Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
                                                       Calendar No. 128
106th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                     106-58

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



 
         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATION BILL, 2000

                                _______
                                

                  June 2, 1999.--Ordered to be printed

    Filed under authority of the order of the Senate of May 27, 1999

                                _______


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

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 1186]

    The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1186) 
making appropriations for energy and water development for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, 
reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.



Amount in new budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2000

Budget estimates considered by Senate................... $21,996,026,000
Amount of bill as reported to the Senate................  21,717,280,000
The bill as reported to the Senate--
    Below the budget estimate, 2000.....................    -278,746,000
    Below enacted bill, 1999............................    -439,545,000



                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                                TITLE I

Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army:
    Corps of Engineers--Civil:
                                                                   Page
        General investigations...................................     8
        Construction, general....................................    25
        Flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries.........    43
        Operation and maintenance, general.......................    48
        Regulatory program.......................................    68
        Flood control and coastal emergencies....................    68
        Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program..........    68
        General expenses.........................................    69

                                TITLE II

Department of the Interior:
    Central Utah project completion account......................    71
    Bureau of Reclamation: Water and related resources...........    71
    California bay-delta ecosystem restoration...................    84
    Bureau of Reclamation loan program account...................    85
    Central Valley project restoration fund......................    87
    Policy and administrative expenses...........................    87

                               TITLE III

Department of Energy:
    Energy Supply Programs.......................................    89
        Solar and renewable energy...............................    89
        Nuclear energy programs..................................    92
        Environment, safety, and health..........................    93
        Energy support activities................................    93
    Environmental management (nondefense)........................    95
    Uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund..    95
    Nuclear waste fund...........................................    95
    Science......................................................    96
        High energy physics......................................    96
        Nuclear physics..........................................    96
        Biological and environmental research....................    96
        Basic energy sciences....................................    97
        Other energy research programs...........................    97
        Fusion energy sciences...................................    97
    Departmental administration..................................    97
        Miscellaneous revenues...................................    97
    Office of Inspector General..................................    98
    Atomic energy defense activities.............................    98
        Weapon activities........................................    98
        Defense environmental restoration and waste management...   105
        Site and project completion..............................   106
        Defense facility closure projects........................   109
        Defense environmental management privatization...........   109
        Other defense activities.................................   110
        Defense nuclear waste disposal...........................   114
    Power marketing administrations:
        Operations and maintenance, Southeastern Power 
          Administration.........................................   115
        Operations and maintenance, Southwestern Power 
          Administration.........................................   116
        Construction, rehabilitation, operations and maintenance, 
          Western Area Power Administration......................   116
    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.........................   117
    Salaries and expenses--revenues applied......................   117

                                TITLE IV

Independent Agencies:
    Appalachian Regional Commission..............................   128
    Denali Commission............................................   128
    Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board......................   128
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission................................   129
    Office of Inspector General..................................   130
    Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.........................   130
    Tennessee Valley Authority...................................   130

                                TITLE V

Rescissions......................................................   131
Compliance with paragraph 7(c), rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules 
  of the 
  Senate.........................................................   132
Compliance with paragraph 12, rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of 
  the 
  Senate.........................................................   133
Budgetary impact statement.......................................   136

                                Purpose

    The purpose of this bill is to provide appropriations for 
the fiscal year 2000 beginning October 1, 1999, and ending 
September 30, 2000, 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 in title III; 
and for related independent agencies and commissions, including 
the Appalachian Regional Commission and Appalachian regional 
development programs, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and 
the Tennessee Valley Authority in title IV.

                Summary of Estimates and Recommendations

    The fiscal year 2000 budget estimates for the bill total 
$21,996,026,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The 
recommendation of the Committee totals $21,717,280,000. This is 
$278,746,000 below the budget estimates and $439,545,000 under 
the enacted appropriation for the current fiscal year.

                     subcommittee budget allocation

    The Energy and Water Development Subcommittee allocation 
under section 302(b)(1) of the Budget Act totals 
$21,280,000,000 in budget authority and $20,868,000,000 in 
outlays for fiscal year 2000. The bill as recommended by the 
Committee is within the subcommittee allocation for fiscal year 
2000 in budget authority and outlays.

                            Bill Highlights

                    atomic energy defense activities

    The amount recommended in the bill includes $12,443,500,000 
for atomic energy defense activities. Major programs and 
activities include:

Stockpile stewardship...................................  $2,351,800,000
Stockpile management....................................   2,025,300,000
Nonproliferation and national security..................     822,300,000
Other defense programs..................................   1,872,000,000
Defense waste management and environmental restoration..   4,551,676,000
Defense facilities closure projects.....................   1,069,492,000
Defense environmental privatization.....................     228,000,000

                             energy supply

    The bill recommended by the Committee provides a total of 
$715,412,000 for energy research programs including:

Solar and renewable energy..............................    $353,900,000
Nuclear fission R&D.....................................;     287,700,000

                  nondefense environmental management

    An appropriation of $327,922,000 is recommended for 
nondefense environmental management activities of the 
Department of Energy.

                                science

    The Committee recommendation also provides a net 
appropriation of $2,725,069,000 for general science and 
research activities in life sciences, high energy physics, and 
nuclear physics. Major programs are:

High energy physics research............................    $691,090,000
Nuclear physics.........................................     330,000,000
Basic energy sciences...................................     854,545,000
Biological and environmental R&D........................;     429,700,000
Magnetic fusion.........................................     220,614,000

               regulatory and other independent agencies

    Also recommended in the bill is $300,050,000 for various 
regulatory and independent agencies of the Federal Government. 
Major programs include:

Appalachian Regional Commission.........................     $71,400,000
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission....................     170,000,000
Nuclear Regulatory Commission...........................     465,400,000

                      water resources development

Corps of Engineers:
    General investigations..............................    $125,459,000
    Construction........................................   1,113,227,000
    Flood control Mississippi River and tributaries.....     315,630,000
    Operations and maintenance..........................   1,790,043,000
    Corps of Engineers, regulatory activities...........     115,000,000
Bureau of Reclamation:
    California Bay-Delta restoration....................      50,000,000
    Central Valley project restoration fund.............      37,346,000
    Water and related resource..........................     612,451,000
    Central Utah project completion.....................      39,370,000

    The Committee has also recommended appropriations totaling 
approximately $4,560,951,000 for Federal water resource 
development programs. This includes projects and related 
activities of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--Civil and the 
Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of the Interior. The 
Federal water resource development program provides lasting 
benefits to the Nation in the area of flood control, municipal 
and industrial water supply, irrigation of agricultural lands, 
water conservation, commercial navigation, hydroelectric power, 
recreation, and fish and wildlife enhancement.
    Water is our Nation's most precious and valuable resource. 
It is evident that water supply in the near future will be as 
important, if not more so, than energy. There is only so much 
water available. Water cannot be manufactured. Our Nation 
cannot survive without water, and economic prosperity cannot 
occur without a plentiful supply.
    While many areas of the country suffer from severe 
shortages of water, others suffer from the other extreme--an 
excess of water which threatens both rural and urban areas with 
floods. Because water is a national asset, and because the 
availability and control of water affect and benefit all States 
and jurisdictions, the Federal Government has historically 
assumed much of the responsibility for financing of water 
resource development.
    The existing national water resource infrastructure in 
America is an impressive system of dams, locks, harbors, 
canals, irrigation systems, reservoirs, and recreation sites 
with a central purpose--to serve the public's needs.
    Our waterways and harbors are an essential part of our 
national transportation system--providing clean, efficient, and 
economical transportation of fuels for energy generation and 
agricultural production, and making possible residential and 
industrial development to provide homes and jobs for the 
American people.
    Reservoir projects provide hydroelectric power production 
and downstream flood protection, make available recreational 
opportunities for thousands of urban residents, enhance fish 
and wildlife habitat, and provide our communities and 
industries with abundant and clean water supplies which are 
essential not only to life itself, but also to help maintain a 
high standard of living for the American people.
    When projects are completed, they make enormous 
contributions to America. The benefits derived from completed 
projects, in many instances, vastly exceed those contemplated 
during project development. In 1998, flood control projects 
prevented $13,700,000,000 in damages, and U.S. ports and 
harbors annually handle about $600,000,000,000 in international 
cargo generating over $150,000,000,000 in tax revenues, nearly 
$515,000,000,000 in personal income, contributing 
$783,000,000,000 to the Nation's gross domestic product, and 
$1,600,000,000,000 in business sales.
    The Department of Energy, the Bureau of Reclamation, and 
the Army Corps of Engineers shall each report in detail on the 
specific use of Year 2000 conversion emergency funds provided 
by the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act of 1999 and any other act. Each report shall 
demonstrate how all of the funds obligated as of January 1, 
2000 were directly applied to the Year 2000 conversion of 
federal information technology systems. For any funds which 
were used for purposes other than the Year 2000 conversion, the 
report shall explain the use of such funds and specify the 
provision which gave the agency the authority to spend the 
funds for other purposes. The report shall also estimate what 
portion of the emergency funds were used for technology 
upgrades which would have occurred in 1999 or 2000 even without 
the Year 2000 crisis. The report shall be delivered to the 
Senate Committee on Appropriations, the Senate Special 
Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem, the Senate 
Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Senate Committee on 
the Budget by May 15, 2000.

                         subcommittee hearings

    The Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the 
Committee on Appropriations held three sessions in connection 
with the fiscal year 2000 appropriation bill. Witnesses 
included officials and representatives of the Federal agencies 
under the subcommittee's jurisdiction.
    In addition, the subcommittee received numerous statements 
and letters from Members of the U.S. Senate and House of 
Representatives, Governors, State and local officials and 
representatives, and hundreds of private citizens of all walks 
of life throughout the United States. Testimony, both for and 
against many items, was presented to the subcommittee. The 
recommendations for fiscal year 2000, therefore, have been 
developed after careful consideration of available data.

                         votes in the committee

    By a vote of 27 to 1 the Committee on May 27, 1999, 
recommended that the bill, as amended, be reported to the 
Senate.

                 TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

                         general investigations

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $161,747,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     135,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     125,459,000

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

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

                           ALABAMA

    (N)ALABAMA RIVER BELOW CLAIBORNE LOCK AND DAM, AL            2,622             616             150  ..............             150  ..............
  (FDP)BALDWIN COUNTY WATERSHEDS, AL                             1,100             100             100  ..............             100  ..............
    (N)BAYOU LA BATRE, AL                                          600             100             100  ..............             100  ..............
    (N)BLACK WARRIOR-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL                     15,035             310             170  ..............             170  ..............
  (FDP)BREWTON AND EAST BREWTON, AL                              1,100             100             100  ..............             100  ..............
    (N)DOG RIVER, AL                                             1,668             618             350  ..............             200  ..............
  (SPE)VILLAGE CREEK, JEFFERSON COUNTY (BIRMINGHAM               1,370             556             250  ..............             250  ..............
        WATERSHED)

                            ALASKA

    (N)AKUTAN HARBOR, AK                                         9,600  ..............  ..............              75  ..............              75
    (N)ANCHORAGE HARBOR DEEPENING, AK                              400              84             150  ..............             150  ..............
  (FDP)ANIAK, AK                                                   637             365             100  ..............             100  ..............
   (SP)BARROW COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION, AK                   100  ..............  ..............  ..............             100  ..............
    (N)BREVIG MISSION, AK                                          340             168             100  ..............             100  ..............
  (FDP)CHANDALRR RIVER WATERSHED, AK                               100  ..............  ..............  ..............             100  ..............
    (E)CHENA RIVER WATERSHED, AK                                   777             577             115  ..............             115  ..............
    (N)COASTAL STUDIES NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT, AK                2,000             994             220  ..............             220  ..............
    (N)DOUGLAS HARBOR EXPANSION, AK                                500             226             140  ..............             140  ..............
    (N)FALSE PASS HARBOR, AK                                       300  ..............             150  ..............             100  ..............
    (N)GASTINEAU CHANNEL, JUNEAU, AK                               100  ..............  ..............  ..............             100  ..............
    (E)KENAI RIVER WATERSHED, AK                                   900             100             128  ..............             128  ..............
    (E)MATANUSKA RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, AK                         900             100             235  ..............             150  ..............
    (E)NAKNEK RIVER WATERSHED, AK                                  500              84             120  ..............             120  ..............
    (N)NOME HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS, AK                             19,300             197  ..............             253  ..............             253
    (N)PORT LIONS HARBOR, AK                                       400             184             150  ..............             150  ..............
    (N)SEWARD HARBOR, AK                                         3,316             189  ..............              58  ..............              58
    (E)SHIP CREEK WATERSHED, AK                                    650             150             230  ..............             230  ..............
    (N)SKAGWAY HARBOR, AK                                          100  ..............  ..............  ..............             100  ..............
    (N)VALDEZ HARBOR EXPANSION, AK                                 471             283             150  ..............             150  ..............
    (N)WRANGELL HARBOR, AK                                       8,700              50  ..............             284  ..............             284

                        AMERICAN SAMOA

    (N)WESTERN DISTRICT HARBOR, AS                               1,100             100             125  ..............             125  ..............

                           ARIZONA

  (SPE)COLONIAS ALONG U.S.--MEXICO BORDER, AZ AND TX             1,675           1,365             200  ..............             200  ..............
  (FDP)GILA RIVER, NORTHEAST PHOENIX DRAINAGE AREA, AZ           1,985           1,403             342  ..............             342  ..............
  (FDP)GILA RIVER, SANTA CRUZ RIVER BASIN, AZ                    1,375           1,175             200  ..............             200  ..............
  (SPE)LITTLE COLORADO RIVER, AZ                                   250             100              50  ..............              50  ..............
    (E)RILLITO RIVER, PIMA COUNTY, AZ                            1,100             100             250  ..............             150  ..............
  (FDP)RIO DE FLAG, FLAGSTAFF, AZ                                1,933           1,670             263  ..............             263             150
    (E)RIO SALADO, PHOENIX REACH, AZ                            53,300           1,830  ..............           1,545  ..............           1,000
    (E)RIO SALADO, TEMPE REACH, AZ                               4,485             349  ..............             100  ..............             100
    (E)SANTA CRUZ RIVER (PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS), AZ              1,350             100             200  ..............             200  ..............
    (E)TRES RIOS, AZ                                            13,000  ..............  ..............              50  ..............              50
    (E)TRES RIOS, AZ                                             1,985           1,499             486  ..............             486  ..............
   (FC)TUCSON DRAINAGE AREA, AZ                                 19,000             296  ..............             420  ..............             420

                           ARKANSAS

  (FDP)ARKANSAS RIVER, FORT SMITH, AR                              840              84             100  ..............             100  ..............
  (FDP)MAY BRANCH, FORT SMITH, AR                                  840             421             200  ..............             200  ..............
  (FDP)NORTH LITTLE ROCK, DARK HOLLOW, AR                        1,350             462  ..............  ..............             250  ..............
    (N)WHITE RIVER NAVIGATION TO NEWPORT, AR                    27,600           1,293  ..............             307  ..............             307

                          CALIFORNIA

    (E)ALISO CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, CA                        897             736             161  ..............             161  ..............
   (FC)AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CA                             28,510          16,672  ..............           5,000  ..............           3,000
   (FC)ARROYO PASAJERO, CA                                      54,290  ..............  ..............             150  ..............             150
    (E)BOLINAS LAGOON ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA                    967             635             200  ..............             100  ..............
   (FC)HAMILTON AIRFIELD WETLANDS RESTORATION, CA       ..............             320  ..............             480  ..............             380
   (FC)KAWEAH RIVER, CA                                         21,465           2,418  ..............             582  ..............             582
    (E)LAGUNA DE SANTA ROSA, CA                                  1,100             150             200  ..............             100  ..............
  (FDP)LLAGAS CREEK, CA                                            350  ..............  ..............  ..............             250  ..............
   (FC)LOWER MISSION CREEK, CA                                  15,000  ..............  ..............             250  ..............             250
    (E)MALIBU CREEK WATERSHED, CA                                  850             100             100  ..............  ..............  ..............
    (N)MARE ISLAND STRAIT DREDGING EXPANSION, CA                 1,100             100              50  ..............              50  ..............
  (FDP)MARIN COUNTY SHORELINE, SAN CLEMENTE CREEK, CA            1,350           1,250              25  ..............              25  ..............
    (N)MARINA DEL REY AND BALLONA CREEK, CA                      7,500  ..............  ..............              50  ..............              50
    (N)MARINA DEL REY AND BALLONA CREEK, CA                      1,825           1,725             100  ..............             100  ..............
  (SPE)MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA                                      1,300             290             300  ..............             100  ..............
    (E)MORRO BAY ESTUARY, CA                                       600             105             100  ..............  ..............  ..............
    (E)MUGU LAGOON, CA                                             600             120             150  ..............             100  ..............
   (FC)MURRIETA CREEK, CA                                       19,500  ..............  ..............             100  ..............             100
  (FDP)N CA STREAMS, DRY CREEK, MIDDLETOWN, CA                     400             134             150  ..............             150  ..............
    (E)N CA STREAMS, LOWER SACRAMENTO RVR RIPARIAN               1,970             949             200  ..............             200  ..............
        REVEGETATI
    (E)N CA STREAMS, MIDDLE CREEK, CA                            1,095             625             150  ..............             100  ..............
    (E)NAPA RIVER, SALT MARSH RESTORATION, CA                    1,806             908             275  ..............             175  ..............
    (E)NAPA VALLEY WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, CA                      1,100             100              50  ..............              50  ..............
    (E)NEWPORT BAY HARBOR, CA                                    4,160  ..............  ..............             200  ..............             100
    (E)NEWPORT BAY/SAN DIEGO CREEK WATERSHED, CA                 1,170             120             140  ..............             140  ..............
    (N)OAKLAND HARBOR, CA                                       77,300             725  ..............             400  ..............             400
    (E)ORANGE COUNTY, SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA                    850             100             100  ..............             100  ..............
    (E)PINE FLAT DAM, FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT                  5,000  ..............  ..............             100  ..............  ..............
        RESTORATION,
    (N)PORT OF STOCKTON, CA                                      1,350             126             150  ..............             150  ..............
   (FC)RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA                                  16,250              10  ..............             200  ..............             200
    (N)REDWOOD CITY HARBOR, CA                                   1,600             150             200  ..............             100  ..............
    (E)RUSSIAN RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA                   1,850             400             125  ..............             125  ..............
  (SPE)SACRAMENTO--SAN JOAQUIN DELTA, CA                         5,940           5,354             200  ..............             200  ..............
    (E)SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN COMPREHENSIVE BASIN           12,750           6,033           2,000  ..............           2,000  ..............
        STUDY,
  (FDP)SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA                                   850             100             100  ..............             100  ..............
    (N)SAN DIEGO HARBOR (DEEPENING), CA                         22,500  ..............  ..............              50  ..............              50
    (N)SAN DIEGO HARBOR (DEEPENING), CA                            730             614             116  ..............             116  ..............
    (N)SAN DIEGO HARBOR, NATIONAL CITY, CA                       2,250             105              50  ..............              50  ..............
    (E)SAN FRANCISCO BAY, CA                                     1,100             150             200  ..............             100  ..............
    (E)SAN JOAQUIN R BASIN, PINE FLAT DAM, F&WL;                  1,585           1,460             125  ..............              75  ..............
        HABITAT RESTO
  (RCP)SAN JOAQUIN R BASIN, STOCKTON METRO AREA,                   706             240             150  ..............             150  ..............
        FARMINGTON D
    (E)SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, CONSUMNES AND                      850             100              50  ..............              50  ..............
        MOKELUMNE RIVERS,
  (FDP)SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, STOCKTON METROPOLITAN            1,611           1,231             200  ..............             200  ..............
        AREA, C
  (FDP)SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, TUOLUMNE RIVER, CA               1,600             125             150  ..............             150  ..............
  (FDP)SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, WEST STANISLAUS                    750             314             250  ..............             250  ..............
        COUNTY, CA
    (E)SAN JUAN CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, CA                   1,470           1,056             414  ..............             414  ..............
    (E)SAN PABLO BAY WATERSHED, CA                               2,800             450              50  ..............              50  ..............
  (FDP)SANTA MARGARITA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, CA                 1,189             957             232  ..............             232  ..............
    (E)SANTA ROSA CREEK WATERSHED, CA                            1,152             392             200  ..............             150  ..............
    (E)SANTA YNEZ RIVER, CA                                      1,100  ..............             100  ..............  ..............  ..............
   (FC)SOUTH SACRAMENTO COUNTY STREAMS, CA                      40,700             711  ..............             500  ..............             500
    (N)SOUTHAMPTON SHOAL CHANNEL AND EXTENSION, CA               1,110             260              70  ..............              70  ..............
  (RCP)STRONG AND CHICKEN RANCH SLOUGHS, CA                        800              84             500  ..............             250  ..............
  (FDP)SUTTER BASIN, CA                                          1,100              84              60  ..............              60  ..............
    (E)TAHOE BASIN, CA AND NV                                    1,200             225             150  ..............             500  ..............
  (SPE)TIJUANA RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, CA               1,100             110             250  ..............             250  ..............
   (FC)TULE RIVER, CA                                           10,660  ..............  ..............             150  ..............             600
   (FC)UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER, CA                                60,000             533  ..............             300  ..............             300
  (FDP)UPPER PENITENCIA CREEK, CA                                1,845             512             250  ..............             150  ..............
    (E)UPPER SANTA ANA RIVER WATERSHED, CA                       1,100             100             100  ..............             100  ..............
    (N)VENTURA HARBOR SAND BYPASS, CA                            1,000             205             100  ..............             100  ..............
  (FDP)WHITE RIVER, POSO AND DEER CREEKS, CA                     1,100              84              60  ..............              60  ..............
   (FC)YUBA RIVER BASIN, CA                                     18,300              36  ..............             150  ..............             600

                           COLORADO

  (RCP)CHATFIELD, CHERRY CREEK AND BEAR CREEK                    1,100             240             340  ..............             340  ..............
        RESERVOIRS, CO

                         CONNECTICUT

    (E)COASTAL CONNECTICUT ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CT               600             250             200  ..............             150  ..............

                           DELAWARE

   (SP)BETHANY BEACH, SOUTH BETHANY, DE                            469              45  ..............  ..............  ..............             250
    (N)C&D; CANAL, BALTIMORE HBR CONN CHANNELS, DE AND           69,800           3,150  ..............             500  ..............             500
        MD (DEEPE
   (SP)DELAWARE COAST FROM CAPE HENLOPEN TO FENWICK              2,845           2,766              79  ..............              79  ..............
        ISLAND, D

                           FLORIDA

  (FDP)BISCAYNE BAY, FL                                          3,270           1,243             400  ..............             200  ..............
    (N)LAKE WORTH INLET, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL                     100  ..............  ..............  ..............             100  ..............
       MILE POINT, JACKSONVILLE, FL                                100  ..............  ..............  ..............             100  ..............
    (N)PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL                                6,500             220  ..............             105  ..............             105
    (N)ST LUCIE INLET, FL                                       18,400             932  ..............             188  ..............             188

                           GEORGIA

  (FDP)AUGUSTA, GA                                                 800             268             189  ..............             189  ..............
    (N)BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA                                     32,966           1,857  ..............             469  ..............             469
    (E)METRO ATLANTA WATERSHED, GA                               2,230           1,318             480  ..............             650  ..............
  (RCP)NEW SAVANNAH BLUFF LOCK AND DAM, GA AND SC                  840             398             442  ..............             442  ..............
    (N)SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA                           141,482             516  ..............             100  ..............             100
  (COM)SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, GA AND SC             3,100             527             500  ..............             350  ..............

                            HAWAII

    (E)ALA WAI CANAL, OAHU, HI                                     700             100              40  ..............              40  ..............
    (N)BARBERS POINT HARBOR MODIFICATION, OAHU, HI              30,000  ..............  ..............             380  ..............             380
    (N)HONOLULU HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, OAHU, HI                     650             225             225  ..............             225  ..............
    (N)KAHULUI HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, MAUI, HI                      900             100             125  ..............             125  ..............
    (N)KAWAIHAE DEEP DRAFT HARBOR, HI (MODIFICATIONS)              100  ..............  ..............  ..............             100  ..............

                            IDAHO

  (FDP)KOOTENAI RIVER AT BONNERS FERRY, ID                         100  ..............  ..............  ..............             100  ..............
  (FDP)LITTLE WOOD RIVER, ID                                       100  ..............  ..............  ..............             100  ..............

                           ILLINOIS

   (FC)ALEXANDER AND PULASKI COUNTIES, IL                        9,750  ..............  ..............             375  ..............             150
   (FC)DES PLAINES RIVER, IL                                    25,000             392  ..............             247  ..............             247
  (RCP)ILLINOIS RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, IL                  2,195             100             350  ..............             150  ..............
  (FDP)KANKAKEE RIVER BASIN, IL AND IN                           1,700             750             295  ..............             295  ..............
  (SPE)PEORIA RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, IL                         1,060             569             300  ..............             300  ..............
    (E)ROCK RIVER, IL AND WI                                     1,835              84             200  ..............             200  ..............
  (SPE)UPPER MISS RVR SYS FLOW FREQUENCY STUDY, IL,              5,900           3,245           2,100  ..............           2,100  ..............
        IA, MN, M
  (RCP)UPPER MISSISSIPPI AND ILLINOIS NAV STUDY, IL,            59,980          51,294           6,700  ..............           6,700  ..............
        IA, MN, MO
    (N)WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL                                       4,950  ..............  ..............             450  ..............             450
  (FDP)WOOD RIVER LEVEE, IL                                        600             166             201  ..............             201  ..............

                           INDIANA

    (N)JOHN T MYERS LOCKS AND DAM, IN AND KY                   230,000  ..............  ..............           1,000  ..............             800
  (FDP)MISSISSINEWA RIVER, MARION, IN                              100  ..............  ..............  ..............             100  ..............

                             IOWA

  (FDP)DES MOINES AND RACCOON RIVERS, IA                         1,430             265             400  ..............             300  ..............
  (FDP)INDIAN CREEK, COUNCIL BLUFFS, IA                            350              84              90  ..............              90  ..............

