell, Koyuk, Savoonga, St. Michael, Stebbins, 
Teller, Unalakleet, and Barrow. None of the funds may be used 
for clean-up of leaking fuel tanks.
    The Committee recommendation also includes funding for the 
Pt. MacKenzie gas line extension, Nome power upgrades, Fire 
Island power upgrade, North Slope grid upgrade, Calista power 
generation, and the Parks Highway electric line extension. The 
Committee recommendation includes up to $1,000,000 to study the 
rural development opportunities, costs and logistics of 
shipping and marketing new domestic water supplies outside of 
Alaska.

                     Nuclear Regulatory Commission

                         salaries and expenses

                          gross appropriation

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $516,900,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     578,184,000
Committee recommendation................................     578,184,000

                                revenues

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $473,520,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     492,545,000
Committee recommendation................................     520,087,000

                           net appropriation

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $79,380,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      85,639,000
Committee recommendation................................      58,097,000

    The Committee recommendation includes $578,174,000, the 
same amount as the request, for the Commission.
    Nuclear energy received a strong endorsement in the 
National Energy Policy of May 2001 and serious industry 
interest has emerged in building a new generation of nuclear 
power plants in the United States to meet the Nation's 
electricity demands. Three nuclear utilities have announced 
intentions to submit early site permit applications to the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Others are also expected 
to submit early site permit applications over the next few 
years. Industry has proposed a new risk-informed regulatory 
framework to license the next generation of plants. The 
framework would build on the successful structure of the 
revised reactor oversight process and be reactor design 
neutral. NRC should evaluate the merits of this approach and 
establish the new framework through rulemaking.
    Because the NRC needs to ensure that its regulatory 
infrastructure can be responsive to these new applications, 
some of which may involve new technologies not previously 
licensed by the NRC, the Committee provided $10,000,000 in 
additional budget authority to the NRC for fiscal year 2002 so 
that it can adequately prepare for and respond to these new 
reactor initiatives without jeopardizing the safety of 
operating facilities and without impeding ongoing initiatives 
on license renewals, power uprates, and moving toward a more 
risk-informed regulatory environment. While the Committee 
expects the NRC to continue to support these important national 
initiatives in fiscal year 2003, funds for maintaining these 
programs should be realized through implementing internal 
efficiencies in the NRC.
    Recognizing the impact of September 11 on NRC's safeguards 
mission, an additional $36,000,000 was added to the NRC budget 
authority for fiscal year 2002. The Committee recognizes that 
these funds were used to strengthen the NRC's ability to 
respond to terrorist threats and to assess and enhance security 
requirements at nuclear facilities. The Committee understand 
that work is well underway with orders issued to all operating 
and decommissioned commercial nuclear energy plants. Looking to 
fiscal year 2003, the focus of security will begin to shift 
from strengthening security regulations and the response 
capability of the NRC to the implementation of required 
enhancements by the licensee. The Committee expects that the 
funds for oversight of these licensee programs should be 
realized through implementing internal efficiencies in the NRC.
    The Committee recommendation for the NRC is $578,184,000. 
This amount is offset by estimated revenues of $520,087,000 
resulting in a net appropriation of $58,097,000.
    Fee Recovery.--Pursuant to the agreement reached in fiscal 
year 2001, the NRC is required to recover 94 percent of its 
budget authority, less the appropriation from the Nuclear Waste 
Fund, by assessing license and annual fees.
    Reports.--The Committee directs the Commission to continue 
to provide monthly reports on the status of its licensing and 
other regulatory activities. In addition, continued 
congressional oversight is necessary to ensure the NRC 
streamlines its business processes to improve regulatory 
efficiency while reducing unnecessary burden on licensees. NRC 
should report to the Congress by March 31, 2003, on 
efficiencies gained through implementation of the reactor 
oversight process. NRC should report to the Congress by June 
30, 2003, on regulatory efficiencies that would be gained by 
consolidating or eliminating regional offices.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                          gross appropriation

Appropriations, 2002....................................      $6,180,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................       6,800,000
Committee recommendation................................       6,800,000

                                revenues

Appropriations, 2002....................................      $5,933,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................       6,392,000
Committee recommendation................................       6,392,000

    This appropriation provides for the Office of Inspector 
General of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $6,800,000 for fiscal year 2003.