                            KANSAS

  (RCP)TOPEKA, KS                                                1,287             718             211  ..............             211  ..............
   (FC)TURKEY CREEK BASIN, KS AND MO                            25,600             425  ..............             266  ..............             266

                           KENTUCKY

  (FDP)AUGUSTA, KY                                                 700             217             150  ..............             150  ..............
    (N)GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS NAVIGATION DISPOSITION,             830             760              70  ..............              70  ..............
        KY
  (FDP)LICKING RIVER, CYNTHIANA, KY                                600             200             150  ..............             150  ..............
  (FDP)METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, MILL CREEK BASIN, KY               850             351             304  ..............             304  ..............
  (FDP)METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, SOUTHWEST, KY                    1,784           1,179             400  ..............             300  ..............
    (N)OHIO RIVER MAIN STEM SYSTEMS STUDY, KY, IL, IN,          45,300          32,352           7,157  ..............           6,457  ..............
        PA, WV

                          LOUISIANA

  (FDP)CALCASIEU RIVER BASIN, LA                                   100  ..............  ..............  ..............             100  ..............
    (N)CALCASIEU LOCK, LA                                        3,900             100             691  ..............             691  ..............
    (N)CAMERON LOOP, CALCASIEU PASS, LA                          1,100  ..............             300  ..............             300  ..............
   (FC)EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LA                              85,400           1,966  ..............             134  ..............             134
    (N)INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY LOCKS, LA                           5,380           4,213             700  ..............             700  ..............
  (FDP)JEFFERSON PARISH, LA                                      3,044           2,844             200  ..............             200  ..............
  (FDP)LAFAYETTE PARISH, LA                                      2,857           2,442             415  ..............             415  ..............
   (SP)LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA, LA                               17,500  ..............  ..............  ..............             500  ..............
  (FDP)ORLEANS PARISH, LA                                        2,700           2,475             225  ..............             225  ..............
       ST. BERNARD PARISH, LA                                      100  ..............  ..............  ..............             100  ..............
  (FDP)WEST SHORE, LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN, LA                        1,805           1,138             500  ..............             500  ..............

                           MARYLAND

    (E)ANACOSTIA RIVER FEDERAL WATERSHED IMPACT                  3,000           1,405             700  ..............             400  ..............
        ASSESSMENT, M
    (E)ANACOSTIA RIVER, NORTHWEST BRANCH, MD AND DC              6,500  ..............  ..............             300  ..............             150
  (FDP)ANACOSTIA RIVER, PG COUNTY LEVEE, MD AND DC               1,453             304             600  ..............             400  ..............
   (FC)BALTIMORE METROPOLITAN, DEEP RUN/TIBER HUDSON,            7,340              42  ..............             400  ..............             200
        MD
  (FDP)BALTIMORE METROPOLITAN, GWYNNS FALLS, MD                  1,232             992             200  ..............             200  ..............
    (E)EASTERN SHORE, MD                                         1,200             100             100  ..............             100  ..............
    (E)LOWER POTOMAC ESTUARY WATERSHED, MATTAWOMAN, MD             700             175             150  ..............             150  ..............
  (FDP)PATUXENT RIVER, PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY, MD                 1,650           1,497             153  ..............             153  ..............
   (FC)PATUXENT RIVER, PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY, MD                 9,750  ..............  ..............              50  ..............  ..............
    (E)SMITH ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, MD                1,103             917             156  ..............             156  ..............

                        MASSACHUSETTS

    (E)BLACKSTONE RIVER WATERSHED RESTORATION, MA AND            1,631             805             300  ..............             300  ..............
        RI

                           MICHIGAN

       DETROIT RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, MI                    100  ..............  ..............  ..............             100  ..............
       SAULT STE MARIE, MI                                      15,300             816  ..............  ..............  ..............             400

                           MISSOURI

  (FDP)BALLWIN, ST LOUIS COUNTY, MO                                580             166             150  ..............             150  ..............
   (FC)BLUE RIVER BASIN, KANSAS CITY, MO                        12,000           1,305  ..............             377  ..............             377
   (FC)CHESTERFIELD, MO                                         19,825  ..............  ..............             320  ..............             100
  (FDP)CHESTERFIELD, MO                                          1,079             879             200  ..............             200  ..............
   (FC)FESTUS AND CRYSTAL CITY, MO                               6,700              25  ..............             325  ..............             325
  (RCP)KANSAS CITY, MO AND KS                                    2,460             750             315  ..............             315  ..............
  (RCP)MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, UNITS L455 AND               1,570           1,070             275  ..............             275  ..............
        R460-471, MO
  (RCP)ST LOUIS FLOOD PROTECTION, MO                               800             230             285  ..............             285  ..............
    (N)ST LOUIS HARBOR, MO AND IL                               15,508           2,797  ..............             322  ..............             322
  (FDP)SWOPE PARK INDUSTRIAL AREA, KANSAS CITY, MO                 709             651              58  ..............              58  ..............

                           NEBRASKA

   (FC)ANTELOPE CREEK, LINCOLN, NE                              16,250  ..............  ..............             153  ..............             100
  (FDP)ANTELOPE CREEK, LINCOLN, NE                                 910             838              72  ..............              72  ..............
  (FDP)LOWER PLATTE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NE                    2,056           1,186             350  ..............             350  ..............

                            NEVADA

  (FDP)CARSON RIVER, NV                                          1,100              84              16  ..............              16  ..............
  (FDP)FALLON, NV                                                1,000              84              16  ..............              16  ..............
    (E)LOWER LAS VEGAS WASH WETLANDS, NV                         1,300             640             100  ..............             500  ..............
    (E)LOWER TRUCKEE RIVER, PYRAMID LAKE PAIUTE                 13,000  ..............  ..............             103  ..............  ..............
        RESERVATION,
    (E)LOWER TRUCKEE RIVER, PYRAMID LAKE PAIUTE                  1,223           1,136              87  ..............              87  ..............
        RESERVATION,
   (FC)TRUCKEE MEADOWS, NV                                      11,250           5,375  ..............             550  ..............             625

                          NEW JERSEY

    (N)ARTHUR KILL EXTENSION TO PERTH AMBOY, NJ AND NY             800             100             100  ..............             100  ..............
    (E)BARNEGAT BAY, NJ                                          1,350             842             400  ..............             400  ..............
   (BE)GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET TO TOWNENDE INLET, NJ              1,026             600  ..............  ..............             226  ..............
    (E)NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, ENV                     1,540             803             519  ..............             419  ..............
        RESTORATION, NJ
   (SP)RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, LEONARDO, NJ                415             100             225  ..............             225  ..............
   (SP)RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, UNION BEACH, NJ           1,775           1,209             320  ..............             320  ..............
  (FDP)SOUTH RIVER, RARITAN RIVER BASIN, NJ                      2,800           1,791             569  ..............             569  ..............
  (FDP)UPPER PASSAIC RIVER AND TRIBS, LONG HILL,                   800             184             200  ..............             200  ..............
        MORRIS COUNT
  (FDP)UPPER ROCKAWAY RIVER, MORRIS COUNTY, NJ                     800             184             200  ..............             200  ..............
  (FDP)WOODBRIDGE AND RAHWAY, NJ                                 1,500             100             100  ..............             100  ..............

                          NEW MEXICO

  (FDP)ESPANOLA VALLEY, RIO GRANDE AND TRIBUTARIES, NM             870             796              50  ..............              50  ..............
  (FDP)NORTH LAS CRUCES, NM                                        500  ..............  ..............  ..............             200  ..............
    (E)RIO GRANDE WATER MANAGEMENT, NM, CO AND TX                  650              50              50  ..............              50  ..............
    (E)SW VALLEY FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION STUDY,                   1,200             230             250  ..............             250  ..............
        ALBUQUERQUE, N

                           NEW YORK

  (RCP)ADDISON, NY                                               1,105             384             150  ..............             150  ..............
    (N)ARTHUR KILL CHANNEL, HOWLAND HOOK MARINE                 45,400           5,145  ..............           1,312  ..............           1,312
        TERMINAL, NY
  (FDP)AUSABLE RIVER BASIN, ESSEX AND CLINTON                      800             184             100  ..............             100  ..............
        COUNTIES, NY
  (FDP)BOQUET RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, ESSEX COUNTY, NY              800             184             100  ..............             100  ..............
  (FDP)BRONX RIVER BASIN,NY                                        800             100             100  ..............             100  ..............
    (E)CHEMUNG RIVER BASIN ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION,            1,500             450             100  ..............             100  ..............
        NY AND PA
    (E)FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY                                1,590             436             600  ..............             400  ..............
    (N)HUDSON RIVER HABITAT RESTORATION, NY                      6,000  ..............  ..............             100  ..............  ..............
    (N)HUDSON RIVER HABITAT RESTORATION, NY                      2,399           1,213             100  ..............             100  ..............
   (SP)JAMAICA BAY, MARINE PARK AND PLUMB BEACH,                 1,000  ..............              50  ..............  ..............  ..............
        ARVERNE, NY
   (SP)JAMAICA BAY, MARINE PARK AND PLUMB BEACH, NY              1,850           1,411             166  ..............             166  ..............
  (FDP)LINDENHURST,NY                                              800             184             100  ..............             100  ..............
    (N)NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY AND NJ               400,000  ..............  ..............           2,534  ..............           2,534
    (N)NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY AND NJ                 9,100           8,216             884  ..............             884  ..............
    (N)NEW YORK HARBOR ANCHORAGE AREAS, NY                       1,200             591             300  ..............             300  ..............
   (SP)NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, BAYVILLE, NY                  1,750             762              50  ..............              50  ..............
  (SPE)ONONDAGA LAKE, NY                                         1,140             852             130  ..............             130  ..............
    (E)OTSEGO LAKE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NY                 1,050             218             150  ..............             150  ..............
    (E)SAWMILL RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NY                           800             100             100  ..............             100  ..............
    (E)SOUTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, NY                            2,100             182              50  ..............              50  ..............
   (SP)SOUTH SHORE OF STATEN ISLAND, NY                          2,100             965             350  ..............             350  ..............
   (FC)SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN WATER MANAGEMENT, NY,             3,900  ..............  ..............              60  ..............  ..............
        PA AND MD
  (FDP)SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN WATER MANAGEMENT, NY,             1,450           1,349             101  ..............             101  ..............
        PA AND MD
    (E)UPPER DELAWARE RIVER WATERSHED, NY                        1,300             539             300  ..............             200  ..............

                        NORTH CAROLINA

   (FC)BRUNSWICK COUNTY BEACHES, NC                     ..............           4,100  ..............             850  ..............             850
       JOHN KERR, NC AND VA (SEC. 216) (LOWER ROANOKE              100  ..............  ..............  ..............             100  ..............
        RIVER)
    (E)LOCKWOODS FOLLY RIVER, NC                                 1,100             184             400  ..............             200  ..............
    (N)MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC                              88,557           9,250  ..............             350  ..............             100
    (E)NEUSE RIVER BASIN, NC                                     1,100             100             100  ..............             100  ..............
    (E)TENNESSEE RIVER AND TRIBS, EASTERN BAND                     712             314             398  ..............             398  ..............
        CHEROKEE NATIO
    (E)TENNESSEE RIVER AND TRIBS, FRANKLIN, MACON                  518             319             199  ..............             199  ..............
        COUNTY, NC

                         NORTH DAKOTA

  (SPE)DEVILS LAKE, ND                                           3,733           2,775             300  ..............             300  ..............

                             OHIO

    (E)ASHTABULA RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, OH       ..............  ..............  ..............             600  ..............             600
  (FDP)COLUMBUS METROPOLITAN AREA, OH                            1,600             100             400  ..............             300  ..............
    (E)HOCKING RIVER BASIN ENV RESTORATION, MONDAY                 750             225             100  ..............             100  ..............
        CREEK, OH
    (E)HOCKING RIVER BASIN ENV RESTORATION, SUNDAY                 650              50             200  ..............  ..............  ..............
        CREEK, OH
    (N)MAUMEE RIVER, OH                                          2,100  ..............  ..............             116  ..............             116

                            OREGON

    (N)COLUMBIA RIVER NAVIGATION CHANNEL DEEPENING, OR         112,500             172  ..............             892  ..............             892
        AND WA
    (E)COLUMBIA SLOUGH, OR                                       1,004             909              95  ..............              95  ..............
    (E)TILLAMOOK BAY AND ESTUARY ECOSYSTEM                       1,100             110             200  ..............             100  ..............
        RESTORATION, OR
    (E)WALLA WALLA RIVER WATERSHED, OR AND WA                    1,116             523              90  ..............              90  ..............
  (COM)WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN REVIEW, OR                         2,284           1,993             291  ..............             291  ..............
    (E)WILLAMETTE RIVER FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION, OR               1,515             150             300  ..............             100  ..............

                         PENNSYLVANIA

  (FDP)BLOOMSBURG, PA                                              800             276             184  ..............             184  ..............
    (E)CONEMAUGH RVR BASIN, NANTY GLO ENVIRONMENTAL              1,875             160  ..............             140  ..............             140
        RESTORATI
    (E)TURTLE CREEK BASIN, BRUSH CREEK ENV                         432              82             191  ..............  ..............  ..............
        RESTORATION, PA
    (E)TURTLE CREEK BASIN, LYONS RUN ENV RESTORATION,              450             100             223  ..............  ..............  ..............
        PA
    (E)TURTLE CREEK BASIN, UPPER TURTLE CREEK ENV                  432             177             255  ..............             255  ..............
        RESTORATION

                         PUERTO RICO

   (FC)RIO GUANAJIBO, PR                                        21,200           1,091  ..............             403  ..............             403
   (FC)RIO NIGUA AT SALINAS, PR                                  8,900             625  ..............             463  ..............             463

                         RHODE ISLAND

    (E)RHODE ISLAND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, RI                    1,200             168             177  ..............             177  ..............
    (E)RHODE ISLAND SOUTH COAST, HABITAT REST AND SRTM             540             383             157  ..............             157  ..............
        DMG REDU

                        SOUTH CAROLINA

  (RCP)ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC                        3,100             838             400  ..............             400  ..............
    (E)CHARLESTON ESTUARY, SC                                    1,600             243             150  ..............             150  ..............
   (SP)PAWLEYS ISLAND, SC                                          800             226             150  ..............             150  ..............
    (E)SANTEE, COOPER, CONGAREE RIVERS--GOOSE CREEK              1,034  ..............  ..............              68  ..............              68
        RESERVOI
    (E)YADKIN--PEE DEE RIVER WATERSHED, SC AND NC                9,750  ..............  ..............              50  ..............  ..............
    (E)YADKIN--PEE DEE RIVER WATERSHED, SC AND NC                  707             525             182  ..............  ..............  ..............

                         SOUTH DAKOTA

  (FDP)JAMES RIVER, SD AND ND                                      900  ..............             100  ..............  ..............  ..............
   (FC)WATERTOWN AND VICINITY, SD                               10,790             288  ..............              95  ..............              95

                          TENNESSEE

    (E)DUCK RIVER WATERSHED, TN                                    855             152             394  ..............             100  ..............
    (E)NOLICHUCKY WATERSHED, TN                                    700             184             200  ..............             200  ..............
    (E)NORTH CHICKAMAUGA CREEK, TN                                 650             246             288  ..............             188  ..............

                            TEXAS

  (FDP)BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, WHITE OAK BAYOU,           2,100             450             300  ..............             300  ..............
        TX
    (N)CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX                           5,931             762             672  ..............             672  ..............
    (N)CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, LAQUINTA CHANNEL,            3,000  ..............  ..............  ..............             300  ..............
        TX
   (FC)CYPRESS CREEK, HOUSTON, TX                                9,848           2,310  ..............             300  ..............             300
   (FC)DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, TRINITY RIVER, TX             96,000           6,567  ..............           1,553  ..............           1,553
  (RCP)GIWW, BRAZOS RIVER TO PORT O'CONNOR, TX                   4,180           1,133             830  ..............             830  ..............
    (N)GIWW, HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS RIVER, TX                     5,330           4,259             770  ..............             770  ..............
  (RCP)GIWW, PORT O'CONNOR TO CORPUS CHRISTI BAY, TX             4,110             478             840  ..............             840  ..............
    (N)GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY MODIFICATION, TX                 200  ..............  ..............  ..............             200  ..............
   (FC)GREENS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX                               163,735           5,040  ..............             560  ..............             560
   (FC)HUNTING BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX                               82,200           1,000  ..............             328  ..............             328
    (E)MIDDLE BRAZOS RIVER, TX                                   1,490             599             300  ..............             300  ..............
    (E)NORTH PADRE ISLAND, CORPUS CHRISTI, TX                    2,370             515             100  ..............              50  ..............
  (FDP)NORTHWEST EL PASO, TX                                     1,026             200             250  ..............             250  ..............
    (E)ONION CREEK, TX                                             500              84             220  ..............             150  ..............
   (FC)PECAN BAYOU, BROWNWOOD, TX                                4,318  ..............  ..............              62  ..............              62
   (FC)RAYMONDVILLE DRAIN, TX                                   72,307             178  ..............             100  ..............             100
    (N)SABINE--NECHES WATERWAY, TX                               3,370             472             700  ..............             700  ..............
   (FC)SOUTH MAIN CHANNEL, TX                                  144,310           5,630  ..............             600  ..............             600
    (E)SULPHUR RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, TX                 560              84             245  ..............             145  ..............
  (FDP)UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TX                             8,235           7,109             720  ..............             720  ..............

                        VIRGIN ISLANDS

    (N)CROWN BAY CHANNEL, VI                                     1,410             109  ..............             241  ..............             241

                           VIRGINIA

    (N)AIWW, BRIDGES AT DEEP CREEK, VA                           1,168             525             370  ..............             370  ..............
    (E)ELIZABETH RIVER BASIN, ENVIR RESTORATION,                 1,301             750             339  ..............             339  ..............
        HAMPTON ROAD
    (N)JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA                                   9,795  ..............  ..............             195  ..............             195
   (FC)JOHN H. KERR, VA AND NC                                     100  ..............  ..............  ..............             100  ..............
       LOWER RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER BASIN, VA                          100  ..............  ..............  ..............             100  ..............
    (N)NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, CRANEY ISLAND, VA            3,050             350           1,050  ..............             750  ..............
  (FDP)POQUOSON, VA                                                625             475             100  ..............             100  ..............
    (E)POWELL RIVER WATERSHED, VA                                1,477             700             240  ..............             240  ..............
    (E)POWELL RIVER, ELY/PUCKETTS CREEK, VA             ..............  ..............  ..............             250  ..............  ..............
    (E)PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY WATERSHED, VA                         775             310             200  ..............             200  ..............
    (E)RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER, EMBREY DAM, VA                          600             300             200  ..............             200  ..............

                          WASHINGTON

   (FC)CENTRALIA, WA (1986 WRDA)                                 9,000             193  ..............             250  ..............             250
    (E)DUWAMISH AND GREEN RIVER BASIN, WA                          983             831             152  ..............             152  ..............
    (E)DUWAMISH AND GREEN RIVER BASIN, WA                       50,825  ..............  ..............              20  ..............  ..............
   (FC)HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA                                    11,250             524  ..............             888  ..............             888
  (RCP)LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA                              889             491             100  ..............             100  ..............
    (N)PUGET SOUND CONFINED DISPOSAL SITES, WA                   2,124           1,433             300  ..............             300  ..............
  (FDP)SKAGIT RIVER, WA                                          2,547           1,556             313  ..............             313  ..............
    (E)SKOKOMISH RIVER BASIN, WA                                   600              84              66  ..............              66  ..............
    (E)STILLAGUAMISH RIVER BASIN, WA                             1,115             618             201  ..............             150  ..............
    (E)TRI-CITIES AREA RIVERSHORE ENHANCEMENT, WA                  800             100             200  ..............             150  ..............

                        WEST VIRGINIA

       LOWER MUD RIVER, WV                                       1,950              94  ..............  ..............  ..............             500
       ISLAND CREEK, LOGAN, WV                                   2,500           1,525  ..............  ..............  ..............             400
    (N)KANAWHA RIVER NAVIGATION, WV                             12,992          12,342             650  ..............             650  ..............
  (FDP)MERCER COUNTY, WV                                           800             332             403  ..............             403  ..............
    (E)NORTH BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER ENVIRON RESTORATION,           7,800             202  ..............              50  ..............              50
        WV, MD
       WHEELING WATERFRONT, WV                                     100  ..............  ..............  ..............             100  ..............

                           WYOMING

    (E)JACKSON HOLE RESTORATION, WY                              8,000  ..............  ..............             340  ..............  ..............

                        MISCELLANEOUS

       COASTAL FIELD DATA COLLECTION                    ..............  ..............           1,500  ..............           1,100  ..............
       ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STUDIES                       ..............  ..............             100  ..............             100  ..............
       FLOOD DAMAGE DATA                                ..............  ..............             400  ..............             400  ..............
       FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES                  ..............  ..............           9,000  ..............           8,500  ..............
       HYDROLOGIC STUDIES                               ..............  ..............             500  ..............             500  ..............
       INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES                      ..............  ..............           1,900  ..............           1,000  ..............
       OTHER COORDINATION PROGRAMS                      ..............  ..............           8,100  ..............           7,500  ..............
       PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES                    ..............  ..............           6,500  ..............           6,300  ..............
       PRECIPITATION STUDIES (NATIONAL WEATHER          ..............  ..............             400  ..............             400  ..............
        SERVICE)
       REMOTE SENSING/GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM     ..............  ..............             300  ..............             300  ..............
        SUPPORT
       RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT                         ..............  ..............          27,000  ..............          25,000  ..............
       SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTERS     ..............  ..............             100  ..............             100  ..............
       STREAM GAGING (U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY)           ..............  ..............             700  ..............             700  ..............
       TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS                           ..............  ..............             700  ..............             700  ..............
       TRI-SERVICE CADD/GIS TECHNOLOGY CENTER           ..............  ..............             650  ..............             650  ..............
       REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE   ..............  ..............         -23,496  ..............         -23,846  ..............
                                                       =================================================================================================
             TOTAL, GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS              ..............  ..............         102,362          32,638          95,262          30,197
                                                                                                    135,000
                                                                    125,459
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         TYPE OF PROJECT:
           (N)  NAVIGATION
           (BE)  BEACH EROSION CONTROL
           (FC)  FLOOD CONTROL
           (MP)  MULTIPURPOSE, INCLUDING POWER
           (SP)  SHORELINE PROTECTION
           (FDP)  FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION
           (RCP)  REVIEW OF COMPLETED PROJECT
           (RDP)  REVIEW OF DEFERRED PROJECT
           (COMP)  COMPREHENSIVE
           (SPEC)  SPECIAL

                      Proposed Funding Reductions

    In order to comply with constraints on non-Defense domestic 
discretionary spending put forth in the Congressional Budget 
Resolution, it is necessary that the committee recommend 
numerous reductions to budgeted new and ongoing studies and 
planning projects for fiscal year 2000. The Committee has tried 
to limit the impact of these reductions primarily by reducing 
the increases proposed in the fiscal year 2000 budget over the 
funding levels for fiscal year 1999, and by reducing the 
numbers of projects with lower priority benefits from 
proceeding into the next phase of the Corps' planning process. 
This action will cause delays in addressing the water resource 
needs around the country, but will allow most activities to 
proceed in fiscal year 2000 although at a slower rate.
    Akutan Harbor, Breakwater, AK.--The Committee understands 
that feasibility studies for improvements at Akutan Harbor, AK 
will continue with available funds. The Corps is to provide a 
status report of the progress, expected completion date, and 
possible recommendations not later than March 31, 2000.
    North Little Rock, Dark Hollow, AR.--The Committee has been 
made aware of the possible failure of the Redwood Tunnel, which 
is a major drainage outlet for the City of North Little Rock, 
AR. The Committee has included $250,000 for the Corps to 
prepare a limited reevaluation report which is needed for 
possible project authorization.
    Rio de Flag, AZ.--The Committee has provided an additional 
$150,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate preconstruction 
engineering and design on the Rio de Flag project in Arizona. 
This is in addition to the $263,000 contained in the budget 
request for the Corps to complete feasibility studies for the 
project.
    Llagas Creek, CA.--The Committee has included $250,000 for 
the Corps to initiate and complete a limited reevaluation 
report on the Llagas Creek, CA project. A favorable limited 
reevaluation will support legislation transferring project 
construction authority from the Nation Resources and 
Conservation Service to Corps of Engineers.
    Lake Worth Inlet, Palm Beach County, FL.--The Committee has 
provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate and 
complete a reconnaissance study to address the water resource 
problems related to Palm Beach Harbor in Florida.
    Mile Point, Jacksonville, FL.--An amount of $100,000 is 
included for a reconnaissance study to determine the source of 
erosion and possible causes of sinkholes along the Mile Point 
shoreline near Jacksonville, Florida.
    Metro Atlanta Watershed, GA.--The Committee recommendation 
for the Metro Atlanta Watershed study has been increased by 
$170,000 for the Corps to prepare section 905(b) studies for 
the Utoy, Sandy, and Proctor Creek watershed in metropolitan 
Atlanta, Georgia area.
    Kawaihae Deepdraft Harbor, HI.--The Committee has been 
informed that a surge problem at the Kawaihae Deepdraft Harbor 
in Hawaii is rendering the harbor unusable during many times of 
the year. Therefore, the Committee has provided $100,000 for 
the Corps to undertake a section 905(b) reconnaissance analysis 
of the problem and to determine the Federal interest in 
navigation improvements.
    Mississinewa River, Marion, IN.--The Committee has included 
$100,000 for the Corps to initiate and complete a 
reconnaissance study of persistent flooding problems along the 
Mississinewa River in the vicinity of Marion, Indiana.
    Little Wood River, ID.--Included within the committee 
recommendation is $100,000 for a reconnaissance study of 
flooding problems at Gooding, Idaho. The Committee understands 
that the existing flood protection works was constructed by the 
WPA during the 1930's, is severely outdated and in need of 
repair.
    Calcasieu River Basin, LA.--An appropriation of $100,000 is 
recommended for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a 
reconnaissance level study of providing flood control and 
environmental enhancement measures along the Calcasieu River 
Basin in several parishes in southwestern Louisiana.
    Louisiana Coastal Area, LA.--The Committee has recommended 
$500,000 for the Corps to initiate feasibility level analysis 
to address Louisiana's critical loss of coastal landscape.
    St. Bernard Parish, LA.--The Committee has provided 
$100,000 for a reconnaissance study of flood control measures 
in St. Bernard Parish in Louisiana. Frequent heavy rains have 
caused significant flooding and damages over the past nearly 20 
years. The funding recommended will begin the process to 
analyze needed improvements to reduce these repetitive damages 
to developed areas.
    Detroit River Environmental Dredging, MI.--The Committee 
has included $100,000 for the Corps to undertake a section 
905(b) study to evaluate the Federal interest in environmental 
dredging of contaminated sediments in the Detroit River outside 
of the Federal navigation channel.
    Sault Ste Marie, Lock Replacement, MI.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $400,000 to continue preconstruction 
engineering and design of a replacement lock Sault Ste Marie in 
Michigan.
    Las Vegas Wash Wetlands, NV.--An amount of $400,000 is 
provided for the Corps to advance the completion of the Las 
Vegas Wash Wetlands feasibility report. The Committee expects 
the Corps to make every effort to complete the feasibility 
phase as soon as practicable.
    Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Townsends Inlet, NJ.--An 
appropriation of $200,000 is recommended for the Great Egg 
Harbor Inlet to Towsends Inlet New Jersey project for the Corps 
to complete the feasibility study report on the project.
    North Las Cruces, NM.--The Committee has included $200,000 
for the Corps to undertake a Limited Reevaluation Report and, 
if favorable, initiate the feasibility phase of a flood control 
project at North Las Cruces in New Mexico. The Committee 
understands that the City has committed to the project 
financially and has been working with the Corps of Engineers to 
develop a project. The Corps is also requested to evaluate the 
advisability of including recreation into the project plan.
    Corpus Christi Ship Channel, La Quinta Channel, TX.--The 
Committee has recommended $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers 
to develop a project study plan, and initiate feasibility 
studies to determine the economic and environmental viability 
of extending the authorized La Quinta, Texas navigation channel 
by approximately two miles.
    Gulf Intracoastal Waterway Modifications, TX.--The 
Committee understands that the Brazos River Floodgates and the 
Colorado River Locks could be contributing to increased 
navigation traffic accidents and associated delays on the Gulf 
Intracoastal Waterway. Therefore, an appropriation of $200,000, 
$100,000 each for the Brazos Floodgates and Colorado Locks, is 
recommended for the Corps to initiate studies to evaluate the 
existing facilities and determine what operational or other 
modifications may be needed, and to address associated 
environmental issues.
    Lower Rappahannock River Basin, VA.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $100,000 for a reconnaissance study 
which will focus on wetland protection and environmental 
restoration for fish and wildlife purposes.
    Island Creek at Logan, WV.--An appropriation of $500,000 is 
recommended for the Island Creek at Logan, West Virginia 
project. The funding is provided for the Corps to develop a 
project management plan, complete a General Reevaluation Report 
and initiate plans and specifications. The Committee 
understands that the Logan County Commission has received a 
commitment of financial support from the State of West Virginia 
and has indicated a willingness to act as the non-Federal 
sponsor for the project, which now allows the project to move 
forward.
    Lower Mud River, Milton, WV.--The Committee has included 
$500,000 for the Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia project 
for the Corps of Engineers to complete a Limited Reevaluation 
Report (LRR) and, upon approval of the LRR and a National 
Resources Conservation Service report as the decision document, 
to proceed with detailed design.
    Wheeling Waterfront, WV.--The Committee has provided 
$100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a study of 
waterfront development along the Ohio River at its confluence 
with Wheeling Creek at Wheeling, West Virginia. The study is to 
be conducted in conjunction with the Wheeling Area National 
Heritage Corporation to determine future Corps involvement in 
the Wheeling National Heritage Port project.
    Planning assistance to States.--The Committee has provided 
$6,300,000 for the Corps of Engineers' planning assistance to 
States program. The Corps is to work with the city of Laurel, 
MT to provide appropriate assistance to ensure reliability in 
the city's Yellowstone River water source.
    Other coordination programs.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $7,500,000 for other coordination programs of the 
Corps of Engineers. The Committee has not included funding for 
``Presidential Initiatives'' proposed in the Corps' fiscal year 
2000 budget request.