                  Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

Appropriations, 2002....................................      $3,100,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................       3,102,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,200,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,200,000 for 
the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. The Nuclear Waste 
Policy Amendments Act of 1987 directed the Board to evaluate 
the technical and scientific validity of the activities of the 
Department of Energy's nuclear waste disposal program. The 
Board must report its findings not less than two times a year 
to the Congress and the Secretary of Energy.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

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

  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 2003, 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, on July 24, 2002, 
the Committee ordered S. 2784, an original Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations bill, 2003, subject to amendment and 
each subject to the budget allocations, by a recorded vote of 
29-0, a quorum being present. The vote was as follows:
        Yeas                          Nays
Chairman 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.
    With respect to this bill, it is the opinion of the 
Committee that it is necessary to dispense with these 
requirements in order to expedite the business of the Senate.

                                            BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
  PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
                                                     AMENDED
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Budget authority                 Outlays
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Committee     Amount  of     Committee     Amount  of
                                                        allocation \1\      bill     allocation \1\      bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee
 allocations to its subcommittees, fiscal year 2003:
 Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development:
    Discretionary.....................................         26,300        26,300         25,823    \2\ 25,704
    Mandatory.........................................             NA   ...........             NA   ...........
Projections of outlays associated with the
 recommendation:
    2003..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............   \3\ 16,909
    2004..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............        7,816
    2005..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............        1,400
    2006..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............          111
    2007 and future years.............................  ..............  ...........  ..............           74
Financial assistance to State and local governments                NA           129             NA            24
 for  2003............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Levels approved by the Committee, as modified on July 18, 2002.
\2\ Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\3\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.

  COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
                                                                        YEAR 2003
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                         Senate Committee recommendation
                                                                                                                             compared with (+ or -)
                                Item                                       2002       Budget estimate     Committee    ---------------------------------
                                                                      appropriation                     recommendation        2002
                                                                                                                         appropriation   Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                     Corps of Engineers--Civil

General investigations.............................................         154,350          102,483          148,304           -6,046          +45,821
Construction, general..............................................       1,715,951        1,415,612        1,745,102          +29,151         +329,490
Flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries, Arkansas,                 345,992          280,671          337,937           -8,055          +57,266
 Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and
 Tennessee.........................................................
Operation and maintenance, general.................................       1,874,803        1,913,760        1,956,182          +81,379          +42,422
    Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107-117)..................         139,000   ...............  ...............        -139,000   ...............
Regulatory program.................................................         127,000          144,252          144,252          +17,252   ...............
FUSRAP.............................................................         140,000          140,298          140,298             +298   ...............
Flood control and coastal emergencies..............................  ...............          20,227           20,227          +20,227   ...............
    Rescission.....................................................         -25,000   ...............  ...............         +25,000   ...............
General expenses...................................................         153,000          155,651          155,651           +2,651   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, title I, Department of Defense--Civil.................       4,625,096        4,172,954        4,647,953          +22,857         +474,999
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

              Central Utah Project Completion Account

Central Utah project construction..................................          24,169           23,643           23,643             -526   ...............
Fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation.........          10,749           11,259           11,259             +510   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal.......................................................          34,918           34,902           34,902              -16   ...............

Program oversight and administration...............................           1,310            1,326            1,326              +16   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Central Utah project completion account...............          36,228           36,228           36,228   ...............  ...............

                       Bureau of Reclamation

Water and related resources........................................         762,531          726,147          816,147          +53,616          +90,000
    Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107-117)..................          30,259   ...............  ...............         -30,259   ...............
Loan program.......................................................           7,495   ...............  ...............          -7,495   ...............
    (Limitation on direct loans)...................................         (26,000)  ...............  ...............        (-26,000)  ...............
Central Valley project restoration fund............................          55,039           48,904           48,904           -6,135   ...............
California Bay-Delta restoration...................................  ...............          15,000   ...............  ...............         -15,000
Policy and administration..........................................          52,968           54,870           54,870           +1,902   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Bureau of Reclamation.................................         908,292          844,921          919,921          +11,629          +75,000
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Total, title II, Department of the Interior..................         944,520          881,149          956,149          +11,629          +75,000
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                  TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Energy supply......................................................         666,726          693,934          815,306         +148,580         +121,372
Non-defense environmental management...............................         236,372          166,000          176,000          -60,372          +10,000
Uranium facilities maintenance and remediation.....................         418,425          382,154          471,154          +52,729          +89,000
Science............................................................       3,233,100        3,279,456        3,329,456          +96,356          +50,000
Nuclear Waste Disposal.............................................          95,000          209,702           56,000          -39,000         -153,702

Departmental administration........................................         210,853          299,220          235,000          +24,147          -64,220
    Miscellaneous revenues.........................................        -137,810         -137,524         -137,524             +286   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Net appropriation............................................          73,043          161,696           97,476          +24,433          -64,220

Office of the Inspector General....................................          32,430           37,671           37,671           +5,241   ...............