                         construction, general

Appropriations, 1999....................................  $1,429,885,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................   1,239,900,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,113,227,000

    An appropriation of $1,113,227,000 is recommended for 
ongoing construction activities.
    The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 
shown on the following table:

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

                                           ALABAMA

    (N)BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, VICINITY OF JACKSO                                   18,900           2,581           3,000           3,000
    (N)MOBILE HARBOR, AL                                                                       305,568          29,134             700             700
   (MP)WALTER F GEORGE POWERHOUSE AND DAM, AL AND GA (MAJOR REH                                 37,000  ..............             750             750
   (MP)WALTER F GEORGE POWERPLANT, AL AND GA (MAJOR REHAB)                                      30,800           6,072           3,600           3,600

                                            ALASKA

    (N)CHIGNIK HARBOR, AK                                                                        5,589             485           4,357           4,357
    (N)COOK INLET, AK                                                                            9,450           7,272             500           1,700
    (N)KAKE HARBOR, AK                                                                          18,000          11,810           2,568           2,568
    (N)ST PAUL HARBOR, AK                                                                       14,349           5,687             500           1,400

                                           ARIZONA

   (FC)CLIFTON, AZ                                                                              16,100          15,455             645             645

                                           ARKANSAS

   (MP)DARDANELLE LOCK AND DAM POWERHOUSE, AR (MAJOR REHAB)                                     29,700          17,736          11,964          10,464
    (N)MCCLELLAN--KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR                                    632,500         604,750           3,080           3,080
    (N)MONTGOMERY POINT LOCK AND DAM, AR                                                       242,000         107,349          20,000          33,000

                                          CALIFORNIA

   (FC)AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (NATOMAS), CA                                                   34,210          19,522           4,000           4,000
   (FC)AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CA                                                             47,600          17,919          17,000          15,000
   (FC)CORTE MADERA CREEK, CA                                                                   43,800          23,231             500             500
   (FC)GUADALUPE RIVER, CA                                                                      78,500          69,128           5,000           4,500
    (N)HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA                                                              12,300           9,100           3,200           3,000
   (FC)LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA                                                    150,000          93,050          30,000          38,000
    (N)LOS ANGELES HARBOR, CA                                                                  116,200         106,415           9,785           4,785
   (FC)LOWER SACRAMENTO AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA                                            4,660           2,343           2,317           2,317
   (FC)MARYSVILLE/YUBA CITY LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA                                            32,260          31,960             300             300
   (FC)MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA                                                                91,800          18,758             500             500
   (FC)MID-VALLEY AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA                                                 14,900           9,716           4,000           4,000
   (FC)NAPA RIVER, CA                                                                           91,000          15,000           4,500           3,000
       NORCO BLUFFS, CA                                                                          8,025           5,580  ..............           2,200
   (FC)SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION PROJECT, CA                                            179,900         107,581           7,000           6,300
   (FC)SACRAMENTO RIVER, GLENN-COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, CA                                   16,550           5,176           3,000           3,000
   (FC)SAN LORENZO RIVER, CA                                                                    13,230           5,304           4,800           4,300
   (FC)SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA                                                            896,000         634,774          20,000          20,000
    (N)SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA                                                                  5,360             400           4,960           4,500
   (FC)SANTA PAULA CREEK, CA                                                                    36,000          19,805          14,800          14,800
   (FC)SUCCESS DAM, TULE RIVER, CA (DAM SAFETY)                                                 30,900           1,140           1,250           1,250
   (FC)UPPER SACRAMENTO AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA                                            5,640           2,585           3,055           2,750
   (FC)WEST SACRAMENTO, CA                                                                      24,700          16,087           7,700           7,000

                                           DELAWARE

   (BE)DELAWARE COAST PROTECTION, DE                                                            11,800           5,121             259             259

                                           FLORIDA

    (N)CANAVERAL HARBOR DEEPENING, FL                                                            6,600           5,770             830             830
    (N)CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL                                                                    124,470          33,634           2,750           2,750
   (FC)CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL                                                      2,586,300         476,045          52,300          45,300
   (BE)DADE COUNTY, FL                                                                         163,300          62,897           2,000           2,000
    (E)EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL                                   75,000          10,518          21,100          16,100
       FORT PIERCE BEACH, FL                                                                    28,000           4,778  ..............             500
   (MP)JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM POWERHOUSE, FL AND GA (MAJOR R                                 35,600          10,370           6,000           6,000
    (E)KISSIMMEE RIVER, FL                                                                     243,500          46,627          39,800          33,800
       LAKE WORTH SAND TRANSFER PLANT, FL                                                        4,500             282  ..............             500
    (N)MANATEE HARBOR, FL                                                                       19,885           6,099           4,700           4,700
    (N)MIAMI HARBOR CHANNEL, FL                                                                 47,566          20,999          15,000          13,000
    (N)PALM VALLEY BRIDGE, FL                                                                   18,700           3,227           3,000           3,000
   (BE)PINELLAS COUNTY, FL                                                                     144,600          41,083           2,000           2,000

                                           GEORGIA

   (MP)BUFORD POWERHOUSE, GA (MAJOR REHAB)                                                      32,900           1,816           3,650           3,350
   (MP)HARTWELL LAKE POWERHOUSE, GA AND SC (MAJOR REHAB)                                        20,800          19,300           1,500           1,500
   (MP)RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND SC                                               619,521         597,819           8,500           8,000
   (MP)THURMOND LAKE POWERHOUSE, GA AND SC (MAJOR REHAB)                                        69,700          18,475           8,000           7,500

                                            HAWAII

   (FC)IAO STREAM FLOOD CONTROL, MAUI, HI (DEF CORR)                                            14,297             835             219             219
    (N)KIKIAOLA SMALL BOAT HARBOR, KAUAI, HI                                                     4,997           1,205              75              75
    (N)MAALAEA HARBOR, MAUI, HI                                                                 11,329           3,266             272             272

                                           ILLINOIS

    (N)CHAIN OF ROCKS CANAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL (DEF CORR)                                   24,500             965           1,600           1,600
    (E)CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIER, IL                                     2,000             749             100             100
   (BE)CHICAGO SHORELINE, IL                                                                   169,600          26,690           7,629           9,629
   (FC)EAST ST LOUIS, IL                                                                        32,335          26,791           2,000           2,000
    (N)LOCK AND DAM 24 PART 1, MISS RIVER, IL AND MO (MAJOR REH                                 25,000          15,920           3,844           3,444
    (N)LOCK AND DAM 24 PART 2, MISS RIVER, IL AND MO (MAJOR REH                                 38,400  ..............           1,200           1,200
    (N)LOCK AND DAM 25, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL AND MO (MAJOR REH                                 25,900          21,444           4,456           4,000
   (FC)LOVES PARK, IL                                                                           22,500          11,802           3,888           3,588
   (FC)MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS, IL                                                      489,000          25,396           2,500           2,500
    (N)MELVIN PRICE LOCK AND DAM, IL AND MO                                                    740,700         727,281           2,900           2,900
    (N)OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL AND KY                                          1,020,000         372,148          28,634          38,634
    (E)UPPER MISS RVR SYSTEM ENV MGMT PROGRAM, IL, IA, MO, MN                                  242,862         181,685          18,955          16,055

                                           INDIANA

   (FC)FORT WAYNE METROPOLITAN AREA, IN                                                         37,021          32,804           4,000           3,600
   (FC)LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, IN                                                                131,000          63,330           3,900           3,900
  (FDP)OHIO RIVER FLOOD PROTECTION (INDIANA SHORELINE), IN                                       4,378           3,060  ..............           1,000
   (FC)PATOKA LAKE, IN (MAJOR REHAB)                                                             7,200  ..............           2,000           2,000
       WHITE RIVER, INDIANAPOLIS CENTRAL WATERFRONT, IN                                         39,975          24,753  ..............           3,000

                                             IOWA

    (N)LOCK AND DAM 12, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IA (MAJOR REHAB)                                     15,500  ..............           2,600           2,300
    (N)LOCK AND DAM 14, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IA (MAJOR REHAB)                                     20,000          15,908           4,092           3,792
    (E)MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION, IA, NE, K                                   81,400          43,268           5,000           5,000
   (FC)MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, IA, NE, KS AND MO                                          139,193          97,821           3,000           2,800
   (FC)MUSCATINE ISLAND, IA                                                                      6,820           4,040           2,500           2,300
   (FC)PERRY CREEK, IA                                                                          42,580          22,937           9,500           9,000

                                            KANSAS

   (FC)ARKANSAS CITY, KS                                                                        27,400           6,232           4,300           4,100
   (FC)WINFIELD, KS                                                                              6,600           6,446             154             154

                                           KENTUCKY

   (MP)BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY AND TN                                                 159,799         156,181           1,450           1,450
   (FC)DEWEY LAKE, KY (DAM SAFETY)                                                              13,700           2,858           2,500           2,500
    (N)KENTUCKY LOCK AND DAM, TENNESSEE RIVER, KY                                              533,000          24,948           7,750           9,750
    (N)MCALPINE LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, KY AND IN                                           268,000          28,006           2,800           2,800
   (FC)METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, POND CREEK, KY                                                  12,115           2,227           3,251           3,000

                                          LOUISIANA

   (FC)ALOHA--RIGOLETTE, LA                                                                      7,078           6,497             581             581
   (FC)COMITE RIVER, LA                                                                         82,700           7,201           4,000           4,000
    (N)INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL LOCK, LA                                                  533,000          30,519          13,000          15,000
   (FC)LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN AND VICINITY, LA (HURRICANE PROTECT                                  520,000         385,442          11,887          16,887
   (FC)LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION)                                       80,000          72,219           2,000           2,000
    (N)MISSISSIPPI RIVER SHIP CHANNEL, GULF TO BATON ROUGE, L                                  171,000          24,780           1,500           1,500
   (FC)NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION)                                        171,000         143,078           1,400           1,400
    (N)PORT FOURCHON, LA                                                                         2,557             373           2,184           2,184
    (N)RED RIVER WATERWAY, MISSISSIPPI RIVER TO SHREVEPORT, L                                1,895,691       1,694,408          21,113          21,113
   (FC)SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA, LA                                                                 374,000         127,980          47,066          47,066
   (FC)WEST BANK VICINITY OF NEW ORLEANS, LA                                                   192,000          44,779           7,000           8,000

                                           MARYLAND

    (E)ANACOSTIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, MD AND DC                                               12,000           5,849           4,031           3,600
   (BE)ATLANTIC COAST OF MARYLAND, MD                                                          270,300          34,624             200             200
    (N)BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (BREWERTON CHANNEL), MD                                    44,521          34,943           9,578           8,800
    (E)CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD                                                        2,500           1,941             559             559
    (E)POPLAR ISLAND, MD                                                                       320,000          38,394           9,502          12,002

                                        MASSACHUSETTS

    (N)BOSTON HARBOR, MA                                                                        12,150          11,150           1,000           1,000
    (N)CAPE COD CANAL RAILROAD BRIDGE, MA (MAJOR REHAB)                                         30,500  ..............           5,000           4,000
   (FC)HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA (MAJOR REHAB)                                                     18,600          15,343           3,257           3,000
   (FC)TOWN BROOK, QUINCY AND BRAINTREE, MA                                                     30,600          29,000           1,500           1,500

                                           MICHIGAN

       CLINTON RIVER, MI SPILLWAY (DEFICIENCY CORRECTION)                                        2,650           2,150  ..............             250
       LAKE MICHIGAN CENTER, MI (SEC. 14)                                                          100  ..............  ..............             100

                                          MINNESOTA

    (N)LOCK AND DAM 3, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN (MAJOR REHAB)                                      15,400           1,938           3,200           3,200
   (FC)MARSHALL, MN                                                                              7,850           4,397           2,275           2,275
    (N)PINE RIVER DAM, CROSS LAKE, MN (DAM SAFETY)                                               9,820           3,396           3,390           3,190
  (FDP)ST. CROIX RIVER, STILLWATER, MN                                                           8,700          25,512  ..............           1,100

                                         MISSISSIPPI

       JACKSON COUNTY, MS                                                                       10,000           9,200  ..............             800
       NATCHEZ BLUFF, MS                                                                        19,549          12,500  ..............           2,000
    (N)PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS                                                                    39,041          23,038           7,792           7,000

                                           MISSOURI

   (FC)BLUE RIVER CHANNEL, KANSAS CITY, MO                                                     211,000         149,643          13,700          18,700
   (FC)CAPE GIRARDEAU, JACKSON, MO                                                              36,293          28,458           1,900           1,900
   (FC)MERAMEC RIVER BASIN, VALLEY PARK LEVEE, MO                                               28,030          12,668           3,500           3,200
    (N)MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS (REG WORKS), MO                                  274,000         189,157           3,000           3,000
   (FC)STE GENEVIEVE, MO                                                                        36,100          14,334           7,000           7,000
   (MP)TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO AND AR (DAM SAFETY)                                                  60,200           5,095          13,000          13,000

                                           NEBRASKA

   (FC)MISSOURI NATIONAL RECREATIONAL RIVER, NE AND SD                                          21,000           2,615             300           1,300
   (FC)WOOD RIVER, GRAND ISLAND, NE                                                             10,000           1,850             100             100

                                            NEVADA

   (FC)TROPICANA AND FLAMINGO WASHES, NV                                                       208,500          68,198          20,100          29,000

                                          NEW JERSEY

   (BE)CAPE MAY INLET TO LOWER TOWNSHIP, NJ                                                     87,700          14,692           1,700           1,700
    (N)DELAWARE RIVER MAIN CHANNEL, NJ, PA AND DE                                              214,000          11,525          16,500          12,000
   (BE)GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET AND PECK BEACH, NJ                                               358,800          31,971             419             419
    (N)NEW YORK HARBOR AND ADJACENT CHANNELS, PORT JERSEY CHANN                                 72,100           7,589           2,000           2,000
       PASSAIC RIVER, MINISH WATERFRONT PARK, NJ                                                33,705           9,100  ..............             250
    (E)PASSAIC RIVER PRESERVATION OF NATURAL STORAGE AREAS, N                                   18,300           1,480           1,800           1,800
   (FC)RAMAPO RIVER AT OAKLAND, NJ                                                              11,240           5,483           1,300           1,300
   (FC)RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK SUB-BASIN, NJ                                          286,000          36,117           1,000           1,000
   (BE)SANDY HOOK TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ                                                        979,000         104,509           9,000           8,000

                                          NEW MEXICO

   (FC)ACEQUIAS IRRIGATION SYSTEM, NM                                                           66,000          11,945           1,500           1,500
   (FC)ALAMOGORDO, NM                                                                           41,400           4,955             700             700
   (FC)LAS CRUCES, NM                                                                            6,600           4,200           2,400           2,400
   (FC)MIDDLE RIO GRANDE FLOOD PROTECTION, BERNALILLO TO BELE                                   46,800           9,141             600             600
   (FC)RIO GRANDE FLOODWAY, SAN ACACIA TO BOSQUE DEL APACHE,                                    62,300           4,644             600             600

                                           NEW YORK

   (BE)ATLANTIC COAST OF NYC, ROCKAWAY INLET TO NORTON POINT,                                   91,000          14,685             300             300
   (BE)EAST ROCKAWAY INLET TO ROCKAWAY INLET AND JAMAICA BAY,                                   63,000          42,097           3,320           3,000
   (BE)FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY                                                    532,000          32,346           3,000           2,700
   (BE)FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, NY                                                  571,400          50,279           3,250           3,250
    (N)KILL VAN KULL AND NEWARK BAY CHANNEL, NY AND NJ                                         823,300         227,576          60,000          40,000
       NEW YORK HARBOR COLLECTION AND REMOVAL OF DRIFT, NY&NJ;                                  136,000          45,541  ..............             750

                                        NORTH CAROLINA

    (N)AIWW, REPLACEMENT OF FEDERAL HIGHWAY BRIDGES, NC                                         70,700          62,167           7,000           6,300
    (N)WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC                                                                   247,100          15,866          18,300          17,000

                                         NORTH DAKOTA

   (FC)BUFORD-TRENTON IRRIGATION DISTRICT LAND ACQUISITION, N                                   40,000           4,160           5,000           5,000
   (FC)DEVILS LAKE EMERGENCY OUTLET, ND                                                         29,000          15,000          10,000  ..............
   (MP)GARRISON DAM AND POWER PLANT, ND (MAJOR REHAB)                                           37,100           5,932           6,500           6,000
   (FC)GRAND FORKS, ND--EAST GRAND FORKS, MN                                                   175,900           6,442          10,000           9,000
   (FC)HOMME LAKE, ND (DAM SAFETY)                                                              16,000           1,908           3,000           2,800
   (FC)LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND (MAJOR REHAB)                                         7,800           6,265             500             500

                                             OHIO

   (FC)BEACH CITY LAKE, MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH (DAM SAFETY                                    3,500             640           1,400           1,400
   (FC)METROPOLITAN REGION OF CINCINNATI, DUCK CREEK, OH                                        13,035           3,739           2,266           2,266
   (FC)MILL CREEK, OH                                                                          163,000          99,953             915             915
   (FC)WEST COLUMBUS, OH                                                                        91,700          61,884           8,000          12,000

                                           OKLAHOMA

   (FC)SKIATOOK LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY)                                                            9,800             465             500             500
   (MP)TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY)                                                    37,900           4,746           6,800           6,400

                                            OREGON

   (MP)BONNEVILLE POWERHOUSE PHASE II, OR AND WA (MAJOR REHAB)                                 104,600          37,340          10,800          10,800
    (E)COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY FISHING ACCESS SITES, OR AND WA                                    73,966          24,463           6,368           5,510
   (FC)ELK CREEK LAKE, OR                                                                      174,000         109,401             500             500
   (FC)LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN BANK PROTECTION, OR AND WA                                    28,000          21,203             262             352
   (FC)WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE CONTROL, OR                                                 70,600           4,083           1,700           1,700

                                         PENNSYLVANIA

   (FC)JOHNSTOWN, PA (MAJOR REHAB)                                                              32,664          13,905           6,800           6,800
    (N)LOCKS AND DAMS 2, 3 AND 4, MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA                                        705,000          76,996          21,600          31,600
   (BE)PRESQUE ISLE PENINSULA, PA (PERMANENT)                                                   58,085          16,753             520             520
   (FC)SAW MILL RUN, PITTSBURGH, PA                                                             10,575           2,694           3,500           3,200
   (FC)WYOMING VALLEY, PA (LEVEE RAISING)                                                      108,300          40,338          20,000          18,500

                                         PUERTO RICO

   (FC)ARECIBO RIVER, PR                                                                        12,500           1,828           2,500           2,500
   (FC)PORTUGUES AND BUCANA RIVERS, PR                                                         430,300         379,390           5,434           5,434
   (FC)RIO DE LA PLATA, PR                                                                      63,300           7,705           1,000           1,000
   (FC)RIO PUERTO NUEVO, PR                                                                    321,000          50,575           9,566           8,800
    (N)SAN JUAN HARBOR, PR                                                                      24,100          12,197           8,000           7,300

                                        SOUTH CAROLINA

    (N)CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC (DEEPENING AND WIDENING)                                           98,444          22,775          37,284          31,600

                                         SOUTH DAKOTA

    (E)CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUX, SD                                       108,000  ..............           2,000           3,000
  (FDP)JAMES RIVER RESTORATION, SD                                                               1,000  ..............  ..............           1,000
   (MP)PIERRE, SD                                                                              100,000             340          10,000           6,500

                                          TENNESSEE

       BLACK FOX, MURFREE SPRINGS, AND OAKLAND WETLANDS, TN                                      5,845           2,950  ..............           1,000

                                          TENNESSEE

       RIVER, HAMILTON COUNTY, TN                                                                6,669           2,804  ..............           1,000

                                            TEXAS

   (FC)BRAYS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX                                                                293,010          10,505           9,800           9,000
    (N)CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX                                                                  26,820          13,640           8,700           7,900
   (FC)CLEAR CREEK, TX                                                                          75,830          22,736           3,200           2,900
   (FC)EL PASO, TX                                                                             116,300         102,526           6,200           5,600
    (N)GIWW, ARANSAS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, TX                                               20,660           7,643           9,000           7,650
    (N)HOUSTON--GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS, TX                                              415,543          84,607          60,000          54,000
    (N)NECHES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES SALTWATER BARRIER, TX                                       41,895           5,000           2,000           2,000
   (FC)SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, TX                                                     153,100         151,596             610             610
   (FC)SIMS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX                                                                 214,320          73,104          18,300          16,500

                                           VIRGINIA

    (N)AIWW, BRIDGE AT GREAT BRIDGE, VA                                                         23,100           7,194           3,000           3,000
       DICKENSON COUNTY, SEC 202 PROJECT, VA                                                       700  ..............  ..............             200
   (MP)JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA AND NC (MAJOR REHAB)                                   59,600  ..............           1,400           1,400
    (N)NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS (DEEPENING), VA                                             137,496          22,941             550             550
   (FC)ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, HEADWATERS AREA, VA                                           28,800           5,839           1,197           1,197
       VIRGINIA BEACH, VA HURRICANE PROTECTION                                                 247,300          66,607  ..............          17,000

                                          WASHINGTON

    (E)COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR AND ID                                         1,376,330         553,975         100,000          70,000
    (E)LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE COMPENSATION, WA, OR                                232,000         228,659           1,300           1,300
   (FC)MT ST HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA                                                       195,800         114,577             540             540
   (MP)THE DALLES POWERHOUSE (UNITS 1-14), WA AND OR (MAJOR REH                                 94,000          10,890           2,300           2,300

                                        WEST VIRGINIA

   (FC)BLUESTONE LAKE, WV (DAM SAFETY)                                                         107,300  ..............             750             750
  (FDP)GREENBRIER RIVER BASIN, WV                                                               12,000           2,254  ..............             800
   (FC)LEVISA AND TUG FORKS AND UPPER CUMBERLAND RIVER, WV, V                                1,837,841         702,645           5,400           9,800
    (N)LONDON LOCKS AND DAM, KANAWHA RIVER, WV (MAJOR REHAB)                                    20,300           1,060             600             600
    (N)MARMET LOCK, KANAWHA RIVER, WV                                                          294,000          20,003           9,800           9,800
    (N)ROBERT C BYRD LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, WV AND OH                                      363,474         341,834           7,150           7,150
   (FC)TYGART LAKE, WV (DAM SAFETY)                                                              7,500           2,534           2,900           2,900
    (N)WINFIELD LOCKS AND DAM, KANAWHA RIVER, WV                                               226,900         218,532           1,400           1,400

                                          WISCONSIN

       LAFARGE LAKE, KICKAPOO RIVER, WI                                                         17,000           3,368  ..............           1,000

                                        MISCELLANEOUS

       AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROGRAM                                                    ..............  ..............           3,000           5,000
       AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (SECTION 206)                                      ..............  ..............           4,500           6,260
       BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 103)                                     ..............  ..............           2,500           2,500
       BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL (SECTION 204)                                ..............  ..............           1,000           1,000
       DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROGRAM                                     ..............  ..............          20,000          10,000
       EMERGENCY STREAMBANK AND SHORELINE PROTECTION (SEC. 14)                          ..............  ..............           8,500           8,500
       EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION                                                          ..............  ..............          19,554          19,554
       FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 205)                                             ..............  ..............          26,900          32,575
       INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--BOARD EXPENSE                                      ..............  ..............              45              45
       INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--CORPS EXPENSE                                      ..............  ..............             185             185
       NAVIGATION MITIGATION PROJECT (SECTION 111)                                      ..............  ..............             500             500
       NAVIGATION PROJECTS (SECTION 107)                                                ..............  ..............           4,500           5,460
       PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONME                           ..............  ..............           8,500          10,000
       RIVERINE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AND FLOOD HAZARD MITIGA                           ..............  ..............          25,000  ..............
       SNAGGING AND CLEARING PROJECT (SECTION 208)                                      ..............  ..............             100             100
       REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SIPPAGE, AND CARRYOVER BALANCES            ..............  ..............        -211,789        -291,789
                                                                                       -----------------------------------------------------------------
             TOTAL, CONSTRUCTION GENERAL                                                ..............  ..............       1,239,900       1,113,227
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       TYPE OF PROJECT:
           (N)  NAVIGATION
           (BE)  BEACH EROSION CONTROL
           (FC)  FLOOD CONTROL
           (MP)  MULTIPURPOSE, INCLUDING POWER

                   Budget Constraints and Reductions

    Severely constrained spending limits required under the 
discretionary budget caps imposed by the Congressional Budget 
Resolution have made it most difficult for the Committee to 
formulate a balanced Energy and Water Development 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000. In order the adhere 
to the subcommittee's allocations, address the critical ongoing 
activities, correct program imbalances contained in the 
President's fiscal year 2000 budget, and respond to the 
numerous requests of the Members, the Committee finds it 
necessary to recommend numerous reductions and adjustments to 
funding levels proposed in the budget. The constrained budget 
will result in continued delayed completion schedules. Project 
benefits will be deferred. 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 
congressional authorizing committees jurisdiction, the 
Committee has not included new project authorizations.
    Cook Inlet, AK.--The Committee has recommended an 
appropriation of $1,700,000 for the Cook Inlet navigation 
project in Alaska. The budget request of $500,000 would have 
resulted in unacceptable delays in project construction and, 
therefore, an additional $1,200,000 is recommended in order to 
mitigate the potential delays.
    Montgomery Point Lock and Dam, AR.--An appropriation of 
$33,000,000 is recommended for the Montgomery Point Lock and 
Dam, Arkansas project. This is an increase of $13,000,000 over 
the budget request and, while a significant increase, is still 
far below the amount needed to fund the project at an optimum 
level.
    Los Angeles County Drainage Area, CA.--The Committee 
recommendation for the Los Angeles County Drainage Area, 
California project is $38,000,000, an increase of $8,000,000 
over the budget request. The additional funding will advance 
the project and help mitigate the funding shortfall proposed in 
the Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget.
    Los Angeles Harbor, CA.--The Committee has reduced the 
funding for the Los Angeles Harbor project from $9,785,000 to 
$4,785,000. The recommendation is made possible as the result 
of the Corps of Engineers reprogramming additional funding into 
the project during the current fiscal year, which reduced the 
fiscal year 2000 funding requirements.
    Norco Bluffs, CA.--An amount of $2,200,000 is recommended 
for the Norco Bluffs, California project. The Committee expects 
the Corps to complete construction of the projects during 
fiscal year 2000.
    Central and Southern, Everglades, and Kissimmee River 
Projects, FL.--In light of the severe budget constraints, the 
Committee has had to make many difficult recommendations in 
developing the funding levels for fiscal year 2000. Confronted 
with a highly constrained budget environment and program 
imbalances put forth in the President's budget request, the 
Committee has recommended reductions to many important water 
resource projects and programs, including the Everglades, 
Kissimmee River and the Central and Southern projects.
    Jackson Harbor, Mill Cove, FL.--The Committee will 
interpose no objection to the Corps of Engineers negotiating an 
agreement with the St. Johns River Water Management District to 
accept contributed funds to undertake the Jacksonville Harbor, 
Mill Cove, Florida project put forth in the April 23, 1999 
letter of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. 
This action is taken with the understanding and under the 
condition that there will be no reimbursement for the Federal 
portion of the project as stated in the January 4, 1999 letter 
of the St. Johns River Water Management District to the 
Jacksonville District of the Corps of Engineers.
    Chicago Shoreline, IL.--The Committee has provided 
$9,629,000 for the Chicago Shoreline project in Illinois. The 
additional funding is recommended for acceleration of the 
Irving to Belmont section of the project.
    Olmstead Locks and Dam, Ohio River, IL and KY.--An 
appropriation of $38,634,000 is provided for the Olmstead Lock 
and Dam, Illinois project. The Administration's budget request 
for fiscal year 2000 significantly under funded the 
construction needs and the Committee has, therefore, 
recommended an additional $10,000,000 in an effort to mitigate 
delays on this important facility on the Nation's inland 
waterway system.
    Ohio River Flood Protection, Indiana Shoreline, IN.--The 
Committee has included $1,000,000 for the Ohio River Flood 
Protection, Indiana Shoreline project in Indiana. No funding 
was included in the budget request for fiscal year 2000 to 
continue this project, but the amount recommended by the 
Committee should be sufficient to complete project 
construction.
    White River, Indianapolis Central Waterfront, IN.--The 
Committee has recommended an appropriation of $3,000,000 for 
the Corps to finalize plans and specifications on the remaining 
project features, and continue construction on the White River, 
Indianapolis Central Waterfront, Indiana project.
    Kentucky Lock and Dam, KY.--An appropriation of $9,750,000 
is provided for the Kentucky Lock and Dam project in Kentucky 
to help mitigate delays as the result of the less than optimum 
funding level contained in the Administration's budget request.
    Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock, LA.--Funding in the 
amount of $15,000,000 is recommended for the Inner Harbor 
Navigation Canal Lock project in Louisiana. The recommended 
appropriation provides the full budget request of $2,900,000 
for community impact activities; and an additional $2,000,000 
for engineering and design, and construction work.
    West Bank Vicinity of New Orleans, LA.--The Committee has 
provided $8,000,000 for the West Bank Vicinity of New Orleans, 
Louisiana project to continue construction activities and to 
initiate two additional contracts in the Westwego to Harvey 
Canal.
    St. Croix River, Stillwater, MN.--An amount of $1,100,000 
is recommended for the St. Croix River, Stillwater, Minnesota 
project. No funds were requested in the Administration's budget 
request to continue this important flood control project. The 
Committee, therefore, has included the recommended funding to 
complete construction of the Stage 2 wall extension.
    Blue River Channel, Kansas City, MO.--The Committee has 
provided $18,700,000, an increase of $5,000,000 over the budget 
request, for the Corps to expedite work on the Blue River 
Channel, Kansas City, Missouri flood control project. The 
Committee believes the Administration's budget request for 
fiscal year 2000 significantly underfunded this critical flood 
control project causing additional delays in project 
completion, and also delaying the repair of other facilities in 
the area.
    Missouri National Recreation River, NE and SD.--The 
Committee has provided $1,300,000 for the Missouri National 
Recreational River, NE and SD project. This is $1,000,000 over 
the budget request for fiscal year 2000. The additional funding 
is provided to allow the Corps to resume efforts to develop a 
cost sharing partner for the Ponca Research and Education 
Center and undertake preconstruction activities related to the 
Center, as appropriate, once a non-Federal sponsor is 
identified and a cost sharing agreement is finalized.
    Tropicana and Flamingo Washes, NV.--The Committee has 
provided $29,000,000 for the Tropicana and Flamingo Washes 
project in Nevada to advance completion of this important flood 
control project. The Committee urges the Corps to use available 
funds or propose a reprogramming in order to keep this project 
on schedule. The Committee has no objection to the February 24, 
1999 proposal to execute an agreement with the local sponsor 
regarding project financing. The Committee expects the 
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works to make every 
effort to even out reimbursement payments to lessen future 
budgetary impacts.
    Devils Lake Emergency Outlet, ND.--The Committee 
recommendation includes no additional funding for the Devils 
Lake Emergency Outlet, North Dakota project as requested in the 
budget. This action is recommended without prejudice in 
recognition that Corps has authority to use up to $10,000,000 
of previously appropriated funds to initiate construction of an 
outlet once certain conditions mandated by Congress are met.
    West Columbus, OH.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $4,000,000 over the budget request for the West 
Columbus, Ohio flood control project to allow the Corps to 
continue construction on a more optimum schedule and to 
mitigate delays due to the inadequate funding request proposed 
in the Administration's budget for fiscal year 2000.
    Locks and Dams 2, 3, and 4, Monongahela River, PA.--The 
Committee has recommended $31,600,000 to continue construction 
of the Locks and Dams 2, 3, and 4, Monongahela River navigation 
project in Pennsylvania. While providing an increase of 
$10,000,000 over the budget request, budget constraints do not 
allow the Committee to reach the capability level of the Corps 
which is significantly higher than the $31,600,000 recommended 
herein.
    Black Fox, Murfree Springs, and Oaklands Wetland, 
Murfreesboro, TN.--The Committee has included $1,000,000 for 
the Black Fox, Murfree Springs, and Oaklands Wetland, 
Murfreesboro, Tennessee project. No funding was included in the 
Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget request and the 
recommended funding will be used to continue construction of 
three wetland restoration sites.
    Tennessee River, Hamilton County, TN.--The Committee has 
included $1,000,000 in its recommendation in order to continue 
construction of the Tennessee River, Hamilton County, Tennessee 
project.
    Dickenson County, VA Element, Levisa and Tug Forks of the 
Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River, VA, WV, and KY.--
The Committee has included $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers 
to initiate a Detailed Project Report for the Dickenson County, 
Virginia, element of the Levisa and Tug Forks project. The 
Committee understands that flooding is a continuing problem in 
Dickenson County, and the recommended funding will allow the 
Corps to begin detailed studies on how to address the flooding 
problems.
    Virginia Beach, Hurricane Protection, VA.--An appropriation 
of $17,000,000 is recommended to continue construction 
activities on the Virginia Beach, Hurricane Protection project 
in Virginia.
    Columbia River Fish Mitigation, WA and OR.--The Committee 
recommends $70,000,000 to continue the Columbia River Fish 
Mitigation project. The recommended level of funding is 
necessary due to the severe budget constraints. In addition, no 
part of any appropriation contained herein shall be used to 
begin Phase II of the John Day drawdown study or to start a 
study of the drawdown at McNary Dam.
    In last year's Conference Report, the conferees requested 
the Northwest Power Planning Council, with the assistance from 
the Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP), to conduct an 
annual review of the Bonneville Power Administration's 
reimbursable fish and wildlife programs. The Council's first 
report to the Appropriations Committee, submitted earlier this 
month, noted that the Panel's future reviews might be improved 
if the Panel could conduct some or all of its review of the 
reimbursable programs in the Fall, prior to release of the 
Administration's annual budget. This would allow more time for 
the preparation of the Council's report that is due each year 
on May 15. The Committee understands that the Council is 
exploring changes in the timing of the ISRP's reviews with the 
Corps of Engineers and other Federal agencies. The Committee 
expects the Corps to cooperate with the Council and the 
independent scientists in providing information on the Corps' 
reimbursable programs that will be useful in the Council's 
annual report to the Appropriations Committee.
    Lower Columbia River Basin Bank Protection, Barlow Point, 
WA.--The Committee has recommended $352,000 for the Lower 
Columbia River Basin Bank Protection project in Oregon and 
Washington, including $90,000 to initiate and complete plans 
and specifications for the Barlow Point, WA element of the 
project.
    Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper 
Cumberland River, WV-KY-VA.--The Committee has provided a total 
of $9,800,000 for the Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy 
River and Upper Cumberland River project.
    The Committee recommendation also includes $600,000 for the 
Upper Mingo County, including Mingo County tributaries, West 
Virginia, element; $1,300,000 for the Kermit, Lower Mingo 
County (Kermit), WV, element; $300,000 for the Wayne County, 
WV, element; and $2,200,000 for the McDowell County, WV, 
element.
    Finally, $4,600,000 is provided for the Grundy, VA, 
element.
    Aquatic plant control program.--The Committee has included 
$5,000,000 to continue the aquatic plant control program. In 
light of severe budget constraints and the fact that this is a 
nationwide program, the Committee believes it inappropriate to 
earmark the small amount of funding available for fiscal year 
2000. The appropriations are to undertake the highest priority 
activities. The Committee recognizes that there is a shortage 
of funding to harvest nuisance aquatic plants, while there are 
other programs to aid aquatic plant control research. 
Therefore, the Committee directs the Corps to place a higher 
priority on actual plant harvesting and eradication through 
funding provided in this account. Finally, in an effort to 
maximize the use of the limited Federal funding, the Committee 
recommends that harvesting and eradication be undertaken only 
where a local sponsor agrees to provide 50 percent of the cost 
of the work.
    The Committee recommendation includes $400,000 for aquatic 
weed control at Lake Champlain in Vermont.
    Emergency streambank and shoreline protection, (sec. 14).--
The Committee has included $8,500,000 for the section 14, 
emergency streambank and shoreline erosion protection program.
    Small navigation projects (sec. 107).--The Committee has 
recommended an appropriation of $5,460,000 for small navigation 
projects under the section 107 program. The recommendation 
includes $200,000 for feasibility phase work on the Haines 
Harbor, AK project; $140,000 for feasibility activities on the 
Ketchikan Harbor, AK project; $400,000 for the Corps to prepare 
a decision document and recommendations regarding the unforseen 
conditions and cost increases on the Ouzinkie Harbor, AK 
project; $200,000 for feasibility phase activities on the 
Unalaska Harbor, AK project; and $20,000 to initiate studies to 
determine the feasibility of providing navigation improvements 
along the Blackwater River in New Hampshire.
    Small flood control projects (sec. 205).--The Committee 
recommendation for section 205 small flood control projects is 
$32,175,000.
    The Committee recommendation includes $400,000 to initiate 
plans and specifications on the Ledgewood Creek, CA project; 
$175,000 to complete the feasibility phase and initiate plans 
and specifications for the St. Joe River at St. Maries, ID 
project; $100,000 to initiate studies for flooding problems in 
the vicinity of Cataldo, ID; $100,000 to initiate work on the 
Frankfort, Jones Rum Pump Station, KY project; $2,000,000 to 
initiate construction on the Ft. Fairfield, ME project; 
$150,000 to initiate studies to address severe flooding 
conditions at Livingston, MT; $300,000 to formulate and 
evaluate flood control alternatives and to prepare draft 
feasibility reports for the Upper Little Sugar Creek, Briar 
Creek, Irwin Creek and McMullen Creek in Meckleburg County, NC; 
$250,000 to initiate studies and the feasibility phase for the 
Hernandez, NM project; $100,000 to continue feasibility studies 
and execute a PCA in the Chagrin River, Eastlake, OH project; 
$75,000 to perform a preliminary assessment of flood reduction 
alternatives and negotiate a PCA for the Tawney Run Creek, 
Springdale, PA project; $175,000 to complete feasibility 
studies to identify and evaluate flood damage alternatives 
along Town Creek, Lenoir County, TN; $150,000 to complete 
feasibility studies to identify and evaluate flood damage 
alternatives in the vicinity of Mountain City, Johnson County, 
TN; $100,000 to initiate studies to determine the economic and 
environmental feasibility of flood control measures at Gates, 
TN; $100,000 to initiate and complete a section 905(b) study 
and if approved negotiate a feasibility cost sharing agreement 
for the Jamestown Island Seawall, VA project; and $770,000 to 
complete plans and specifications and initiate construction of 
the Snoqualmie River at Snoqualmie, WA project.
    Aquatic ecosystem restoration (sec. 206).--The Committee 
has recommended an appropriation of $6,260,000 for section 206 
aquatic ecosystem restoration projects for fiscal year 2000.
    The recommended funding level includes $160,000 to complete 
the feasibility study, complete design, and prepare plans and 
specifications, and initiate construction of the Little Sugar 
Creek, NC project; $400,000 to prepare a preliminary 
restoration plan, ecosystem restoration report, and initiate 
plans and specifications for the Edgewood Creek, NV project; 
$400,000 to initiate and complete the ecosystem restoration 
report, and initiate plans and specifications on the Incline 
Creek, NV project; and $800,000 to initiate and complete plans 
and specifications and initiate construction on the Upper 
Jordan River Restoration, UT project.
    The Committee is aware of a shoreline restoration project 
at the Chicago Botanic Garden in Cook County, Illinois and 
recognizes the importance of protecting the garden lagoon 
system. The Committee encourages the Corps to carry out the 
work necessary to stabilize the Garden's embankment and the 
roadways, including all studies necessary to evaluate the 
feasibility of this project, and to initiate preconstruction 
engineering and design activities.
    Projects modifications for improvement of the environment 
(sec. 1135).--The Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 
for section 1135 Project Modification for the Improvement of 
the Environment Program.
    The recommendation includes $200,000 for planning and 
design upon successful completion and approval of the 
Preliminary Restoration Plan for the Great Lakes, Sea Lamprey 
Control program, and the submission of a formal study request 
by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission; $100,000 to prepare a 
preliminary restoration plan and initiate the ecosystem 
restoration report on the Rio Grande, NM, Habitat Conservation 
project; $200,000 to prepare plans and specifications for 
habitat restoration at Rochester Harbor, NY; $1,730,000 to 
initiate construction of the Ballard, Chittinden Locks, WA 
project; and $100,000 to complete the preliminary restoration 
plan for 5 sites along the Green/Duwamish River, WA.
    Funding Adjustments.--The Committee has recommended an 
additional reduction over that proposed in the budget request 
for anticipated carryover balances from fiscal year 1999 into 
fiscal year 2000. This action is required in order to bring the 
bill into compliance with the allocations required by 
Congressional budget caps, and to correct programmatic 
imbalances proposed in the President's fiscal year 2000 
request. In allocating the amount assigned to savings and 
slippage, which is recommended at the budget request level, and 
the additional reduction, it is the Committee's intent that 
these reductions be applied proportionally. Nevertheless, the 
Committee is aware of considerable savings due to favorable 
bids, and where circumstances have significantly slowed 
projects work, substantially affecting the amount of funding 
which can be used on such project in fiscal year 2000. 
Therefore, the Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to use 
its reprogramming authority to the fullest extent possible to 
meet funding needs on these projects that may arise during 
fiscal year 2000.

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

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $321,149,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     280,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     315,630,000

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

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

                          GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

       SURVEYS:
           GENERAL STUDIES:
  (FDP)        MISSISSIPPI RIVER, ALEXANDER COUNTY, IL AND SCOTT               350              100              100               30              30
  (FDP)        ALEXANDRIA, LA TO THE GULF OF MEXICO                          3,150              362              268              700             700
  (FDP)        DONALDSONVILLE TO THE GULF, LA                                3,500              250              250              250             250
  (COM)        MEMPHIS METRO AREA, TN AND MS                                 2,075              768              768              675             675
   (FC)        BAYOU METO BASIN, AR                                        125,000            5,151            4,001            1,767           1,767
   (FC)        MORGANZA, LA TO THE GULF OF MEXICO                           88,400   ...............  ...............             700             700
   (FC)        REELFOOT LAKE, TN AND KY                                     21,450              432              432              318             318
   (FC)        WOLF RIVER, MEMPHIS, TN                                      11,765   ...............  ...............             525             525
       COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA                            ..............  ...............  ...............             365             365
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             SUBTOTAL, GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS                                5,330            5,330
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                               CONSTRUCTION

   (FC)CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND TN                3,667,000        2,525,845           35,830           37,685          37,685
   (FC)EIGHT MILE CREEK, AR                                                  9,000            3,952            1,435              700             700
   (FC)GRAND PRAIRIE REGION, AR                                            245,350           19,267            7,683           21,900          13,900
   (FC)HELENA AND VICINITY, AR                                               8,370            3,624            1,274            2,190           2,190
   (FC)MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND TN           1,995,000          852,009           28,980           23,250          35,750
   (FC)ST FRANCIS BASIN, AR AND MO                                         387,000          363,445            5,660            4,350           4,850
   (FC)ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA                              185,000           72,620            7,203            7,500           7,500
   (FC)ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA                                             1,720,000          849,026           26,577           19,750          19,750
   (FC)LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY LEVEE, LA                               19,500            5,758            4,322            3,000           5,000
   (FC)MISSISSIPPI AND LOUISIANA ESTUARINE AREAS, LA AND MS                 66,900            8,074              240              100             100
   (FC)MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA                                         99,200           78,654           14,717           10,400          10,400
   (FC)TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA                               166,900          116,610            9,699            8,930           8,930
       YAZOO BASIN                                                      (1,513,837)        (708,083)         (29,302)         (24,279)        (24,279)
   (FC)    BACKWATER LESS ROCKY BAYOU, MS                                  254,491           59,144               20               20              20
   (FC)    BACKWATER PUMP, MS                                               97,840           11,098              410              500           1,000
   (FC)    BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS                                         109,383           90,387            4,322            3,915           4,500
   (FC)    DEMONSTRATION EROSION CONTROL, MS                               244,284          237,990           12,964            6,294          11,294
   (FC)    MAIN STEM, MS                                                   194,431           34,586               24               20              20
   (FC)    REFORMULATION UNIT, MS                                           32,408           26,781            1,767            1,570           1,570
   (FC)    TRIBUTARIES, MS                                                 243,000          107,040              192              340             340
   (FC)    UPPER YAZOO PROJECTS, MS                                        338,000          141,057            9,603           11,620          11,620
   (FC)ST JOHNS BAYOU AND NEW MADRID FLOODWAY, MO                           58,800           12,592            5,762            7,800           9,800
   (FC)NONCONNAH CREEK, FLOOD CONTROL FEATURE, TN AND MS                    17,941           10,454              235            2,500           2,500
   (FC)WEST TENNESSEE TRIBUTARIES, TN                                      143,000           53,776            1,601            2,398           2,398
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             SUBTOTAL, CONSTRUCTION                                        176,732          191,817
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                                MAINTENANCE

   (FC)CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND TN            ..............  ...............  ...............          55,876          55,876
    (N)HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR                            ..............  ...............  ...............             284             284
   (FC)INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR                             ..............  ...............  ...............             443             443
   (FC)LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, AR                          ..............  ...............  ...............              66              66
   (FC)LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, AR                          ..............  ...............  ...............             108             108
   (FC)MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND TN       ..............  ...............  ...............           3,736           6,500
   (FC)ST FRANCIS BASIN, AR AND MO                                   ..............  ...............  ...............           6,300           7,800
   (FC)TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS, AR AND LA              ..............  ...............  ...............           2,344           2,344
   (FC)WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR                                     ..............  ...............  ...............             964             964
   (FC)INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL                             ..............  ...............  ...............              45              45
   (FC)INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY                             ..............  ...............  ...............              25              25
   (FC)ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA                        ..............  ...............  ...............             644             644
   (FC)ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA                                         ..............  ...............  ...............          10,560          12,810
    (N)BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA                           ..............  ...............  ...............             157             157
   (FC)BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA                            ..............  ...............  ...............             101             101
   (FC)BONNET CARRE, LA                                              ..............  ...............  ...............           1,068           1,068
   (FC)INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA                             ..............  ...............  ...............             373             373
   (FC)LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, LA                        ..............  ...............  ...............              84              84
   (FC)MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA                                  ..............  ...............  ...............             436             436
   (FC)OLD RIVER, LA                                                 ..............  ...............  ...............           4,027           4,027
   (FC)TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA                         ..............  ...............  ...............           2,927           2,927
    (N)GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS                                         ..............  ...............  ...............             333             333
   (FC)INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS                             ..............  ...............  ...............             193             193
    (N)VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS                                          ..............  ...............  ...............             199             199
       YAZOO BASIN:                                                  ..............  ...............  ...............         (20,475)        (20,475)
   (FC)    ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS                                        ..............  ...............  ...............           3,265           4,265
   (FC)    BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS                                   ..............  ...............  ...............             209             209
   (FC)    ENID LAKE, MS                                             ..............  ...............  ...............           3,214           4,214
   (FC)    GREENWOOD, MS                                             ..............  ...............  ...............             946             946
   (FC)    GRENADA LAKE, MS                                          ..............  ...............  ...............           4,280           5,280
   (FC)    MAIN STEM, MS                                             ..............  ...............  ...............           1,059           1,059
   (FC)    SARDIS LAKE, MS                                           ..............  ...............  ...............           4,334           5,334
   (FC)    TRIBUTARIES, MS                                           ..............  ...............  ...............           1,269           1,300
   (FC)    WILL M WHITTINGTON AUXILIARY CHANNEL, MS                  ..............  ...............  ...............             493             493
   (FC)    YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS                                  ..............  ...............  ...............             560             560
   (FC)    YAZOO CITY, MS                                            ..............  ...............  ...............             846             846
   (FC)INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO                             ..............  ...............  ...............             202             202
   (FC)WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO                                           ..............  ...............  ...............           3,500           3,500
   (FC)INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN                             ..............  ...............  ...............             113             113
    (N)MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, TN                             ..............  ...............  ...............             800             800
   (FC)MAPPING                                                       ..............  ...............  ...............           1,117           1,117
       REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE                ..............  ...............  ...............         -19,562          -9,562
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             SUBTOTAL, MAINTENANCE                                   ..............  ...............  ...............          97,938         118,483
                                                                    ====================================================================================
             TOTAL, FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND             ..............  ...............  ...............         280,000         315,630
              TRIBUTARIES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       TYPE OF PROJECT:
           (N)  NAVIGATION
           (FC)  FLOOD CONTROL

    The Committee rejects the totally inadequate budget request 
proposed by the administration and again expresses concern over 
the continued, severe budget reductions for the Mississippi 
River and tributaries [MR&T;] project. The Mississippi River has 
the third largest drainage basin in the world, exceeded in size 
only by the Amazon and Congo River watersheds. It drains a 
total of 1,245,00 square miles, covering all or part of 31 
States and two Canadian Provinces. Water from as far east as 
New York and as far west as Wyoming contribute to floods in the 
lower Mississippi River Valley, flowing through the basin 
roughly resembling a funnel which has its spout at the Gulf of 
Mexico.
    Therefore, flood control and protection along the 
Mississippi River and its tributaries is not an option, it is 
mandatory. The floods of 1993 demonstrated this importance by 
averting $8,100,000,000 in damages. Over the years, the MR&T; 
project has saved and estimated $150,000,000,000 in flood 
damages based on a Federal investment of $8,121,000,000. 
Another outcome of the recent floods is the need to raise and 
strengthen numerous section of levees. The proposed $41,149,000 
reduction below the appropriation for 1999 severely impacts 
this effort and increases the likelihood of higher disaster 
payments as the result of major flooding.
    The Committee again directs the Secretary of the Army, 
acting through the Chief of Engineers to continue ongoing 
construction and expedite award of contracts, using continuing 
contracts, in fiscal year 2000 to alleviate continued flooding 
and suffering affected areas.
    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 adjustments in lower priority 
activities and non-critical work in order to maximize the 
public benefit within the Mississippi River and Tributaries 
program.
    Yazoo basin, Big Sunflower River, MR&T.--The; Committee has 
provided $4,500,000 for the Corps to expedite construction of 
various features of the Big Sunflower River, MS, project.
    Yazoo basin, demonstration erosion control, MR&T.--An; 
additional $5,000,000, over the budget request, is recommended 
for the demonstration erosion control project, to continue a 
joint effort by the Corps of Engineers and the Natural 
Resources Conservation Service in the Yazoo basin of the 
Mississippi. The funds provided will permit the Corps to 
undertake construction of additional flood water retarding 
structures, pipe and culvert grade control structures, channel 
improvements, and bank stabilization items in various 
watersheds. Design of future work, acquisition of real estate 
and monitoring of results will be accomplished for all 
watersheds in order to facilitate work in fiscal year 2000 and 
for all future work as required for completion of the total 
program. The Committee expects the administration to continue 
to request funds for this important project.
    Mississippi River Levees.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $35,750,000 to advance completion of construction of 
critical levee and other flood control facilities within the 
Mississippi River and Tributaries program, including up to an 
additional $2,000,000 for the Commerce-Birds Point, MO levee 
grade raise.
    St. Francis Basin and Tributaries, MO and AR.--The 
Committee has recommended an appropriation of $4,500,000 for 
construction activities on the St. Francis Basin and 
Tributaries feature, including an additional $500,000 to 
advance completion of channel improvements on Main and Ditch # 
2, Item 2 in Missouri.
    St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid Floodway, MO.--The Committee 
has included $9,800,000 for construction activities on the St. 
Johns and New Madrid Floodway in Missouri, including additional 
funding to advance completion construction of the New Madrid 
pumping station by 1 year.
    Yazoo Basin, Big Sunflower River, MS.--An appropriation of 
$209,000 is recommended for the Big Sunflower River maintenance 
portion of the Yazoo Basin feature, including additional funds 
for the purchase of mitigation lands as appropriate.
    The Committee understands the urgency of restoring channel 
capacity on the Big Sunflower River in the Yazoo Basin of 
Mississippi. The Committee understands that litigation has 
delayed the award of contracts on this project during fiscal 
year 1999 and pending resolution of this litigation, may effect 
contract awards in fiscal year 2000. However, the Committee 
expects the Corps of Engineers to redirect available funds 
within project if the litigation is resolved during fiscal year 
2000.
    Yazoo Basin, MS.--The Committee is informed of bank slides 
on the Mississippi River and the impacts on the ability of 
Adams County, Mississippi to maintain road surfaces. The 
Committee expects the Corps to work with the County to address 
the problem.
    Yazoo basin maintenance.--The Committee has been informed 
of inadequate maintenance of road surfaces and slides on 
Mississippi levees in the Yazoo basin. Additional levee 
maintenance funding has been provided for the Corps to address 
this and other problems.