Environmental restoration and waste management:
    Defense function...............................................      (6,489,191)      (6,593,846)      (6,690,245)       (+201,054)        (+96,399)
    Non-defense function...........................................        (654,797)        (548,154)        (647,154)         (-7,643)        (+99,000)
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total........................................................      (7,143,988)      (7,142,000)      (7,337,399)       (+193,411)       (+195,399)

                  Atomic Energy Defense Activities

National Nuclear Security Administration:
    Weapons activities.............................................       5,429,238        5,867,000        6,108,959         +679,721         +241,959
        Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107-117)..............         131,000   ...............  ...............        -131,000   ...............
    Defense nuclear nonproliferation...............................         803,586        1,113,630        1,115,630         +312,044           +2,000
        Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107-117)..............         226,000   ...............  ...............        -226,000   ...............
    Naval reactors.................................................         688,045          706,790          706,790          +18,745   ...............
    Office of the Administrator....................................         312,596          335,929          335,929          +23,333   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, National Nuclear Security Administration...........       7,590,465        8,023,349        8,267,308         +676,843         +243,959

Defense environmental restoration and waste management.............       5,234,576        4,544,133        5,406,532         +171,956         +862,399
    Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107-117)..................           8,200   ...............  ...............          -8,200   ...............
Defense environmental management cleanup reform....................  ...............         800,000   ...............  ...............        -800,000
Defense facilities closure projects................................       1,092,878        1,091,314        1,125,314          +32,436          +34,000
Defense environmental management privatization.....................         153,537          158,399          158,399           +4,862   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Defense environmental management...................       6,489,191        6,593,846        6,690,245         +201,054          +96,399

Other defense activities...........................................         544,044          468,664          537,664           -6,380          +69,000
    Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107-117)..................           3,500   ...............  ...............          -3,500   ...............
Defense nuclear waste disposal.....................................         280,000          315,000          280,000   ...............         -35,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities......................      14,907,200       15,400,859       15,775,217         +868,017         +374,358

                  Power Marketing Administrations

Operation and maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration.......           4,891            4,534            4,534             -357   ...............
Operation and maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration.......          28,038           27,378           27,378             -660   ...............
Construction, rehabilitation, operation and maintenance, Western            171,938          162,758          168,858           -3,080           +6,100
 Area Power Administration.........................................
Falcon and Amistad operating and maintenance fund..................           2,663            2,734            2,734              +71   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Power Marketing Administrations.......................         207,530          197,404          203,504           -4,026           +6,100

                Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Salaries and expenses..............................................         184,155          192,000          192,000           +7,845   ...............
Revenues applied...................................................        -184,155         -192,000         -192,000           -7,845   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Total, title III, Department of Energy.......................      19,869,826       20,528,876       20,961,784       +1,091,958         +432,908
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                   TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Appalachian Regional Commission....................................          71,290           66,290           74,400           +3,110           +8,110
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board............................          18,500           19,000           19,000             +500   ...............
Delta Regional Authority...........................................          10,000           10,000           15,000           +5,000           +5,000
Denali Commission..................................................          38,000           29,939           50,000          +12,000          +20,061

Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
    Salaries and expenses..........................................         516,900          578,184          578,184          +61,284   ...............
        Emergency appropriations (Public Law 107-117)..............          36,000   ...............  ...............         -36,000   ...............
    Revenues.......................................................        -473,520         -492,545         -520,087          -46,567          -27,542
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................          79,380           85,639           58,097          -21,283          -27,542

    Office of Inspector General....................................           6,180            6,800            6,800             +620   ...............
    Revenues.......................................................          -5,933           -6,392           -6,392             -459   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................             247              408              408             +161   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.........................          79,627           86,047           58,505          -21,122          -27,542

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board...............................           3,100            3,102            3,200             +100              +98
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Total, title IV, Independent agencies........................         220,517          214,378          220,105             -412           +5,727
      Grand total:
          New budget (obligational) authority......................      25,659,959       25,797,357       26,785,991       +1,126,032         +988,634
              Appropriations.......................................     (25,111,000)     (25,797,357)     (26,785,991)     (+1,674,991)       (+988,634)
              Emergency appropriations.............................        (573,959)  ...............  ...............       (-573,959)  ...............
              Rescissions..........................................        (-25,000)  ...............  ...............        (+25,000)  ...............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


```