                   operation and maintenance, general

Appropriations, 1999....................................  $1,653,252,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................   1,835,900,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,790,043,000

    The Committee recommendation for Operation and Maintenance 
activities of the Corps of Engineers totals $1,790,043,000 for 
fiscal year 2000.
    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                 3,000           3,000
 STUDY, AL..............................
ALABAMA--COOSA RIVER, AL................           5,185           5,185
BAYOU LA BATRE, AL......................              10              10
BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL..          15,917          15,917
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL..........           4,000           4,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AL.......              40              40
MILLERS FERRY LOCK AND DAM, WILLIAM                5,560           5,560
 ``BILL'' DANNELLY LA...................
MOBILE HARBOR, AL.......................          17,562          19,562
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AL...........             300             300
ROBERT F HENRY LOCK AND DAM, AL.........           6,183           6,183
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AL.....              95              95
TENNESSEE--TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL AND MS          19,999          19,999
WALTER F GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL AND GA.           7,910           7,910

                 ALASKA

ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK....................           1,794           1,794
CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK...................           1,552           1,552
DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK...................             401             401
HOMER HARBOR, AK........................             188             188
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK.......              35              35
LOWELL CREEK TUNNEL (SEWARD), AK........  ..............           1,000
NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK....................             180             180
NOME HARBOR, AK.........................             460             460
PETERSBURG HARBOR, AK...................              88              88
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK...........             502             502
ST PAUL HARBOR, AK......................             384             384
WRANGELL NARROWS, AK....................           1,024           1,024

                 ARIZONA

ALAMO LAKE, AZ..........................           1,180           1,180
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ.......              75              75
PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ....................           1,118           1,118
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AZ.....              27              27
WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ...................             155             155

                ARKANSAS

BEAVER LAKE, AR.........................           3,702           3,702
BLAKELY MT DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR.......           5,585           5,585
BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR..................           1,117           1,117
BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR....................           5,536           5,536
DARDANELLE LOCK AND DAM, AR.............           5,673           5,673
DEGRAY LAKE, AR.........................           4,167           4,167
DEQUEEN LAKE, AR........................           1,285           1,285
DIERKS LAKE, AR.........................           1,054           1,054
GILLHAM LAKE, AR........................           1,002           1,002
GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR...................           4,946           4,946
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR......             295             295
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR.......             283             283
MCCLELLAN--KERR ARKANSAS RIVER                    25,086          25,086
 NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR..................
MILLWOOD LAKE, AR.......................           1,816           1,816
NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR...........           3,498           3,498
NIMROD LAKE, AR.........................           1,367           1,367
NORFORK LAKE, AR........................           3,803           3,803
OSCEOLA HARBOR, AR......................             523             523
OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR AND LA....           6,538           6,538
OZARK--JETA TAYLOR LOCK AND DAM, AR.....           5,515           5,515
WHITE RIVER, AR.........................           2,363           2,363
YELLOW BEND PORT, AR....................             171             171

               CALIFORNIA

BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA....................           1,844           1,844
BUCHANAN DAM, H V EASTMAN LAKE, CA......           2,055           2,055
CHANNEL ISLANDS HARBOR, CA..............             170             170
COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, CA...           3,877           3,877
DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND                  4,272           4,272
 CHANNEL, CA............................
FARMINGTON DAM, CA......................             332             332
HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA............           2,069           2,069
HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA.............           4,189           4,189
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA.......           1,021           1,021
ISABELLA LAKE MITIGATION, CA............           3,700           3,700
ISABELLA LAKE, CA.......................           1,456           1,456
LOS ANGELES--LONG BEACH HARBOR MODEL, CA             165             165
LOS ANGELES--LONG BEACH HARBORS, CA.....             100             100
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA....           3,940           3,940
MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA...............             277             277
MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA....................             246             246
MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA....................           2,818           2,818
NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA......................           1,894           1,894
NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL, CA           1,081           1,081
NEWPORT BAY HARBOR, CA..................              40              40
NOYO RIVER AND HARBOR, CA...............             758             758
OAKLAND HARBOR, CA......................           8,149           8,149
OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA....................           1,170           1,170
PINE FLAT LAKE, CA......................           2,301           2,301
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA...........           1,138           1,138
RICHMOND HARBOR, CA.....................           5,546           5,546
SACRAMENTO RIVER (30 FOOT PROJECT), CA..           1,656           1,656
SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (DEBRIS           1,149           1,149
 CONTROL), CA...........................
SACRAMENTO RIVER SHALLOW DRAFT CHANNEL,              153             153
 CA.....................................
SAN FRANCISCO BAY, DELTA MODEL                     2,289           2,289
 STRUCTURE, CA..........................
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY (DRIFT                2,473           2,473
 REMOVAL), CA...........................
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA................           2,441           2,441
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, CA...................           1,662           1,662
SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA...............           3,007           3,007
SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA................           1,646           1,646
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CA.....           1,516           1,516
SUCCESS LAKE, CA........................           1,880           1,880
SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA..................           2,995           2,995
TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA...........           1,684           1,684
VENTURA HARBOR, CA......................           2,875           2,875
YUBA RIVER, CA..........................              36              36

                COLORADO

BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO.....................             454             454
CHATFIELD LAKE, CO......................             778             778
CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO...................             530             530
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO.......             129             129
JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO...............           2,051           2,051
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CO.....             300             300
TRINIDAD LAKE, CO.......................             702             702

               CONNECTICUT

BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT.....................             328             328
COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT................             412             412
HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT..................             232             232
HOP BROOK LAKE, CT......................             797             797
MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT...............             512             512
NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT...............             290             290
STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT..........             340             340
THOMASTON DAM, CT.......................             556             556
WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT..................             418             418

                DELAWARE

CEDAR CREEK, DE.........................             265             265
CHESAPEAKE AND DELAWARE CANAL, ST                  4,000           4,000
 GEORGE'S BRIDGE REPL...................
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE R TO              19,518          19,518
 CHESAPEAKE BAY, D......................
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, REHOBOTH BAY TO               456             456
 DELAWARE BAY, D........................
MISPILLION RIVER, DE....................             305             305
MURDERKILL RIVER, DE....................             430             430
WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE...................           3,395           3,395

          DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVERS (DRIFT                  880             880
 REMOVAL), DC...........................
POTOMAC RIVER BELOW WASHINGTON, DC......             985             985
WASHINGTON HARBOR, DC...................              37              37

                 FLORIDA

AIWW, NORFOLK, VA TO ST JOHNS RIVER, FL,              30              30
 GA, SC, NC &...........................
CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL....................           7,332           7,332
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL........           8,470           8,470
FERNANDINA HARBOR, FL...................           2,652           2,652
FORT PIERCE HARBOR, FL..................           1,023           1,023
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL.......             100             100
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, CALOOSAHATCHEE R               50              50
 TO ANCLOTE R,..........................
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, JACKSONVILLE TO             3,286           3,286
 MIAMI, FL..............................
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL.................           7,193           7,193
JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE                    5,699           5,699
 SEMINOLE, FL, AL AND GA................
MANATEE HARBOR, FL......................           2,620           2,620
MIAMI HARBOR, FL........................           4,200           4,200
OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL.................           4,680           4,680
OKLAWAHA RIVER, FL......................              10              10
PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL...................           2,101           2,101
PANAMA CITY HARBOR, FL..................           1,300           1,300
PONCE DE LEON INLET, FL.................           7,696           7,696
PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL..............           2,900           2,900
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL...........             400             400
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL...........           3,130           3,130
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, FL.....              70              70
ST LUCIE INLET, FL......................           2,242           2,242
TAMPA HARBOR, FL........................           7,041           7,041
WITHLACOOCHIE RIVER, FL.................              34              34

                 GEORGIA

ALLATOONA LAKE, GA......................           6,328           6,328
APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT              5,830           5,830
 RIVERS, GA, AL &.......................
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GA......           2,310           2,310
BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA....................           6,231           6,231
BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GA...           7,000           7,000
CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA................           8,150           8,150
HARTWELL LAKE, GA AND SC................           9,500           9,500
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA.......              41              41
J STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA AND SC........           8,750           8,750
RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND             8,000           8,000
 SC.....................................
SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA.....................          13,757          13,757
SAVANNAH RIVER BELOW AUGUSTA, GA........           2,340           2,340
WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA AND AL......           6,200           6,200

                 HAWAII

BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI................             121             121
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI.......             279             279
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI...........             750             750

                  IDAHO

ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID....................           2,759           2,759
DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID..........           2,304           2,304
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID.......              82              82
LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID.....................           1,238           1,238
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ID.....             176             176
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                     63              63
 WATERS, ID.............................

                ILLINOIS

CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL AND IN.....           2,539           2,539
CARLYLE LAKE, IL........................           4,879           4,879
CHICAGO HARBOR, IL......................           5,146           5,146
CHICAGO RIVER, IL.......................             362             362
FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL...............             185             185
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI CANAL, IL......             405             405
ILLINOIS WATERWAY, IL AND IN............          25,368          25,368
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL.......             432             432
KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL..........           1,588           1,588
LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL.............             837             837
LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL....................           5,558           5,558
MISS R BETWEEN MO R AND MINNEAPOLIS, IL,         103,547         105,047
 IA, MN, MO &...........................
NORTH BRANCH CHICAGO RIVER, IL..........             150             150
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL...........              43              43
REND LAKE, IL...........................           3,881           3,881
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                     97              97
 WATERS, IL.............................
WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL.....................             736             736

                 INDIANA

BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN.....................             844             844
BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN...............           1,829           1,829
BURNS WATERWAY SMALL BOAT HARBOR, IN....             266             266
CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN....................             709             709
CECIL M HARDEN LAKE, IN.................             837             837
INDIANA HARBOR, IN......................           1,064           1,064
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN.......              92              92
J EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN.................             802             802
MICHIGAN CITY HARBOR, IN................             213             213
MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN...................             825             825
MONROE LAKE, IN.........................             803             803
PATOKA LAKE, IN.........................             730             730
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN...........              42              42
SALAMONIE LAKE, IN......................             741             741
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                    154             154
 WATERS, IN.............................

                  IOWA

CORALVILLE LAKE, IA.....................           2,755           2,755
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA.......             109             109
MISSOURI RIVER--KENSLERS BEND, NE TO                 211             211
 SIOUX CITY, IA.........................
MISSOURI RIVER--SIOUX CITY TO MOUTH, IA,           7,182           7,182
 NE, KS AND MO..........................
RATHBUN LAKE, IA........................           2,147           2,147
RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA......           3,577           3,577
SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA....................           3,905           3,905

                 KANSAS

CLINTON LAKE, KS........................           1,582           1,582
COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS..................           1,130           1,130
EL DORADO LAKE, KS......................             560             560
ELK CITY LAKE, KS.......................             716             716
FALL RIVER LAKE, KS.....................           1,184           1,184
HILLSDALE LAKE, KS......................             938             938
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KS.......             275             275
JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS......             975           1,500
KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS......................           1,370           1,370
MARION LAKE, KS.........................           1,331           1,331
MELVERN LAKE, KS........................           2,016           2,016
MILFORD LAKE, KS........................           1,856           1,856
PEARSON--SKUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS......             900             900
PERRY LAKE, KS..........................           2,089           2,089
POMONA LAKE, KS.........................           1,752           1,752
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, KS.....             347             347
TORONTO LAKE, KS........................             468             468
TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS...................           1,767           1,767
WILSON LAKE, KS.........................           1,731           1,731

                KENTUCKY

BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY AND TN.           7,382           7,382
BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY...................           2,057           2,057
BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY....................           1,170           1,170
BUCKHORN LAKE, KY.......................           1,209           1,209
CARR CREEK LAKE, KY.....................           1,364           1,364
CAVE RUN LAKE, KY.......................             819             819
DEWEY LAKE, KY..........................           1,293           1,293
ELVIS STAHR (HICKMAN) HARBOR, KY........             340             340
FISHTRAP LAKE, KY.......................           1,609           1,609
GRAYSON LAKE, KY........................           1,113           1,113
GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY.............           1,142           1,142
GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY....................           1,826           1,826
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY.......             112             112
KENTUCKY RIVER, KY......................           1,084           1,084
LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY...................           1,780           1,780
LICKING RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY.....              17              17
MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY...................             662             662
MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KY..              76              76
NOLIN LAKE, KY..........................           1,907           1,907
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, IN,            83,884          83,884
 OH, PA AND WV..........................
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, IL,              5,789           5,789
 IN, OH, PA AND WV......................
PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY....................             932             932
ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY....................           1,625           1,625
TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY...................           1,043           1,043
WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY.....           5,345           5,345
YATESVILLE LAKE, KY.....................           1,071           1,071

                LOUISIANA

ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE,               12,631          12,631
 BOEUF AND BLACK, L.....................
BARATARIA BAY WATERWAY, LA..............           2,119           2,119
BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA..............             509             509
BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP                     5               5
 WATERWAY, LA...........................
BAYOU PIERRE, LA........................              25              25
BAYOU TECHE AND VERMILION RIVER, LA.....              32              32
BAYOU TECHE, LA.........................             212             212
CADDO LAKE, LA..........................             127             127
CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA............           7,560           7,560
FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA....................           3,585           3,585
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA..........          12,506          12,506
HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA..............           3,443           3,443
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA.......             260             260
LAKE PROVIDENCE HARBOR, LA..............             579             579
MADISON PARISH PORT, LA.................              93              93
MERMENTAU RIVER, LA.....................           2,445           2,445
MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT VENICE, LA.           2,743           2,743
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE             64,430          64,430
 GULF OF MEXICO,........................
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, GULF OUTLET, LA......          14,989          14,989
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, LA...........              80              80
RED RIVER WATERWAY, MISSISSIPPI RIVER TO           8,781          10,781
 SHREVEPORT, L..........................
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA...........           2,270           2,270
WALLACE LAKE, LA........................             209             209

                  MAINE

PORTLAND HARBOR, ME.....................           6,985           6,985
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME...........           1,030           1,030
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                     17              17
 WATERS, ME.............................

                MARYLAND

BALTIMORE HARBOR (DRIFT REMOVAL), MD....             440             440
BALTIMORE HARBOR (PREVENTION OF                      625             625
 OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS)..................
BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 FOOT),          16,142          16,142
 MD.....................................
CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV.........             140             140
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD.......             324             324
JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD AND WV.......           1,616           1,616
KNAPPS NARROWS, MD......................             770             770
NANTICOKE RIVER NORTHWEST FORK, MD......             850             850
NORTHEAST RIVER, MD.....................             770             770
OCEAN CITY HARBOR AND INLET AND                      380             380
 SINEPUXENT BAY, MD.....................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD...........             450             450
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MD.....             143             143
TOLCHESTER CHANNEL, MD..................           5,800           5,800
WICOMICO RIVER, MD......................             895             895

              MASSACHUSETTS

BARRE FALLS DAM, MA.....................             494             494
BIRCH HILL DAM, MA......................             423             423
BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA....................             443             443
CAPE COD CANAL, MA......................          10,816          10,816
CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY STORAGE                 202             202
 AREA, MA...............................
CHATHAM (STAGE) HARBOR, MA..............             215             215
CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA...................             168             168
CUTTYHUNK HARBOR, MA....................             118             118
EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA.................             375             375
GREEN HARBOR, MA........................             332             332
HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA..................             381             381
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA.......             125             125
KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA.....................             362             362
LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA....................             395             395
NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET                   280             280
 HURRICANE BARRIER,.....................
NEW BEDFORD HARBOR, MA..................             230             230
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA...........           3,227           3,227
SALEM HARBOR, MA........................             175             175
TULLY LAKE, MA..........................             391             391
WEST HILL DAM, MA.......................             550             550
WESTVILLE LAKE, MA......................             414             414

                MICHIGAN

ALPENA HARBOR, MI.......................             441             441
ARCADIA HARBOR, MI......................              68              68
BAY PORT HARBOR, MI.....................             227             227
CASEVILLE HARBOR, MI....................             333             333
CHANNELS IN LAKE ST CLAIR, MI...........             512             512
CHARLEVOIX HARBOR, MI...................             133             133
CLINTON RIVER, MI.......................             368             368
DETROIT RIVER, MI.......................           3,235           3,235
FRANKFORT HARBOR, MI....................             363             363
GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI..................             615             615
GRAND TRAVERSE BAY HARBOR, MI...........             345             345
HARRISVILLE HARBOR, MI..................             142             142
HOLLAND HARBOR, MI......................             379             379
INLAND ROUTE, MI........................              43              43
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI.......             205             205
KEWEENAW WATERWAY, MI...................             291             291
LAC LA BELLE, MI........................             156             156
LELAND HARBOR, MI.......................             156             156
LEXINGTON HARBOR, MI....................             247             247
LITTLE LAKE HARBOR, MI..................              97              97
LUDINGTON HARBOR, MI....................           1,152           1,152
MANISTEE HARBOR, MI.....................              52              52
MANISTIQUE HARBOR, MI...................           1,356           1,356
MENOMINEE HARBOR, MI AND WI.............              28              28
MONROE HARBOR, MI.......................             137             137
MUSKEGON HARBOR, MI.....................             120             120
NEW BUFFALO HARBOR, MI..................             444             444
ONTONAGON HARBOR, MI....................             400             400
PENTWATER HARBOR, MI....................           1,708           1,708
POINT LOOKOUT HARBOR, MI................             328             328
PORTAGE LAKE HARBOR, MI.................             579             579
PRESQUE ISLE HARBOR, MI.................             134             134
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI...........             195             195
ROUGE RIVER, MI.........................              57              57
SAGINAW RIVER, MI.......................           1,387           1,387
SAUGATUCK HARBOR, MI....................           2,042           2,042
SEBEWAING RIVER (ICE JAM REMOVAL), MI...              10              10
SOUTH HAVEN HARBOR, MI..................             488             488
ST CLAIR RIVER, MI......................           1,064           1,064
ST JOSEPH HARBOR, MI....................             667             667
ST MARYS RIVER, MI......................          21,957          21,957
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                  2,426           2,426
 WATERS, MI.............................
WHITE LAKE HARBOR, MI...................             324             324
WHITEFISH POINT HARBOR, MI..............             115             115

                MINNESOTA

BIGSTONE LAKE WHETSTONE RIVER, MN AND SD             209             209
DULUTH--SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN AND WI......           2,480           2,480
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN.......             161             161
LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA RIVER, MN             527             527
MINNESOTA RIVER, MN.....................             155             155
ORWELL LAKE, MN.........................             561             561
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN...........              57              57
RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN..................             242             242
RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF MISSISSIPPI            3,219           3,219
 RIVER, MN..............................
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                     64              64
 WATERS, MN.............................

               MISSISSIPPI

BILOXI HARBOR, MS.......................              15              15
CLAIBORNE COUNTY PORT, MS...............             108             108
EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS..........             150             150
GULFPORT HARBOR, MS.....................           2,216           2,216
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS.......             360             360
MOUTH OF YAZOO RIVER, MS................             104             104
OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS......................           1,620           1,620
PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS...................           3,417           3,417
PEARL RIVER, MS AND LA..................             263             263
ROSEDALE HARBOR, MS.....................           1,034           1,034
YAZOO RIVER, MS.........................              15              15

                MISSOURI

CARUTHERSVILLE HARBOR, MO...............             200             200
CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE,           5,174           5,174
 MO.....................................
CLEARWATER LAKE, MO.....................           2,248           2,248
HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO....           8,613           8,613
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO.......             669             669
LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO.............             825             825
LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO....................             801             801
MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS            13,544          13,544
 (REG WORKS), MO........................
NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO...................             269             269
POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO.................           1,888           1,888
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MO...........              30              30
SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO.....................           1,083           1,083
SOUTHEAST MISSOURI PORT, MISSISSIPPI                 421             421
 RIVER, MO..............................
STOCKTON LAKE, MO.......................           3,247           3,247
TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO.....................           5,963           5,963
WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO.....................              20              20

                 MONTANA

FT PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT................           3,842           3,842
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MT.......              21              21
LIBBY DAM, LAKE KOOCANUSA, MT...........           2,520           2,520
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MT.....              48              48
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                     67              67
 WATERS, MT.............................

                NEBRASKA

GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK LAKE,            7,184           7,184
 NE AND SD..............................
HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE..................           2,379           2,379
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NE.......             150             150
MISSOURI R MASTER WTR CONTROL MANUAL,                900             900
 NE, IA, KS, MO,........................
MISSOURI NATIONAL RIVER.................  ..............             250
MISSOURI RIVER BASIN COLLABORATIVE WATER             250             250
 PLANNING, NE...........................
PAPILLION CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES LAKES,               678             678
 NE.....................................
SALT CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, NE..........             796             796
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NE.....             106             106

                 NEVADA

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV.......              37              37
MARTIS CREEK LAKE, NV AND CA............             532             532
PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV......             181             181

              NEW HAMPSHIRE

BLACKWATER DAM, NH......................             361             361
EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH...............             394             394
FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH..................             502             502
HOPKINTON--EVERETT LAKES, NH............             941             941
OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH....................             479             479
PORTSMOUTH HARBOR, PISCATAQUA RIVER, NH.  ..............              20
SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH.................             485             485

               NEW JERSEY

BARNEGAT INLET, NJ......................           1,270           1,270
COLD SPRING INLET, NJ...................             545             545
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE SEA,          15,356          16,856
 NJ, PA AND DE..........................
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO                3,280           3,280
 TRENTON, NJ............................
NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NJ....           1,854           1,854
NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC                   165             165
 RIVERS, NJ.............................
RARITAN RIVER TO ARTHUR KILL CUT-OFF, NJ             700             700
RARITAN RIVER, NJ.......................           1,191           1,191
SHREWSBURY RIVER, MAIN CHANNEL, NJ......              70              70

               NEW MEXICO

ABIQUIU DAM, NM.........................           1,198           1,198
COCHITI LAKE, NM........................           1,926           1,926
CONCHAS LAKE, NM........................           1,150           1,150
GALISTEO DAM, NM........................             315             315
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM.......             103             103
JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM....................             600             600
SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM.............             836             836
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NM.....             115             115
TWO RIVERS DAM, NM......................             303             303
UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS MODEL.  ..............             800

                NEW YORK

ALMOND LAKE, NY.........................             451             451
ARKPORT DAM, NY.........................             228             228
BAY RIDGE AND RED HOOK CHANNELS, NY.....              70              70
BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR,           1,053           1,053
 NY.....................................
BRONX RIVER, NY.........................              70              70
BUFFALO HARBOR, NY......................           1,425           1,425
BUTTERMILK CHANNEL, NY..................             700             700
CATTARAUGUS CREEK HARBOR, NY............              50              50
DUNKIRK HARBOR, NY......................             510             510
EAST RIVER, NY..........................             150             150
EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY.................             250             250
EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY....................             463             463
EASTCHESTER CREEK, NY...................           2,000           2,000
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY....             505             505
FIRE ISLAND INLET, NY...................             810             810
FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY..............             325             325
GLEN COVE CREEK, NY.....................             125             125
GREAT SODUS BAY HARBOR, NY..............             200             200
GREAT SOUTH BAY, NY.....................              40              40
HUDSON RIVER CHANNEL, NY................             200             200
HUDSON RIVER, NY........................           2,575           2,575
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY.......             808             808
JAMAICA BAY, NY.........................             250             250
JONES INLET, NY.........................           1,200           1,200
LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR, NY.................              60              60
LONG ISLAND INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NY...             200             200
MATTITUCK HARBOR, NY....................             220             220
MORICHES INLET, NY......................              70              70
MT MORRIS LAKE, NY......................           3,975           3,975
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS, NY....             953             953
NEW YORK HARBOR (DRIFT REMOVAL), NY AND            4,955           4,955
 NJ.....................................
NEW YORK HARBOR (PREVENTION OF                       740             740
 OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS),.................
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY.....................           6,105           6,105
OSWEGO HARBOR, NY.......................             395             395
PORTCHESTER HARBOR, NY..................              60              60
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY...........           1,706           1,706
ROCHESTER HARBOR, NY....................             815             815
ROUSES POINT, NY........................              25              25
SAG HARBOR, NY..........................             800             800
SHINNECOCK INLET, NY....................             100             100
SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL                      728             728
 PROJECTS, NY...........................
STURGEON POINT HARBOR, NY...............              15              15
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                    565             565
 WATERS, NY.............................
WESTCHESTER CREEK, NY...................              70              70
WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY..................             542             542

             NORTH CAROLINA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NC......           5,552           5,552
B EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC.......           1,346           1,346
BOGUE INLET AND CHANNEL, NC.............             550             550
CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC....             707             707
CAROLINA BEACH INLET, NC................           1,346           1,346
FALLS LAKE, NC..........................           1,029           1,029
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC.......              22              22
LOCKWOODS FOLLY RIVER, NC...............             380             380
MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC.............           4,998           4,998
MASONBORO INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS,              45              45
 NC.....................................
MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC................           3,709           3,709
NEW RIVER INLET, NC.....................             825             825
NEW TOPSAIL INLET AND CONNECTING                     210             210
 CHANNELS, NC...........................
PAMLICO AND TAR RIVERS, NC..............             139             139
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC...........              59              59
ROANOKE RIVER, NC.......................             100             100
W KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC......           1,660           1,660
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC...................           6,431           6,431

              NORTH DAKOTA

BOWMAN--HALEY LAKE, ND..................             204             204
GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND........           7,997           8,097
HOMME LAKE, ND..........................             174             174
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND.......              13              13
LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND.....           1,460           1,460
PIPESTEM LAKE, ND.......................             802             802
SOURIS RIVER, ND........................             368             368

                  OHIO

ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH.....................             667             667
ASHTABULA HARBOR, OH....................             845             845
BERLIN LAKE, OH.........................           4,503           4,503
CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH...................           1,228           1,228
CLARENCE J BROWN DAM, OH................             719             719
CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH....................           5,535           5,535
CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH.....................           1,352           1,352
DEER CREEK LAKE, OH.....................             670             670
DELAWARE LAKE, OH.......................           1,917           1,917
DILLON LAKE, OH.........................             746             746
FAIRPORT HARBOR, OH.....................             481             481
HURON HARBOR, OH........................             840             840
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH.......             228             228
LORAIN HARBOR, OH.......................             790             790
MASSILLON LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH..              25              25
MICHAEL J KIRWAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, OH..           1,200           1,200
MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH.................           1,422           1,422
MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH...............           7,078           7,078
NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, OH....             327             327
PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH....................             673             673
PORTSMOUTH HARBOR, OH...................              80              80
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH...........              74              74
ROCKY RIVER, OH.........................             340             340
ROSEVILLE LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH..              30              30
SANDUSKY HARBOR, OH.....................           1,037           1,037
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                    174             174
 WATERS, OH.............................
TOLEDO HARBOR, OH.......................           3,385           3,385
TOM JENKINS DAM, OH.....................             279             279
WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH........             574             574
WILLIAM H HARSHA LAKE, OH...............             856             856

                OKLAHOMA

ARCADIA LAKE, OK........................             403             403
BIRCH LAKE, OK..........................             611             611
BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK.....................           1,508           1,508
CANDY LAKE, OK..........................              30              30
CANTON LAKE, OK.........................           2,497           2,497
COPAN LAKE, OK..........................           1,020           1,020
EUFAULA LAKE, OK........................           7,366           7,366
FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK....................           4,034           4,034
FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK....................             751             751
GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK..............             259             259
HEYBURN LAKE, OK........................             697             697
HUGO LAKE, OK...........................           1,404           1,404
HULAH LAKE, OK..........................             491             491
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OK.......              91              91
KAW LAKE, OK............................           2,740           2,740
KEYSTONE LAKE, OK.......................           6,543           6,543
OOLOGAH LAKE, OK........................           2,947           3,447
OPTIMA LAKE, OK.........................              74              74
PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE                      32              32
 CHEROKEES, OK..........................
PINE CREEK LAKE, OK.....................           1,414           1,414
ROBERT S KERR LOCK AND DAM AND                     4,501           4,501
 RESERVOIRS, OK.........................
SARDIS LAKE, OK.........................           1,287           1,287
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OK.....             369             369
SKIATOOK LAKE, OK.......................           1,084           1,084
TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK................           3,400           3,400
WAURIKA LAKE, OK........................           1,997           1,997
WEBBERS FALLS LOCK AND DAM, OK..........           3,066           3,066
WISTER LAKE, OK.........................             679             679

                 OREGON

APPLEGATE LAKE, OR......................             872             872
BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR.....................             297             297
BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA......           5,747           5,747
CHETCO RIVER, OR........................             442             442
COLUMBIA AND LWR WILLAMETTE R BLW                 15,173          17,473
 VANCOUVER, WA AND PORTLA...............
COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR AND WA..           7,426           7,426
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA AND             356             356
 THE DALLES, O..........................
COOS BAY, OR............................           4,112           4,112
COQUILLE RIVER, OR......................             434             434
COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR..................             913             913
COUGAR LAKE, OR.........................             690             690
DEPOE BAY, OR...........................             178             178
DETROIT LAKE, OR........................             609             609
DORENA LAKE, OR.........................             556             556
FALL CREEK LAKE, OR.....................             433             433
FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR.....................             997             997
GREEN PETER--FOSTER LAKES, OR...........           1,001           1,001
HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR....................             334             334
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR.......             163             163
JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA........           3,450           3,450
LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR..................           1,692           1,692
LOST CREEK LAKE, OR.....................           3,594           3,594
MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA..........           4,501           4,501
PORT ORFORD, OR.........................             737             787
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR...........             137             137
ROGUE RIVER, OR.........................             866             866
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OR.....             105             105
SIUSLAW RIVER, OR.......................             809             809
SKIPANON CHANNEL, OR....................           1,013           1,013
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                      7               7
 WATERS, OR.............................
TILLAMOOK BAY AND BAR, OR...............              14              14
UMPQUA RIVER, OR........................           1,254           1,254
WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS, OR             514             514
WILLAMETTE RIVER BANK PROTECTION, OR....              66              66
WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR...................             637             637
YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR..............           3,691           3,691

              PENNSYLVANIA

ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA.....................           9,789           9,789
ALVIN R BUSH DAM, PA....................             749             749
AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA...............             232             232
BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA.....................             875             875
BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA.....................           2,002           2,002
CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA................             940             940
COWANESQUE LAKE, PA.....................           1,824           1,824
CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA..................           2,312           2,312
CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA...................             669             669
EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA......             884             884
ERIE HARBOR, PA.........................             123             123
FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA............             712             712
FRANCIS E WALTER DAM, PA................             796             796
GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND RESERVOIR,              248             248
 PA.....................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA.......             143             143
JOHNSTOWN, PA...........................              13              13
KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PA..           1,388           1,388
LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA.....................           1,086           1,086
MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA.................             879             879
MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA...................          12,395          12,395
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA...........              86              86
PROMPTON LAKE, PA.......................             935             935
PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA........................              13              13
RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA.......................           3,042           3,042
SCHUYLKILL RIVER, PA....................           2,565           2,565
SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA.................           2,121           2,121
STILLWATER LAKE, PA.....................             387             387
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                     70              70
 WATERS, PA.............................
TIOGA--HAMMOND LAKES, PA................           1,968           1,968
TIONESTA LAKE, PA.......................           2,075           2,075
UNION CITY LAKE, PA.....................             259             259
WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA.................             796             796
YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA................             542             542
YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA AND MD......           2,184           2,184

              RHODE ISLAND

BLOCK ISLAND HARBOR OF REFUGE, RI.......             675             675
PROVIDENCE RIVER AND HARBOR, RI.........           3,906           3,906

             SOUTH CAROLINA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC......           3,391           3,391
CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC...................           5,779           5,779
COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC.....           3,375           3,375
FOLLY RIVER, SC.........................             236             236
GEORGETOWN HARBOR, SC...................           4,064           4,064
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC.......              26              26
PORT ROYAL HARBOR, SC...................           1,424           1,424
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC...........              75              75
SHIPYARD RIVER, SC......................             811             811
TOWN CREEK, SC..........................             345             345

              SOUTH DAKOTA

BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD...........           6,853           6,853
COLD BROOK LAKE, SD.....................             644             644
COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD.............             223             223
FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS CASE, SD.           8,091           8,091
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SD.......              13              13
LAKE TRAVERSE, SD AND MN................             642             642
MISSOURI R BETWEEN FORT PECK DAM AND                 130             130
 GAVINS PT, SD, MT......................
OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD AND ND..........          10,812          10,812
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, SD.....              61              61

                TENNESSEE

CENTER HILL LAKE, TN....................           5,167           5,167
CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN...............           5,704           5,704
CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN......           4,220           4,220
DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN....................           4,200           4,200
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN.......               4               4
J PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN....           3,396           3,396
OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN............           6,006           6,006
TENNESSEE RIVER, TN.....................          16,123          16,123
WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN...................             388             388

                  TEXAS

AQUILLA LAKE, TX........................             602             602
ARKANSAS--RED RIVER BASINS CHLORIDE                1,242           1,242
 CONTROL--AREA VI.......................
BARBOUR TERMINAL CHANNEL, TX............           1,000           1,000
BARDWELL LAKE, TX.......................           1,436           1,436
BAYPORT SHIP CHANNEL, TX................           1,625           1,625
BELTON LAKE, TX.........................           2,542           2,542
BENBROOK LAKE, TX.......................           1,896           1,896
BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TX................           1,062           1,062
BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX.......           2,034           2,034
CANYON LAKE, TX.........................           2,265           2,265
CEDAR BAYOU, TX.........................           1,131           1,131
CHANNEL TO HARLINGEN, TX................             950             950
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX.........           4,690           4,690
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, BARGE        ..............             400
 LANES, TX..............................
DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX............           6,728           6,728
ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT,               14              14
 TX.....................................
FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O' THE PINES,            2,288           2,288
 TX.....................................
FREEPORT HARBOR, TX.....................           5,100           5,100
GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX........           1,985           1,985
GIWW, CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX...........             315             315
GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX................           1,652           1,652
GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX......................           2,267           2,267
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX..........          23,072          23,072
HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX....................           1,201           1,201
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX................           6,416           6,416
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX.......             854             854
JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX....................           1,045           1,045
JOE POOL LAKE, TX.......................             740             740
LAKE KEMP, TX...........................             154             154
LAVON LAKE, TX..........................           2,390           2,390
LEWISVILLE DAM, TX......................           3,123           3,123
MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX..............           3,780           3,780
MOUTH OF THE COLORADO RIVER, TX.........           2,950           2,950
NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX..................           1,456           1,456
NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE                     1,934           1,934
 GEORGETOWN, TX.........................
O C FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX.............           1,488           1,488
PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX......................           1,974           1,974
PROCTOR LAKE, TX........................           1,490           1,490
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TX...........              50              50
RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX....................           1,093           1,093
SABINE--NECHES WATERWAY, TX.............           9,500           9,500
SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX.......           4,572           4,572
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, TX.....             235             235
SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX.....................           2,508           2,508
STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX...............           2,006           2,006
TOWN BLUFF DAM, B A STEINHAGEN LAKE, TX.           2,062           2,062
WACO LAKE, TX...........................           2,907           2,907
WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX....................           1,090           1,090
WHITNEY LAKE, TX........................           5,088           5,088
WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX..........           2,587           2,587

                  UTAH

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT.......              63              63
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, UT.....             414             414

                 VERMONT

BALL MOUNTAIN LAKE, VT..................             703             703
BURLINGTON HARBOR BREAKWATER, VT........             160           1,300
NARROWS OF LAKE CHAMPLAIN, VT AND NY....             536             536
NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT.................             511             511
NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT..............             631             631
TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT......................             724             724
UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT...................             520             520

                VIRGINIA

APPOMATTOX RIVER, VA....................             391             391
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, VA......           2,364           2,364
CHANNEL TO NEWPORT NEWS, VA.............              45              45
CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA..................             842             842
GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA.......           1,566           1,566
HAMPTON RDS, NORFOLK AND NEWPORT NEWS                920             920
 HBR, VA (DRIFT REM.....................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA.......              59              59
JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA.................           3,983           3,983
JOHN H KERR LAKE, VA AND NC.............          11,190          11,190
JOHN W FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA..           1,347           1,347
NORFOLK HARBOR (PREVENTION OF                        282             282
 OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS), V...............
NORFOLK HARBOR, VA......................           5,815           5,815
NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA......             340             340
PAGAN RIVER, VA.........................             145             145
PHILPOTT LAKE, VA.......................           2,252           2,252
POTOMAC RIVER AT ALEXANDRIA, VA.........             660             660
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA...........             630             630
RUDEE INLET, VA.........................           1,002           1,002
TANGIER CHANNEL, VA.....................             648             648
THIMBLE SHOAL CHANNEL, VA...............           3,347           3,347
WATERWAY ON THE COAST OF VIRGINIA, VA...           1,185           1,185

               WASHINGTON

BELLINGHAM HARBOR, WA...................             512             512
CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA....................             811             811
COLUMBIA RIVER AT BAKER BAY, WA AND OR..             450             450
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN CHINOOK AND SAND                6               6
 ISLAND, WA.............................
EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WA..           1,225           1,225
FRIDAY HARBOR, WA.......................             300             300
GRAYS HARBOR AND CHEHALIS RIVER, WA.....          13,150          16,150
HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA...................           1,710           1,710
ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA.............           2,791           2,791
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA.......             177             177
LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA..........           8,530           8,530
LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, WA...........           1,138           1,138
LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, WA..........           5,920           5,920
LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA.......           1,801           1,801
MILL CREEK LAKE, WA.....................             870             870
MT ST HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA.......             409             409
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA....................           3,157           3,157
OLYMPIA HARBOR, WA......................             927             927
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA...........             308             308
PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, WA....           1,041           1,041
QUILLAYUTE RIVER, WA....................           1,061           1,061
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WA.....             453             453
SEATTLE HARBOR, EAST WATERWAY CHANNEL              3,400           3,400
 DEEPENING, WA..........................
SEATTLE HARBOR, WA......................             727             727
STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA.................             195             195
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                     59              59
 WATERS, WA.............................
TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA..............              72              72
THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM, WA AND OR......           2,402           2,402
WILLAPA RIVER AND HARBOR, WA............             727             727

              WEST VIRGINIA

BEECH FORK LAKE, WV.....................           1,076           1,076
BLUESTONE LAKE, WV......................           1,218           1,218
BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV.....................           1,390           1,390
EAST LYNN LAKE, WV......................           1,585           1,585
ELKINS, WV..............................              16              16
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV.......              84              84
KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV........           7,314           7,314
R D BAILEY LAKE, WV.....................           1,643           1,643
STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV..............             937             937
SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV...................           1,505           1,505
SUTTON LAKE, WV.........................           1,648           1,648
TYGART LAKE, WV.........................           1,923           1,923

                WISCONSIN

ALGOMA HARBOR, WI.......................             107             107
ASHLAND HARBOR, WI......................             195             195
BIG SUAMICO HARBOR, WI..................             368             368
EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI................             685             685
FOX RIVER, WI...........................           3,487           3,487
GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI....................             996             996
KENOSHA HARBOR, WI......................             494             494
KEWAUNEE HARBOR, WI.....................              69              69
LA FARGE LAKE, WI.......................              52              52
MANITOWOC HARBOR, WI....................             226             226
MILWAUKEE HARBOR, WI....................             832             832
OCONTO HARBOR, WI.......................             168             168
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WI...........              93              93
SHEBOYGAN HARBOR, WI....................             230             230
STURGEON BAY HARBOR AND LAKE MICHIGAN                507             507
 SHIP CANAL, WI.........................
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                    707             707
 WATERS, WI.............................
TWO RIVERS HARBOR, WI...................             117             117

                 WYOMING

JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY.................           1,126           1,126
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WY.....             288             288

              MISCELLANEOUS

COASTAL INLET RESEARCH PROGRAM..........           3,000           2,500
CULTURAL RESOURCES (NAGPRA/CURATION)....           2,000           1,500
DREDGE WHEELER READY RESERVE............          12,450           6,450
DREDGING DATA AND LOCK PERFORMANCE                 1,085             500
 MONITORING SYSTEM......................
DREDGING OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL              8,000           5,000
 RESEARCH (DOER)........................
DREDGING OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT              2,500           1,500
 (DOTS) PROGRAM.........................
EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS PROGRAM FOR BUILDINGS             500             500
 AND LIFELINES..........................
HARBOR MAINTENANCE FEE DATA COLLECTION..             575             575
MANAGEMENT TOOLS FOR O&M................;             975             500
MONITORING OF COASTAL NAVIGATION                   2,000           1,000
 PROJECTS...............................
NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM.............              40              40
NATIONAL DAM SECURITY PROGRAM...........              20              20
NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAMS           6,000           5,000
 (NEPP).................................
NATIONAL RECREATION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT             1,850           1,000
 (NRMS) PROGRAM.........................
PERFORMANCE BASED BUDGETING SUPPORT                1,365             750
 PROGRAM................................
PROTECT, CLEAR AND STRAIGHTEN CHANNELS                50              50
 (SECTION 3)............................
RELIABILITY MODELS PROGRAM FOR MAJOR                 675             500
 REHABILITATION.........................
REMOVAL OF SUNKEN VESSELS...............             500             500
WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT                   950             750
 (WOTS) PROGRAM.........................
WATERBORNE COMMERCE STATISTICS..........           4,542           4,000
WETLANDS FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT                     1,000           1,000
 METHODOLOGY............................
ZEBRA MUSSEL CONTROL....................           1,500  ..............
REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND            -19,284         -64,284
 SLIPPAGE...............................
                                         -------------------------------
      TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE..       1,835,900       1,790,043
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. As more and more projects 
enter the inventory and budgetary constraints continue, it is 
clear that the Corps will need to find innovated ways to 
accomplish required maintenance work while reducing operational 
and other costs. Adjustment in lower priority programs and 
noncritical work should be made in conjunction with efforts to 
optimize the use of the limited resources in order to maximize 
the public benefit.
    Mississippi River Between Missouri River and Minneapolis, 
MN (Sny Island), IL.--The Committee has included an additional 
$1,500,000 for the Corps to advance the Sny Island levee 
stabilization work being undertaken as part of the Mississippi 
River Between Missouri River and Minneapolis, MN project.
    John Redmond Dam and Reservoir, KS.--The Committee has 
included an additional $525,000 for the Corps to study raising 
the conservation pool at John Redmond Dam and Reservoir, KS.
    J. Bennett Johnston (Red River) Waterway, Mississippi River 
to Shreveport, LA.--The Committee has provided an additional 
$2,000,000 over the budget request for the J. Bennett Johnston 
Waterway, LA, project for the Corps to undertake repairs to 
Locks and Dams 1, 2, 4, and 5, and other maintenance work.
    Missouri River Between Fort Peck and Culbertson, MT, Bank 
Stabilization.--The Corps of Engineers is urged to consider 
non-traditional means to combat bank erosion along the Missouri 
River between the communities of Fort Peck and Culbertson, MT.
    Upper Rio Grande water operation model, NM.--The Committee 
has provide $800,000 for the Corps to complete the water 
operation model, update the water control manual, and begin 
activities related to preparation of an EIS for the Upper Rio 
Grande Basin water operations review.
    Oologah Lake, OK.--The Committee has included $500,000 over 
the budget request for the Corps to initiate in-lake water 
quality and reservoir water quality modeling at Oolagah Lake, 
OK. The Committee expects the Corps to coordinate and consult 
with the Bureau of Reclamation and the State of New Mexico.
    Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea, ND.--The Committee 
recommendation for the Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea project in 
North Dakota includes $100,000 for the Corps to continue 
mosquito control activities.
    Little River Harbor, NH.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $35,000 to complete an environmental assessment, 
prepare plans and specifications and coordinate with State and 
Federal agencies for the purpose of proceeding with maintenance 
dredging.
    Portsmouth Harbor, Piscataqua River, NH.--The Committee has 
included $20,000 over the budget request for the Corps to 
coordinate with State and Federal agencies, seek State 
approvals and prepare plans and specifications for maintenance 
dredging at Portsmouth Harbor, Piscataqua River, NH.
    Delaware River, Philadelphia to the sea (Pea Patch Island), 
NJ and DE.--The Committee has provided an additional $1,500,000 
for the Corps to continue construction of facilities to control 
erosion of the shoreline in the vicinity of Pea Patch Island 
located in the Delaware River east of Delaware City, DE.
    Columbia and Lower Willamette River Below Vancouver, OR and 
WA.--The Committee recommendation includes an additional 
$2,300,000 to repair approximately 200 feet of deteriorated 
breakwater at Astoria East Boat Basin.
    Port Orford, OR.--An additional $50,000 over the budget 
request is recommended for the Corps to initiate studies and 
data collection required for ocean disposal of dredge material 
at Port Orford, OR.
    Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Barge Lanes, TX.--The 
Committee has included $400,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
initiate and complete a study to determine solutions and/or 
alternatives to traffic and safety issues related to barge 
traffic in the Corpus Christi Ship Channel, TX.
    Burlington Harbor Breakwater, VT.--The Committee has 
provided $1,300,000 over the budget request for the Corps to 
initiate reconstruction of the bulkhead at Burlington Harbor, 
VT.
    Columbia River navigation channel, Oregon and Washington.--
The Committee is aware that the authorized 40-foot Columbia 
River navigation channel is subject to shoaling at a number of 
locations in the river, causing restrictions in channel draft. 
The Committee directs the Corps to use its existing authorities 
to dredge a 5-foot overdraft; and, when appropriate, to conduct 
advance maintenance dredging to assure that project depth of 40 
feet is maintained to the maximum extent possible.
    Grays Harbor and Chehalis River, WA.--The Committee has 
included $16,150,000 for the Grays Harbor and Chehalis River, 
WA project, including $3,000,000 for the Corps to initiate 
reconstruction of the North Jetty at Grays Harbor.
    In addition, the attention of the Corps of Engineers is 
directed to the following projects in need of maintenance or 
review and for which the Committee has received requests: the 
need for additional maintenance dredging at Humboldt Harbor, 
CA; additional maintenance dredging of Bayou Segnette, LA; for 
additional maintenance dredging of the Intracoastal Waterway in 
South Carolina from Georgetown to Little River, and from Port 
Royal to Little River; dredging at the entrance channel at 
Murrells Inlet, SC; additional dredging for the Lower Winyah 
Bay and Gorge in Georgetown Harbor, SC as appropriate.
    Funding Adjustments.--The Committee has recommended 
additional reductions over that proposed in the budget request 
in order to bring the bill in compliance with the allocations 
required by Congressional budget caps and to correct 
programmatic imbalances proposed in the President's fiscal year 
2000 request. It is the Committee's intent that the General 
Provision requiring proportional reductions shall not apply to 
the additional amount. To the extent feasible, it is the 
Committee's intent that this amount be applied to deepdraft 
harbor and navigation projects.
    The Committee notes that maintaining the hopper dredge 
Wheeler in ready reserve status, in accordance with section 237 
of Public Law 104-303, to ensure the vessel's ability to 
perform emergency work, involves costs estimated at $12,450,000 
per year. While the Committee supports measures to increase the 
use of private sector hopper dredges, budget constraints do not 
allow the appropriation of the full amount needed for 
maintaining the dredge in ready reserve. The Committee also 
believes, based on dredging requirements experienced in recent 
years, that it is likely for some or all of the Dredge 
Wheeler's capacity to be required for project maintenance. 
Accordingly, the Committee has reduced the amount requested for 
ready reserve status to $6,450,000 and expects the Dredge 
Wheeler to perform work to make up the difference in expected 
allocations. If during the year, the need for the Dredge 
Wheeler does not materialize so that the amount appropriated 
for ready reserve is insufficient to pay all ready reserve 
costs, the Corps is directed to reduce hopper dredging work 
proportionately based on capacity in order to keep the Dredge 
Wheeler in ready reserve.

                           regulatory program

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $106,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     117,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     115,000,000

    An appropriation of $115,000,000 is recommended for 
regulatory programs of the Corps of Engineers.
    This appropriation provides for salaries and related costs 
to administer laws pertaining to regulation of navigable waters 
and wetlands of the United States in accordance with the Rivers 
and Harbors Act of 1899, the Clean Water Act of 1977, and the 
Marine Protection Act of 1972.
    The Committee is disappointed with the Administration's 
total disregard to the directions of the Congress to implement 
an administrative appeal process for which funding was 
provided. This has forced the Committee to recommend language 
in the bill to require the establishment of an appeals process 
for a single-level appeal of jurisdictional determinations as 
directed in prior years.
    The Committee recommendation also includes $3,000,000 as 
proposed in the budget for personnel and other labor costs to 
help mitigate the delays and other impacts being experienced by 
the public from a workload which is at an all-time high.

                 Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies

Appropriations, 1999....................................................
Budget estimate, 2000...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

    This activity provides for flood emergency preparation, 
flood fighting and rescue operations, and repair of flood 
control and Federal hurricane or shore protection works. It 
also provides for emergency supplies of clean drinking water 
where the source has been contaminated and in drought 
distressed areas, provision of adequate supplies of water for 
human and livestock consumption.
    There was no additional funding request for fiscal year 
2000 and the Committee understands that, based on the average 
yearly funding requirement, additional appropriations are not 
required for fiscal year 2000.

            formerly utilized sites remedial action program

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $140,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     150,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     150,000,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $150,000,000 
to continue activities related to the Formerly Utilized Sites 
Remedial Action Program [FUSRAP] in fiscal year 1999. This is 
the same as the amount requested.
    The responsibility for the cleanup of contaminated sites 
under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program 
[FUSRAP] was transferred to the Army Corps of Engineers in the 
Fiscal Year 1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Act, Public Law 105-62. The Committee is pleased that the 
Department of Energy and the Corps of Engineers have finally 
entered into an agreement on the functions of the program 
assumed by the Corps. This should help eliminate any 
uncertainties as the program moves forward.
    The FUSRAP Program 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 sites have 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 civil works program.

                            general expenses

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $148,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     148,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     151,000,000

    This appropriation finances the expenses of the Office, 
Chief of Engineers, the Division Offices, and certain research 
and statistical functions of the Corps of Engineers. The 
Committee recommends an appropriation of $151,000,000.
    The Committee recommendation is based on a concern about 
the ability of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to provide 
adequate and effective executive direction and management of 
its civil works program given the requested level of General 
Expenses funding. The Corps has reorganized, reducing the 
number of division offices and assigning increased 
responsibilities to district offices. It has reduced its 
headquarters staffing and has made great strides in refining 
the headquarters mission to eliminate overlaps and redundant 
review layers. These changes have been beneficial, resulting in 
a more efficient and cost effective Corps. However, the General 
Expenses appropriation request for fiscal year 2000 is over 
$4,000,000 less than the amount actually appropriated in fiscal 
year 1995. Because the Corps has had to absorb inflation, 
annual salary adjustments, increased rents and other cost 
increases, the decline in general expense funding in real terms 
has been even more significant, over $20,000,000 in constant 
dollars just during this period. Therefore, in order to sustain 
the leadership within the Corps of Engineers, to preserve the 
quality and effectiveness of this national asset, and to 
prevent further erosion of its oversight and management 
capabilities, the Committee has recommended an adjustment in 
the General Expenses account for fiscal year 2000.

                  TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                Central Utah Project Completion Account

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $42,500,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      39,370,000
Committee recommendation................................      39,370,000

    The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2000 to carry 
out the provisions of the Central Utah Project Completion Act 
is $39,370,000. An appropriation of $21,002,000 has been 
provided for Central Utah project construction; $12,047,000 for 
fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation; and 
$5,000,000 for the Utah reclamation mitigation and conservation 
account. Finally, the Committee recommendation provides 
$1,321,000 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, and 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, 1999....................................    $617,045,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     652,838,000
Committee recommendation................................     612,451,000

    An appropriation of $612,451,000 is recommended by the 
Committee for general investigations of the Bureau of 
Reclamation.
    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
                                                                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Total Federal     Allocated to                          Facility                            Facility
                Project title                       cost              date            Resource         operations,        Resource         operations,
                                                                                   management and   maintenance, and   management and   maintenance, and
                                                                                     development     rehabilitation      development     rehabilitation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   ARIZONA

AK CHIN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT.  ................  ................  ................             6,996  ................             6,996
CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT (LCRBDF)............         4,091,767         3,137,516            27,326  ................            24,326  ................
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL, TITLE           450,051           409,136             1,036            12,056             1,036             9,056
 I..........................................
COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE SYSTEM..           102,373            95,592             3,564  ................             3,564  ................
HEADGATE ROCK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT.........             5,000  ................  ................  ................             5,000  ................
NORTHERN ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.....  ................  ................               580  ................               300  ................
SALT RIVER PROJECT, HORSE MESA DAM..........            16,767             4,500  ................             1,590  ................             1,590
SOUTH/CENTRAL ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM  ................  ................               850  ................               850  ................
SOUTHERN ARIZONA WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT            57,458            14,343             5,873  ................             5,873  ................
 PROJECT....................................
TRES RIOS WETLANDS DEMONSTRATION............             8,000             4,300               400  ................               400  ................
TUCSON AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE                  1,000               450               150  ................               150  ................
 STUDY......................................
YUMA AREA PROJECTS..........................  ................  ................               109            15,423               109            15,423

                 CALIFORNIA

CACHUMA PROJECT.............................            32,659            32,289               639               723               639               723
CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...........  ................  ................               500  ................               400  ................
CALLEGUAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT RECYCLING            20,000  ................             1,500  ................  ................  ................
 PROJECT....................................
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT:
    AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION.................         2,736,703           531,514             8,800            10,103             6,800             8,103
    DELTA DIVISION..........................           364,312           216,379            14,362             4,651            13,612             4,651
    EAST SIDE DIVISION......................  ................  ................               575             3,781               575             3,781
    FRIANT DIVISION.........................               522               108             3,614             2,498             3,614             2,498
    MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS..........           672,061           334,121            11,099             1,734            11,099             1,734
    REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS, EXTRAORDINARY    ................  ................  ................             8,500  ................             8,500
     MAINTEN- ANCE..........................
    SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION...............           517,360           393,814             7,032             1,649             8,532             1,649
    SAN FELIPE DIVISION.....................           362,604           309,600             1,163  ................             1,163  ................
    SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION....................           277,012            73,265             1,443  ................             1,443  ................
    SHASTA DIVISION.........................           295,132           277,589             3,480             7,139             3,480             7,139
    TRINITY RIVER DIVISION..................           356,506           322,286             8,006             4,807             5,506             4,807
    WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS..............  ................  ................               635             5,750               635             5,750
    WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS UNIT         1,515,191           575,839             5,912             6,302             5,912             6,302
    YIELD FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION.........  ................  ................             2,000  ................             2,000  ................
LONG BEACH AREA WATER RECLAMATION PROJECT...            13,970  ................             1,500  ................  ................  ................
LOS ANGELES AREA WATER RECLAMATION/REUSE                69,970            61,730             7,500  ................             7,500  ................
 PROJECT....................................
NORTH SAN DIEGO CNTY AREA WATER RECYCLING               20,000  ................             1,500  ................  ................  ................
 PROJECT....................................
ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL WATER RECLAMATION                20,000  ................             1,500  ................  ................  ................
 PROJECT....................................
ORLAND PROJECT..............................  ................  ................  ................               570  ................               570
SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT.................  ................  ................             1,000  ................               600  ................
SAN DIEGO AREA WATER RECLAMATION PROGRAM....           172,590            41,788            10,600  ................            10,600  ................
SAN GABRIEL BASIN PROJECT...................            38,090            23,941             2,000  ................             2,000  ................
SAN JOSE AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE              109,959            16,579             3,000  ................             3,000  ................
 PROGRAM....................................
SOLANO PROJECT..............................  ................  ................               995             1,005               995             1,005
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM..  ................  ................               625  ................               425  ................

                  COLORADO

ANIMAS-LAPLATA PROJECT, SECTIONS 5 AND 8....  ................            76,579             3,000  ................             2,000  ................
COLLBRAN PROJECT............................  ................  ................               813               798               813               798
COLORADO-BIG THOMPSON PROJECT...............  ................  ................               304             7,506               304             7,506
COLORADO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.............  ................  ................               435  ................               435  ................
FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT....................  ................  ................                94                16                94                16
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT..................  ................  ................               339             4,927               339             4,927
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT, PUEBLO DAM......            23,000            16,300  ................             6,700  ................             6,700
GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP...................  ................  ................               403               506               403               506
LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY PROJECT...  ................  ................               763             1,010               763             1,010
LOWER COLORADO RIVER INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.  ................  ................                50  ................                50  ................
LOWER GUNNISON BASIN UNIT, CRBSCP...........  ................  ................  ................               319  ................               319
MANCOS PROJECT..............................  ................  ................                44                22                44                22
PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP.................  ................  ................  ................             2,058  ................             2,058
PINE RIVER PROJECT..........................  ................  ................               362                58               362                58
SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT, CLOSED BASIN/        ................  ................               316             3,591               316             3,591
 CONEJOS DIV................................
UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT.........................  ................  ................               293                23               293                23
UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN SELENIUM STUDY...               540               440               100  ................               100  ................

                    IDAHO

BOISE AREA PROJECTS.........................  ................  ................             2,385             2,726             2,385             2,726
COLUMBIA-SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY PROJECT            98,052            44,983            13,122  ................             9,500  ................
DRAIN WATER MANAGEMENT STUDY, BOISE PROJECT.               850                50               200  ................               200  ................
FORT HALL INDIAN RESERVATION................               600               300  ................  ................               250  ................
IDAHO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM................  ................  ................               363  ................               363  ................
LEWISTON ORCHARDS, RESERVOIR `A' DAM........             2,959             2,809  ................               150  ................               150
MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS......................  ................  ................             4,030             1,809             4,030             1,809
MINIDOKA NORTHSIDE DRAINWATER MANAGEMENT                 1,830               790               315  ................               200  ................
 PROJECT....................................

                   KANSAS

KANSAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...............  ................  ................               400  ................               400  ................
WICHITA PROJECT.............................  ................  ................  ................               219  ................               219

                   MONTANA

FORT PECK RURAL WATER SYSTEM, MT............             5,800             1,800  ................  ................             4,000  ................
HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT........................  ................  ................                69               177                69               177
MILK RIVER PROJECT..........................  ................  ................               145               353               145               353
MONTANA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM..............  ................  ................               446  ................               250  ................
ROCKY BOYS INDIAN WTR RIGHTS SETTLEMENT       ................  ................             1,000  ................               500  ................
 STUDY......................................

                  NEBRASKA

MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT........................  ................  ................                30                28                30                28
NEBRASKA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.............  ................  ................               150  ................               150  ................

                   NEVADA

LAHONTAN BASIN PROJECT......................  ................  ................             6,352             1,098             5,552             1,098
LAKE MEAD AND LAS VEGAS WASH................             2,000  ................  ................  ................             2,000  ................
NEWLANDS WATER RIGHTS FUND..................             7,000  ................  ................  ................             1,500  ................
TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATION AGREEMENT...........               800  ................  ................  ................               800  ................
WALKER RIVER BASIN PROJECT..................             1,200               900  ................  ................               400  ................

                 NEW MEXICO

CARLSBAD PROJECT............................  ................  ................             1,012               576             1,012               576
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT...................  ................  ................             2,010             9,766             4,010             9,766
NAVAJO-GALLUP WATER SUPPLY PROJECT..........             1,234               934  ................  ................               300  ................
PECOS RIVER BASIN WATER SALVAGE PROJECT.....  ................  ................  ................               268  ................               268
RIO GRANDE PROJECT..........................  ................  ................               769             2,564               769             2,564
SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.  ................  ................               124  ................               124  ................
SANTA FE WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE........             1,250               500  ................  ................               750  ................
SO. NEW MEXICO/WEST TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS      ................  ................               254  ................               254  ................
 PROGRAM....................................
UPPER RIO GRANDE BASIN INVESTIGATIONS         ................  ................               213  ................               213  ................
 PROGRAM....................................
UTE RESERVOIR PIPELINE PROJECT..............             1,250               500  ................  ................               250  ................
VELARDE COMMUNITY DITCH PROJECT.............            29,464            23,074             2,313  ................             2,313  ................

                NORTH DAKOTA

DAKOTA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...............  ................  ................               200  ................               200  ................
DAKOTA TRIBES INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM........  ................  ................               150  ................               150  ................
GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT, P-SMBP.............         1,526,499           631,598            26,849               180            28,849               180

                  OKLAHOMA

ARBUCKLE PROJECT............................  ................  ................  ................               161  ................               161
MCGEE CREEK PROJECT.........................  ................  ................  ................               530  ................               530
MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT.......................  ................  ................  ................               225  ................               225
NORMAN PROJECT..............................  ................  ................  ................               156  ................               156
OKLAHOMA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.............  ................  ................               275  ................               275  ................
W.C. AUSTIN PROJECT.........................  ................  ................  ................               255  ................               255
WASHITA BASIN PROJECT.......................  ................  ................  ................               640  ................               640

                   OREGON

CROOKED RIVER PROJECT.......................  ................  ................               105               297               105               297
DESCHUTES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT.....             2,500               500             1,000  ................               500  ................
DESCHUTES PROJECT...........................  ................  ................               165               122               165               122
GRANDE RONDE WATER OPTIMIZATION STUDY.......  ................  ................                50  ................                50  ................
KLAMATH PROJECT.............................  ................  ................            12,390               292             9,390               292
MALHEUR/OWYHEE/POWDER/BURNT RIVER BASINS....               250  ................                50  ................  ................  ................
OREGON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...............  ................  ................               810  ................               610  ................
ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT DIVISION..  ................  ................               165               626               165               626
TUALATIN PROJECT............................  ................  ................                91                97                91                97
TUMALO IRRIGATION DIST., BEND FEED CANAL, OR             2,000  ................  ................  ................               400  ................
UMATILLA BASIN PROJECT (PHASE III)..........               740               340               250  ................               250  ................
UMATILLA PROJECT............................  ................  ................               336             1,270               336             1,270

                SOUTH DAKOTA

MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT..............           134,574            56,517             5,000                10             7,000                10
MNI WICONI PROJECT..........................           370,947           132,454            23,873             5,527            21,873             5,527
RAPID CITY WASTEWATER REUSE STUDY...........               225               175                50  ................                50  ................
RAPID VALLEY PROJECT........................  ................  ................  ................                23  ................                23

                    TEXAS

CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT......................  ................  ................  ................               124  ................               124
NUECES RIVER PROJECT........................  ................  ................  ................               387  ................               387
PALMETTO BEND PROJECT.......................  ................  ................  ................               541  ................               541
SAN ANGELO PROJECT..........................  ................  ................  ................               255  ................               255
TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM................  ................  ................               390  ................               390  ................

                    UTAH

HYRUM PROJECT...............................  ................  ................                49                12                49                12
MOON LAKE PROJECT...........................  ................  ................                14                11                14                11
NAVAJO SANDSTONE AQUIFER RECHARGE STUDY.....               875               100               150  ................               150  ................
NEWTON PROJECT..............................  ................  ................                35                12                35                12
NORTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM........  ................  ................               400  ................               400  ................
OGDEN RIVER PROJECT.........................  ................  ................                67                18                67                18
PROVO RIVER PROJECT.........................  ................  ................               335               293               335               293
SCOFIELD PROJECT............................  ................  ................                49                 3                49                 3
SOUTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM........  ................  ................               400  ................               250  ................
STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT...................  ................  ................                84                 3                84                 3
TOOELE WASTEWATER REUSE PROJECT.............             3,900             3,300  ................  ................               600  ................
WEBER BASIN PROJECT.........................            19,639            18,217             1,845               140             1,845               140
WEBER RIVER PROJECT.........................  ................  ................               281                 7               281                 7

                 WASHINGTON

COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT......................  ................  ................             5,030             8,984             5,030             8,984
LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM RURAL WATER SUPPLY FEAS.               200  ................               100  ................  ................  ................
 STUDY......................................
TULALIP TRIBES WATER QUALITY FEASIBILITY                   200  ................                50  ................  ................  ................
 STUDY......................................
WASHINGTON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...........  ................  ................               410  ................               200  ................
YAKIMA PROJECT..............................  ................  ................               491             7,535               491             7,535
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WTR ENHANCEMENT PROJECT..           175,541            16,249            11,734  ................            10,480  ................

                   WYOMING

KENDRICK PROJECT............................  ................  ................                 4             4,642                 4             4,642
NORTH PLATTE PROJECT........................  ................  ................                18             1,164                18             1,164
SHOSHONE PROJECT............................  ................  ................                38               859                38               859
WYOMING INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM..............  ................  ................                20  ................                15  ................

                   VARIOUS

COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL, TITLE            75,000            22,995            12,300  ................            12,300  ................
 II.........................................
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, SECTION 5...  ................  ................             4,222             1,014             4,222             1,014
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE, SECTION 8, RF&W.....;            96,855            49,835            10,650  ................             7,650  ................
COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT....            70,465            48,011                75  ................                75  ................
DEPARTMENT IRRIGATION DRAINAGE PROGRAM......  ................  ................             3,600  ................             2,000  ................
DROUGHT EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE................  ................  ................               500  ................             5,000  ................
EFFICIENCY INCENTIVES PROGRAM...............  ................  ................             5,250  ................             3,000  ................
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND DISASTER RESPONSE      ................  ................  ................               306  ................               306
 PROGRAM....................................
ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY IMPLEMENT.                  37,500             4,099            15,118  ................            15,118  ................
 PROGRAM....................................
ENVIRONMENTAL AND INTERAGENCY COORDINATION..  ................  ................             1,677  ................               677  ................
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION........  ................  ................             2,083  ................             1,500  ................
EXAMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES..........  ................  ................  ................             3,892  ................             3,892
FEDERAL BUILDING SEISMIC SAFETY PROGRAM.....  ................  ................  ................             1,375  ................             1,375
GENERAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES.................  ................  ................             2,135  ................             1,900  ................
LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM...........  ................  ................             6,232  ................             5,232  ................
LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM.....  ................  ................            13,540  ................             9,540  ................
MISCELLANEOUS FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS......  ................  ................  ................               910  ................               910
NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION.......  ................  ................             1,300  ................             1,300  ................
NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM.............  ................  ................             9,250  ................             8,250  ................
NEGOTIATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF WATER       ................  ................             1,048  ................             1,048  ................
 MARKETING..................................
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT  ................  ................                98               538                98               538
PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN PROGRAM--OTHER      ................  ................             3,174            24,593             3,174            24,593
 PROJECT....................................
POWER PROGRAM SERVICES......................  ................  ................             1,031               642             1,031               642
PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY PROGRAM............  ................  ................               436  ................               436  ................
RECLAMATION LAW ADMINISTRATION..............  ................  ................             5,235  ................             4,696  ................
RECLAMATION RECREATION MANAGEMENT--TITLE      ................  ................             4,222  ................             4,222  ................
 XXVIII.....................................
RECREATION, FISH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM         ................  ................             2,053  ................             1,891  ................
 ADMINISTRATION.............................
SAFETY OF DAMS:
    DEPARTMENT DAM SAFETY PROGRAM...........  ................  ................  ................             1,600  ................             1,600
    SAFETY OF DAMS EVALUATION AND             ................  ................  ................            60,869  ................            54,983
     MODIFICATION...........................
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY:
    APPLIED SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY                      77,347            45,144             4,503  ................             4,503  ................
     DEVELOPMENT............................
    DESALINATION RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT                   18,939            12,439             1,300  ................             1,300  ................
     PROGRAM................................
    GROUNDWATER RECHARGE DEMONSTRATION                  24,929            24,876                50  ................                50  ................
     PROGRAM................................
    HYDROELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION/             3,715               700               215  ................               215  ................
     ENHANCE................................
    TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT..................             2,616             1,116               300  ................               300  ................
    WATERSHED/RIVER SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT                  11,329             4,329             1,000  ................             1,000  ................
     PROGRAM................................
SITE SECURITY...............................  ................  ................  ................               754  ................               754
SOIL AND MOISTURE CONSERVATION..............  ................  ................               257  ................               257  ................
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO STATES..............  ................  ................             1,911  ................             1,211  ................
TITLE XVI WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE STUDY.  ................  ................             2,214  ................             1,000  ................
UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER ISSUES--TECH      ................  ................               100  ................               100  ................
 SUPPORT....................................
WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PROGRAM...  ................  ................             8,836  ................             6,600  ................
WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT........................  ................  ................             5,595  ................             3,595  ................
ADJUST FOR FY 1999 ITEMS NOT REQUESTED IN FY  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
 2000.......................................
UNDISTRIBUTED REDUCTION BASED ON ANTICIPATED  ................  ................  ................           -30,800  ................           -38,050
 DELAYS.....................................
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES....  ................  ................           409,199           243,639           386,948           225,503
                                                                                                652,838
                                                            612,451
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   Budget Limitations and Reductions

    Severely constrained spending limits required under the 
Discretionary budget caps imposed by the Congressional Budget 
Resolution have made it most difficult for the Committee to 
formulate a balanced Energy and Water Development 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000. In order to adhere to 
the subcommittee's allocations, address the critical ongoing 
activities, correct program imbalances contained in the 
President's fiscal year 2000 budget, and respond to the 
numerous requests of the Members, the Committee finds it 
necessary to recommend numerous reductions and adjustments to 
funding levels proposed in the budget. The constrained budget 
will result in continued delayed completion schedules and 
project benefits being realized. 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 
congressional authorizing committees jurisdiction, the 
Committee has not included new project authorizations.
    Headgate Rock Hydroelectric Project, AZ.--The Committee is 
aware that the Headgate Rock hydroelectric powerplant was 
severely damaged when a turbine shaft failed and the facility 
was flooded. While the Bureau of Reclamation has initiated 
repair work, the Committee understands that additional funding 
is needed to complete the repair work. Therefore, the Committee 
has included $5,000,000 for completion of this essential repair 
work.
    Central Arizona project, Arizona.--The Committee has 
recommended an appropriation of $24,326,000 for the central 
Arizona project. The Committee recommendation reduces the 
proposed increase over fiscal year 1999 for native fish 
protection and recreation development.
    Colorado River Basin Salinity Control, Title I.--The 
Committee has included a total of $10,092,000 for the Colorado 
River Basin Salinity Control, Title I program. Budget 
constraints have forced the Committee to recommend that 
initiation of replacement of membrane elements at the Yuma 
Desalting Plant be deferred for fiscal year 2000. In addition, 
the Committee remains concerned about the high cost of keeping 
the Plant in a standby status. The Department is to provide a 
report to the Committee on alternatives to meeting Treaty 
requirements without the Desalting Plant, and actions the 
Bureau of Reclamation can take to reduce the high annual 
operation and maintenance costs.
    Central Valley project, American River Division, 
California.--The Committee recommendation includes a total of 
$14,903,000 for the American River Division of the Central 
Valley Project. The Committee recommendation includes 
$2,400,000 for the Folsom Temperature Control Device. No 
funding is provided for the Bureau to begin implementation of 
the Water Forum agreement or efforts in support to the Nimbus 
Fish Hatchery Interpretative Facility. The Committee believes 
that, in light of the severe budget constraints, these 
activities can be deferred without adverse impacts.
    Central Valley Project, Sacramento River Division, CA.--The 
Committee recommendation for the Sacramento River Division 
includes $3,750,000, an increase of $1,500,000 over the budget 
request, for continued work on the Glenn Colusa Irrigation 
District fish screen project; and $520,000 for the captive 
broodstock program.
    Central Valley Project, Trinity River Division, CA.--Due to 
budget constraints, the Committee has recommended a reduction 
in the proposed increase over the fiscal year 1999 funding 
level for Trinity River Division, fish and wildlife activities. 
The Committee has provided $5,050,000 for these activities in 
fiscal year 2000.
    Central Valley project, miscellaneous project programs, 
California.--An appropriation of $12,833,000 is provided for 
Central Valley project, miscellaneous project programs in 
California. This is the same as the amount requested in the 
budget
    Animas-La Plata Project, CO and NM.--In providing an amount 
less than the Administration's request for the Animas-La Plata 
Project, the Committee does not intend that the Department of 
the Interior's efforts or obligation to fulfill the objectives 
of the 1988 Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act are 
any less of a priority. Severe budget constraints have limited 
the amount of funding available for continued activities on 
this project. The Committee remains concerned that the 
provision of water for the two Ute Tribes has not occurred 
since passage of the Act. Timelines in the Act are approaching 
which are critical to the Tribes, who remain committed to 
obtaining water for their future needs instead of a cash 
settlement. The Committee encourages the Department to promptly 
complete the current activities required under the National 
Environmental Policy Act, on or before the projected date of 
completion established by the Bureau of Reclamation. The 
Department will provide the Committee with written status 
reports on the NEPA process on a regular basis. Should the 
funds provided in this bill be insufficient to complete the 
NEPA process by that date or before, the Department will 
immediately notify the Committee. The Department is directed to 
make available carryover funds previously provided for the 
Animas-La Plata Project so that the Bureau's deadline will be 
met and additional delays are in complying with the Settlement 
Act do not occur.
    Fort Hall Indian Reservation, ID.--The Committee has 
included $250,000 to continue the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, 
ID study. No funding was included in the fiscal year 2000 
budget request to continue this important project which is 
addressing groundwater supply and quality issues on the 
reservation. It should be pointed out that the Fort Hall 
Reservation drinking water resource has already been 
contaminated with ethylene dibromide, and EPA has issued an 
emergency administrative order to correct the problem. In light 
of these facts, the Committee cannot understand why the 
Administration has not requested funding to continue these 
critical studies.
    Fort Peck Rural Water System, MT.--The Committee has 
recommended $4,000,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to 
continue construction of the Fort Peck Rural Water System, MT 
project. The Committee understands that these additional funds 
will allow completion of the project within the sunset 
provision of the Fort Peck Rural County Water Supply System 
Act. The Bureau is to take appropriate actions to insure that 
the project is completed within the timeframe of the Act, and 
to notify the Committee in advance of any potential problems in 
this regard.
    Garrison Diversion Project, ND.--The Committee has included 
$29,029,000, an increase of $2,000,000, for the Garrison 
Diversion, ND project. The additional funds will allow the 
Bureau of Reclamation to continue development of municipal, 
rural, and the industrial Indian water system.
    Middle Rio Grande Project, NM.--The Committee has provided 
an additional $2,000,000 over the budget request for the Middle 
Rio Grande Project in New Mexico for habitat conservation and 
restoration activities along the middle Rio Grande River valley 
from below Cochiti Dam to the headwaters of Elephant Butte 
Lake. The Bureau is to work with interested parties to evaluate 
and define the scope of the habitat and restoration measures to 
be undertaken in order to ensure that proposed work 
compliments, rather than duplicates, other ongoing activities. 
The Committee is supportive of the efforts of interested groups 
along the middle Rio Grande to find ways to address the 
endangered species issue, and expects the Bureau of Reclamation 
to work cooperatively to undertake measures as appropriate.
    Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project, NM.--The Committee has 
provided $300,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to finalize the 
feasibility studies for the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply project 
in New Mexico. The feasibility report is needed for ultimate 
project authorization. The Committee understands that the 
Navajo Tribe and the City of Gallup have agreed to a plan to 
complete this work over about a 2-year period, and to support 
construction what ever project may be supported at the 
conclusion of the feasibility phase.
    Santa Fe Water Reclamation and Reuse Project, NM.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $750,000 for the Bureau of 
Reclamation to continue to update and complete the feasibility 
study and NEPA compliance documents for the Santa Fe Water 
Reclamation and Reuse, NM project.
    Upper Colorado River Endangered Species Program.--The 
Committee recommendation for the Upper Colorado River 
Endangered Species Program includes the full budget request for 
habitat conservation and restoration activities in the San Juan 
River Basin proposed by the Bureau of Reclamation.
    Battle Mountain, Land Transfer, NV.--Any discussions 
regarding the transfer of the Battle Mountain Pasture from the 
Bureau of Reclamation to Pershing County Water Conservation 
District should involve representatives from all interested and 
affected parties.
    Lake Mead and Las Vegas Wash, NV.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $2,000,000 for the Bureau of 
Reclamation to develop, in consultation with interested 
parties, a comprehensive project plan for the restoration of 
wetlands and associated water resource issues at Lake Mead and 
Las Vegas Wash in Nevada. The Plan is to include the scope of 
work, defined costs, identification of project sponsors and 
responsibility of maintenance of constructed wetlands.
    Las Vegas Shallow Aquifer Desalination Project, NV.--The 
Committee has not provided additional funding for the Las Vegas 
Shallow Aquifer Desalination because the project has funds 
still available from past appropriations. The Committee 
encourages the Bureau of Reclamation to continue working with 
the non-Federal entities in developing the project.
    Newlands Project Water Rights Fund, NV.--The Committee has 
included $1,500,000 for the Newlands Water Rights Fund 
authorized by the Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights 
Settlement Act to be utilized to pay for purchasing and 
retiring water rights in the Carson Division of the Newlands 
Reclamation Project.
    Truckee River Operating Agreement, NV.--The Committee has 
provided $800,000 for completion of a supplemental draft EIS/
EIR, negotiation and placement of storage contracts, re-
licensing of existing storage contracts, and administrative and 
technical tasks associated with rulemaking in order to 
implement the Truckee River Operating Agreement.
    Tumalo Irrigation District, Bend Feed Canal, OR.--The 
Committee has included $400,000 to begin the final design of 
the Tumalo Irrigation District, Bend Feed Canal project in 
Oregon, which has significant potential for water conservation, 
and fish and wildlife benefits.
    Tooele Wastewater Reuse Project, UT.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $600,000 for the Tooele Wastewater 
Reuse, UT project. The Committee understands that project 
construction will be completed in fiscal year 1999, and that 
these additional funds are needed to meet the Federal 
commitment to the project under Title XVI of Public Law 102-
575.
    Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project, WA.--The 
Committee is aware of a proposal to enhance instream flows by 
reducing or eliminating the need to divert water to operate 
hydraulic turbines which pump water to the Kennewick Irrigation 
District in the State of Washington. While the Committee 
believes that this proposal has the potential to provide 
significant flow improvements and resultant fish mitigation 
benefits, the Committee understands that the Bureau of 
Reclamation does not currently have authority to begin the 
studies needed to determine feasibility and environmental 
impacts, and define the scope and costs of the project. The 
Committee urges the authorizing committee to address this 
project at the earliest possible time in order that the 
Committee may recommend funds to initiate work.
    Dam Safety Program.--The Committee is aware of and supports 
the funding allocation method used by the Bureau of Reclamation 
which is based on a priority system that considers the 
structural condition and potential impacts in determining where 
to allocate available resources. However, the Committee has 
been informed that the dam safety program in Montana may need a 
more current appraisal and urges the Bureau to review the 
situation and dam safety needs.
    Drought Emergency Assistance.--The Committee has included 
$5,000,000 for Drought Emergency Assistance. The additional 
funding over the budget request is required due to severe 
drought conditions that currently exist in New Mexico and 
several other western States. The funding is provided for 
leasing of water to minimize the impacts of the drought in 
affected areas.
    The severe drought in many parts of the western United 
States has helped to focus attention on the conflicts and 
competition over a limited amount of available water to satisfy 
municipal and industrial, endangered species, irrigation, and 
international water needs. The result of the dwindling amounts 
of water has served to increased competition and conflict among 
the various interests, including irrigation districts, 
municipalities and States, and international interests such as 
Mexico. The Committee is aware of and recognizes that the work 
of the Utton Transboundary Resources Center, an nationally and 
internationally recognized resource center, has a history of 
assisting in providing valuable information regarding 
international rivers in various areas of the world, and 
interstate rivers throughout the United States.
    The methods of resolving water conflicts are often 
inadequate because they are limited in scope and function, and, 
more often than not, dissolve into a war between competing 
experts. There is now no place for competing interests to turn 
for impartial guidance on critical issues. In the past, Federal 
agencies such as the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of 
Reclamation and the U.S. Geologic Service, have attempted to 
provide this service, but the perception of impartiality is 
suspect due the agency involvement in water resource matters.
    Given the growing problems of water allocation in the West, 
particularly during periods of drought, and the demonstrated 
ability of the Center to provide impartial information and 
analysis, the Committee encourages the Bureau of Reclamation to 
use the capability of the Center, as appropriate, in addressing 
the current water and future water shortages.

               California bay-delta ecosystem restoration

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $75,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      95,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      50,000,000

    An appropriation of $50,000,000 is recommended for the 
California Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration [CALFED] Program.
    The CALFED Program was established in May 1995 for the 
purpose of developing a comprehensive, long-term solution to 
the complex and interrelated 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 fiscal year 2000 budget proposes funding of 
$95,000,000, an increase of $20,000,000 over the amount 
appropriated for fiscal year 1999. While the Committee is 
unable to provide the full budget request due to severe budget 
constraints, progress has been made over the past year to 
strengthen the program. While CALFED is an important 
initiative, it must compete with other important programs under 
severely constrained domestic budget caps, reduced budget 
allocations and program imbalances proposed in the President's 
fiscal year 2000 budget request. In addition, the funding 
recommendation of the Committee reflects the low expenditure of 
the funds appropriated over the past two years, and realization 
that this is the final year of program authority for the CALFED 
if authorizing legislation is not enacted. The recommended 
appropriation for ecosystem restoration; and water supply 
reliability, water quality, and levee system integrity is to be 
allocated in accordance with the 60-40 consensus 
recommendation.
    Finally, language proposed in the President's budget 
request to extend the authority for the program, through the 
appropriations process, is not recommended. The Committee has 
expressed concern in the past regarding the duplication and 
overlap of CALFED activities with Central Valley Improvement 
Act programs, and other activities funded under various other 
programs within the Bureau of Reclamation. It should be pointed 
out that the original CALFED program authority was not reviewed 
or recommended by the appropriate authorizing committees of the 
Congress. The Committee believes that it is essential the 
committees of jurisdiction in these complicated matters have 
the opportunity to develop legislation to address these issues.

               bureau of reclamation loan program account

Appropriations, 1999....................................      $8,421,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      12,425,000
Committee recommendation................................      12,425,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,425,000, 
the same as the budget request, for the small reclamation 
program of the Bureau of Reclamation.
    Under the Small Reclamation Projects Act (43 U.S.C. 422a-
422l), loans and/or grants can be made to non-Federal 
organizations for construction or rehabilitation and betterment 
of small water resource projects.
    As required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this 
account records the subsidy costs associated with the direct 
loans, as well as administrative expenses of this program.
    The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 
shown on the following table:

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

                 CALIFORNIA

CASTROVILLE IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLY PROJECT.            14,307             9,266             2,600  ................             2,600  ................
CHINO BASIN DESALINATION PROJECT............            10,249            10,132               117  ................               117  ................
SALINAS VALLEY WATER RECLAMATION............             9,293             6,500             1,700  ................             1,700  ................
SAN SEVAINE CREEK WATER PROJECT.............            28,100             8,012             6,408  ................             6,408  ................
TEMESCAL VALLEY PROJECT.....................             5,327             4,152             1,175  ................             1,175  ................

                   VARIOUS

LOAN ADMINISTRATION.........................  ................  ................               425  ................               425  ................
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, LOAN PROGRAM...................  ................  ................            12,425  ................            12,425  ................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                central valley project restoration fund

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $33,130,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      47,346,000
Committee recommendation................................      37,346,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $37,346,000 
for the Central Valley project restoration fund. Budget 
constraints have required the Committee to limit the activities 
to be funded through the Central Valley project restoration 
funds for fiscal year 2000. However, the amount recommended 
represents an increase of $4,216,000 over the current year 
level. The Committee intends, to the greatest extent possible, 
that the Bureau of Reclamation take such steps as are necessary 
to ensure that amounts appropriated from the Restoration Fund 
equal funds assessed and collected. It is not the desire or 
intent of the Committee to allow unappropriated balances to 
accrue in the CVP 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.

                   policy and administrative expenses

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $47,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      49,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      49,000,000

    The Committee recommendation for general administrative 
expenses is $49,000,000. This is the same as the budget 
request.
    The general 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.

                    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.

                           personnel security

    The Department needs to improve its personnel security 
practices. The Committee has provided an increase from the 
request for security investigations and recommends that, for 
employees of the Department and its contractors with access to 
sensitive nuclear weapons information or special nuclear 
materials, the Department contract with the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation for that service.
    The Committee recommends the Department implement a graded 
clearance system. Those with access to sensitive nuclear 
weapons information or the means to access that information 
should be required, as a condition of clearance, to submit upon 
request with causal basis by the Director of Counter-
Intelligence to a counter-intelligence polygraph and may be 
required to provide access to financial and other information 
as the Department warrants.
    In the past, the Department and its contractors have given 
great deference to the investigative techniques and 
requirements of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in counter-
intelligence matters. However, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation's primary interest in criminal prosecution in 
these matters is not always consistent with the Department of 
Energy's responsibility to protect sensitive information. In 
its efforts to protect sensitive information, the Department 
should not necessarily defer to the interests of the Federal 
Bureau of Investigations. The Department should be pro-active 
in any such investigation and may, on occasion, determine that 
its ability and right to conduct an investigation regarding, or 
take actions to halt or prevent espionage, outweigh the Federal 
Bureau of Investigations' interest in a criminal prosecution.

                          external regulation

    In previous years, the Committee directed a review of the 
benefits of external regulation of the Department's facilities 
and funded pilot programs to explore such arrangements in 
detail. The Committee has determined that the Department's 
unique responsibilities and facilities too rarely have non-
federal analogs with existing, appropriate regulatory schemes. 
As a result, the Committee no longer contemplates external 
regulation of the Department's facilities.

                  inappropriate use of appropriations

    In the previous Energy and Water Development Act, the 
Committee was critical of the use of appropriations to: pay for 
members of industry associations and associated entities to 
attend national and international conferences, publish 
magazines, purchase association membership information, conduct 
surveys of association membership, place op-ed style articles 
in publications, write talking points in support of the 
Department's programs, and underwrite industry conferences.
    The Department has significantly improved its practices in 
these areas by selecting its outreach and information 
dissemination contractors through competitive processes. While 
competition may improve the quality of the products and 
services procured through these contracts, the Committee 
continues to insist that, as a general rule, appropriated funds 
should not be used, directly or indirectly, to underwrite the 
expenses of industry associations or associated entities.
    Certain Department of Energy contractors are being 
reimbursed for exhorbitant travel expenses. In fiscal year 
1998, Department of Energy contractors incurred $249,000,000 in 
travel costs for which they sought reimbursement. Sandia 
National Laboratories alone reported taking over 4,500 trips to 
Washington, DC, in fiscal year 1998 or the equivalent of 87 
trips each week. Those sort of practices are absolutely 
unacceptable. The Committee has included in its recommendation 
both a statutory cap on the total amount of funds available for 
contractor travel costs and required that each contractor's 
travel costs in fiscal year 2000 be limited to not more than 80 
percent of the amount incurred in fiscal year 1998. The 
Committee considers this a measured response and will take 
substantially more forceful action in the future if this 
situation is not remedied.

                         energy supply programs

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $727,091,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     836,067,000
Committee recommendation................................     715,412,000

                       solar and renewable energy

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $365,905,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     446,021,000
Committee recommendation................................     353,900,000

    The Committee is unable to draw conclusions regarding the 
existence, extent, or affects of global climate change. 
However, in the face of uncertainty regarding global climate 
change and the human health effects of atmospheric pollution, 
prudence merits consideration be given to energy production 
technologies that reduce the emission of pollutants that 
accumulate in the atmosphere.
    In that regard, the Committee considers the 
administration's use of base-year metrics, that is: the 
recommendation that the United States reduce its emissions of 
certain pollutants to 1990 levels, to be an inappropriate 
metric. The Committee recommends that the accumulation of 
pollutants in the atmosphere be considered in terms of their 
historical concentrations; not their annual production rates 
since it is the concentration levels not the rate of 
accumulation which are alleged to have global climate change 
implications.
    When considered in those terms, the commitments made in 
Kyoto will have a negligible effect on the concentration of 
CO2 and other pollutants in the atmosphere. If 
prudence merits the development of new energy production 
technologies, it also requires a recognition that existing 
technology does not provide a means to meet increasing global 
energy requirements while stabilizing the production of 
atmospheric pollutants and certainly does not provide a means 
to reduce atmospheric pollution concentrations.
    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 rather than on the deployment or 
incremental improvement of commercial or near commercial 
technologies. The Committee is well aware of the proposition 
that appropriated funds can demonstrate the reliable operation 
of low emission technologies before they become commercially 
attractive. In a few cases, the Committee has provided funds 
for just such demonstrations. However, in general, the 
Committee expects non-Federal financing to support the final 
stages of product development and all stages of market 
development.
    Solar building technology research.--The Committee 
recommends $2,000,000 for solar building technology research. 
The Committee recommendation does not provide funds for quality 
assurance or precompetitive field validation.
    Photovoltaic energy systems.--The Committee recommends 
$64,000,000 for photovoltaic energy systems. Within that 
amount, $17,000,000 is provided for fundamental research 
including: $5,500,000 for measurement and characterization, 
$5,500,000 for basic research/university programs, $2,000,000 
for non-conventional breakthrough R&D;, and $4,000,000 for high-
performance advanced research. $25,000,000 is provided for 
advanced materials and devices. $26,000,000 is provided for 
collector research and systems development including: 
$10,000,000 for manufacturing R&D; only to complete existing 
contracts, $11,000,000 for systems engineering and reliability, 
and, $1,000,000 for partnerships for technology introduction 
only to complete existing contracts.
    Concentrating solar power.--The Committee recommends 
$15,000,000 for concentrating solar power and includes no funds 
for strategic alliances and market awareness.
    Biomass/biofuels--power systems.--The Committee recommends 
$34,950,000 for biomass/bio-fuels--power systems. $700,000 is 
provided for thermochemical conversion including; $500,000 for 
co-firing/ash deposition, and $200,000 for capital equipment. 
$26,150,000 is provided for systems development; a $6,000,000 
reduction to the request due to delays in the Minnesota Valley 
Alfalfa Producers project. Within the amount provided for 
systems development, $1,000,000 is for the continuation of 
biomass research at the Energy and Environmental Research 
Center on key barrier issues impeding the technical 
feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and environmental 
acceptability of biomass utilization processes. The funding is 
intended to advance the Center's work in integration of biomass 
with fossil fuels to increase baseload renewable electricity 
generation, development of practical methods for using biomass 
in advanced power systems, and improvement of efficiency and 
environmental performance in agricultural processing and 
forest-based product industries. The switchgrass project is 
fully funded. Also, $3,100,000 is provided for feedstock 
development, and no funds are provided for the regional biomass 
energy program.
    The recommendation includes $5,000,000 for the McNeil 
biomass plant in Burlington, Vermont, $300,000 for the Vermont 
Agriculture Methane project, $2,000,000 for continued research 
in environmental and renewable resource technologies by the 
Michigan Biotechnology Institute, and $500,000 for the 
University of Louisville to research the commercial viability 
of refinery construction for the production of P-series fuels, 
as defined by the Department of Energy's Final Rule on P-series 
Fuels on May 17, 1999
    Biomass/biofuels--transportation.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $38,000,000 for biomass/biofuels 
transportation. The Committee is aware of a public-private 
endeavor to construct and operate a national ethanol pilot 
plant at Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville. This 
facility would help lower the cost of converting corn into 
ethanol fuel while enhancing the role of this domestic energy 
source and its environmental benefits. The Committee recognizes 
that corn is one of the most commercially viable and 
economically feasible feedstocks. The Committee directs the 
Department of Energy to provide no less than $3,000,000 under 
the Biomass/Biofuels Energy Systems--Transportation for this 
project.
    Wind.--The Committee recommendation includes $34,000,000 
for wind energy systems, an increase of $800,000 over the 
current year. Within that amount, $13,500,000 is provided for 
applied research consistent with the request. $18,200,000 is 
provided for turbine research including: $5,000,000 for the 
next generation turbine project, $400,000 to conduct near term 
research and testing, $1,000,000 to conduct small wind turbine 
projects, $800,000 for the cold weather turbine project, and 
$8,000,000 for turbine research and turbine verification 
program activities. Due to severe budget constraints the 
recommendation provides only $2,300,000 for cooperative 
research and testing.
    Renewable energy production incentive.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $1,500,000, the same amount as the 
request for the renewable energy production incentive.
    Solar program support.--Due to budget pressures, the 
Committee recommendation includes only the $2,000,000 requested 
for technical analysis and assistance within solar program 
support.
    International solar programs.--The Committee strongly 
supports the U.S. international joint implementation program 
funded in this account but due to severe budget constrants 
recommends only $3,000,000 for that purpose.
    National Renewable Energy Laboratory construction.--The 
Committee recommendation includes the amount of the request for 
construction at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
    Geothermal.--The Committee commends the Department of 
Energy's decision to allow market forces to determine the 
extent to which geothermal heat pump technology succeeds. Due 
to the termination of that $6,500,000 per year program, the 
Committee recommendation of $24,000,000 provides a $2,000,000 
increase over the fiscal year 1999 base geothermal program.
    Hydrogen research.--The Committee strongly supports 
research and development of technologies related to the use of 
hydrogen and recommends $27,000,000, a $6,000,000 increase over 
the current year, for that purpose. The recommendation includes 
$250,000 for investigation of simultaneous production of carbon 
dioxide and hydrogen at the natural gas reforming facility in 
Nevada, $350,000 for the Montana Trade Port Authority in 
Billings, MT to continue the ongoing resource inventory, 
feasibility study, and development of a Solid Waste Hydrogen 
Fuel Cell manufacturing capability, and $250,000 for the 
gasification of Iowa switchgrass and its use in fuel cells.
    Hydropower.--The Committee commends the Department of 
Energy for recognizing the benefits of and developing advanced 
``fish-friendly'' turbines for hydro-electric generation. The 
Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 for that effort.
    Renewable Indian energy resources.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $4,000,000 for renewable Indian energy 
resource development including: $1,000,000 to complete the 4 
megawatt Sitka, Alaska project, $1,700,000 for the Power Creek 
hydroelectric project, $1,000,000 for the Kotzebue wind 
project, and $300,000 for the Old Harbor hydroelectric project.
    Electric energy systems and storage.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $33,500,000 for electric energy systems 
and storage including $3,500,000 for transmission reliability 
and $30,000,000 for high-temperature superconducting research 
and development. Within the amount provided for transmission 
reliability, the recommendation includes $1,000,000 for a 
demonstration associated with the planned upgrade of the Nevada 
Test Site power substations of distributed power generation 
technologies (microturbines, fuel cells, and photovoltaics), 
energy-efficient utilization technologies, transmission and 
distribution systems, and grid stabilization technologies.
    Solar and renewable energy program direction.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $17,750,000 for program 
direction within this account; an increase of $650,000 over the 
current year.

                        nuclear energy programs

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $283,966,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     269,305,000
Committee recommendation................................     287,700,000

    Nuclear fission currently provides 20 percent of domestic 
electricity production and emits no atmospheric pollutants. The 
United States has not yet determined how it will dispose of 
spent nuclear fuel, and the Committee does not underestimate 
the technical and social challenges entailed in the disposal of 
spent nuclear fuel. However, unlike the emissions of coal, gas, 
and fuel oil plants, the byproducts of fission can be 
contained. Until even more advanced, base-load energy 
technologies are developed, nuclear fission provides the best 
credible means of reducing the concentration of atmospheric 
pollutants in the foreseeable future.
    Nuclear energy plant optimization.--The recommendation 
includes $5,000,000 the same amount as the request for the 
Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization program.
    Nuclear energy research initiative.--The Committee 
recommends $25,000,000 for the Nuclear Energy Research 
Initiative. In making its recommendations for low emission 
energy technologies, the Committee seeks to achieve a prudent 
balance among technologies that may assist in the future 
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The Administration's 
request in that regard; a total of $440,697,000 in energy 
production technologies and $646,515,000 in energy conservation 
measures, includes only $5,000,000 for nuclear energy related 
technology or one percent of the total.
    Civilian research and development.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $5,000,000 to continue the assessment 
of accelerator transmutation of waste technology that may be 
able to significantly reduce the radioactivity and radio-
toxicity of certain isotopes.
    Fast flux test facility.--Without prejudice, the Committee 
has provided $28,000,000 to keep the FFTF in hot standby until 
the Department of Energy determines whether the facility should 
be decommissioned or restarted.
    Isotopes support.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$15,500,000, the same as the current year but an increase of 
$2,500,000 over the amount of the request, for isotope support. 
The increase will enable to Department to complete the M0-99 
program in fiscal year 2000.
    The Committee is aware of the continued acute shortage of 
production sources for short-lived isotopes. As a result, there 
is a critical need for a facility that can supply short-lived, 
reactor-produced radioisotopes for experimental treatment of 
cancer and other diseases. Because of the unique power and 
capacity of the University of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR) 
to produce such cutting-edge radionuclides, the Committee 
encourages the Department of Energy to provide funds to enable 
the MURR to serve as a continued production source for the 
foreseeable future. The Committee encourages the Department to 
work with the MURR and the Institute of Medicine to fully 
utilize this facility once MURR's capital improvement program 
is completed.

                    environment, safety, and health

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $50,398,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      50,750,000
Committee recommendation................................      48,998,000

    The Committee recommendation includes $48,998,000 for non-
defense environment, safety, and health which includes 
$18,998,000, the same amount as the request, for program 
direction. The Committee does not support the external 
regulation of the Department of Energy's facilities and has not 
provided the $1,200,000 requested for external regulation 
transition.

                       energy support activities

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $124,727,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     122,912,000
Committee recommendation................................     119,600,000

    Technical information management.--The Committee 
recommendation for the technical information management program 
is $8,600,000, the same amount as the current year.
    Field operations.--The Committee recommendation for field 
offices and management is $100,000,000 a $2,000,000 reduction 
from the request due to servere budget constraints.
    Oak Ridge landlord.--The Committee recommendation for the 
Department of Energy's Oak Ridge landlord responsibilities is 
$11,000,000, the same amount as the current year.

                       Use of prior year balances

    The Committee recommendation includes the use of 
$31,589,000 in unobligated carryover balances previously 
appropriated in the energy supply account or the energy supply 
research and development account that existed until the 
Committee restructured accounts in 1998. In accordance with the 
authority provided in Section 305 of this Act, those balances 
are to be transferred to the energy supply account and become 
available in fiscal year 2000 in accordance with the Committee 
recommendation. The $31,589,000 is composed of the following 
amounts: $821,000 from the geothermal resources development 
fund, $10,000 from high energy physics, $15,000 from nuclear 
physics, $7,739,000 from the Superconducting Supercollider, 
$790,000 from biological and environmental research, $75,000 
from materials sciences, $12,000 from chemical sciences, 
$34,000 from engineering and geosciences, $4,000 from 
engineering biosciences, $62,000 from computational and 
technical research, $2,000 from energy research analysis, 
$2,506,000 from energy research program direction, $386,000 
from the energy research small business innovative research 
program, $1,000 from the small business technology transfer 
pilot research program, $26,000 from unapplied energy research 
balances, $101,000 from unobligated energy research 
construction balances, $182,000 from solar building technology 
research, $625,000 from photovoltaic energy systems, $265,000 
from solar thermal energy systems, $825,000 from biomass and 
bio-fuels power systems, $2,451,000 from biomass and bio-fuels 
transportation, $67,000 from wind energy systems, $16,000 from 
the international solar energy program, $21,000 from solar 
technology transfer, $148,000 from the National Renewable 
Energy Laboratory, $238,000 from geothermal technology 
development, $6,000 from hydrogen research, $111,000 from 
electro-magnetic field studies, $5,000 from high-temperature 
superconducting research and development, $8,000 from energy 
storage systems, $174,000 from renewable energy program 
direction, $1,000 from advanced light-water reactors, $247,000 
from advanced reactor research and development, $84,000 from 
space power systems, $188,000 from advanced radioisotope power 
systems, $136,000 from university fuel assistance, $4,000 from 
nuclear energy termination costs, $594,000 from nuclear energy 
program direction, $41,000 from nuclear energy spent fuel 
storage research and development, $852,000 from non-defense 
environment, safety and health, $54,000 from environment, 
safety and health program direction, $652,000 from magnetic 
fusion research and development, $82,000 from non-defense 
environmental management program direction, $5,000 from in-
house energy management, $5,000 from strategic facilities 
utilization, $62,000 from atomic vapor laser isotope separation 
technology development, $4,701,000 from isotope production and 
distribution, and $6,155,000 from non-defense environmental 
management.

                        environmental management

                              (nondefense)

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $431,200,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     330,934,000
Committee recommendation................................     327,922,000

    The Committee recommendation provides $327,922,000 for non-
defense environmental management, a reduction of $3,012,000 
from the request. The reduction is recommended without 
prejudice due to severe budget constraints.
    The Committee recognizes the importance to the local 
community of the Grand Junction office and is aware the site 
needs remediation. The Committee further notes that the Grand 
Junction community is attempting to privatize the Grand 
Junction Office Site. Accordingly, the Committee has increased 
funding for the Albuquerque operations account by $5,800,000 to 
provide for accelerated cleanup in anticipation of 
privatization.

      uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $220,200,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     240,198,000
Committee recommendation................................     200,000,000

    The uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning 
fund was established in accordance with title XI of Public Law 
102-486, the National Energy Policy Act of 1992. The funds 
provided for the environmental cleanup of the Department's 
uranium enrichment plants, two of which are currently leased to 
the USEC, and the cleanup of uranium mill tailings and thorium 
piles resulting from production and sales to the Federal 
Government for the Manhattan project and other national 
security purposes.
    Due to budget constraints, the Committee recommendation 
includes a reduction of $20,200,000 from the current level of 
$220,200,000.

                           nuclear waste fund

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $169,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     258,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     242,500,000

    The Committee recommendation includes $355,000,000 for 
nuclear waste disposal. Of that amount, $242,500,000 is derived 
from the nuclear waste fund, an additional $112,500,000 shall 
be available from the ``Defense nuclear waste disposal'' 
account, and $5,000,000 shall be available from the General 
Fund for the development of accelerator transmutation of waste 
technology.
    The Committee has provided $4,727,000 for the State of 
Nevada and $5,432,000 for affected units of local government in 
accordance with the statutory restrictions contained in the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
    Seismic evaluation.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$3,000,000 for the University of Nevada at Reno Earthquake 
Engineering Facility to conduct experiments involving multiple 
support excitation problems at large scale.

                                science

Appropriations, 1999....................................  $2,682,860,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................   2,835,393,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,725,069,000

                          high energy physics

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $696,500,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     697,090,000
Committee recommendation................................     691,090,000

    The Committee recommendation includes $691,090,000 for high 
energy physics, a reduction of $6,000,000 from the request. The 
reduction is taken from the $12,000,000 proposed for research 
and development for a TeV scale center of mass accelerator. The 
estimated cost of such a facility prohibits its serious 
consideration in the foreseeable future.

                            nuclear physics

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $335,100,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     342,940,000
Committee recommendation................................     330,000,000

    Due to severe budget restraints, the Committee 
recommendation for nuclear physics is $330,000,000, a reduction 
of $5,100,000 from the current level and $12,940,000 from the 
request. That reduction is offset by the completion of the 
Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at the Brookhaven National 
Laboratory for which the Committee provided from this account 
$16,620,000 in the current year.

                 biological and environmental research

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $443,600,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     411,170,000
Committee recommendation................................     429,700,000

    The Committee recommendation includes $429,700,000 for 
biological and environmental research. The recommendation does 
not include the proposed $4,467,000 increase in radio-
pharmaceuticals.
    Low dose effects program.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $22,500,000, of which $17,500,000 is within biological 
and environmental research and $5,000,000 is within defense 
environmental restoration and waste management environmental 
sciences, for the low dose effects program. The funding is 
provided consistent with the level and program proposed by the 
Low Dose Radiation Research Program Plan Subcommittee of the 
Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee.
    Radiation effects on avian populations.--The Committee 
recommendation also includes $270,000 to study the effects of 
radiation on avian populations at the Nevada Test Site.

                         basic energy sciences

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $809,100,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     888,084,000
Committee recommendation................................     854,545,000

    Spallation neutron source.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $186,900,000, including $169,000,000 for construction, 
related to the spallation neutron source. Project delays in the 
current year have reduced the funding requirements for fiscal 
year 2000 and resulted in the commensurate reduction from the 
request of $214,000,000.
    EPSCoR.--The Committee recommendation includes the amount 
of the request, $6,815,000, for the Department's Experimental 
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research program.

                     other energy research programs

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $165,260,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     221,135,000
Committee recommendation................................     151,260,000

    Computational and technology research.--The Committee 
recommendation does not include the $70,000,000 requested for 
the Department's participation in the Scientific Simulation 
Initiative.

                         fusion energy sciences

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $223,300,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     222,614,000
Committee recommendation................................     220,614,000

    The Committee recommendation for Fusion Energy Sciences is 
$220,614,000, a reduction of $2,000,000 from the request. 
While, in the past, the Committee has supported increases above 
the level of the request for this program, severe budget 
constraints and shortfalls elsewhere in the Department's 
request, necessitate the reduction at this time.
    The Committee recommendation includes $19,000,000 for 
inertial fusion energy research to improve heavy ion 
accelerator efficiency, heavy ion and laser chamber designs, 
and the design of fusion energy target pellets.

                      departmental administration

                                (gross)

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $200,475,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     247,515,000
Committee recommendation................................     219,415,000

                        (miscellaneous revenues)

Appropriations, 1999....................................   -$136,530,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................    -116,887,000
Committee recommendation................................    -116,887,000

    Office of Field Management.--Consistent with the 
recommendation of the Commission on Maintaining United States 
Nuclear Weapons Expertise to establish direct reporting chains 
for the Department's sites, laboratories, and facilities, the 
Committee recommendation eliminates funding for the Office of 
Field Management.

                       Use of prior year balances

    The Committee recommendation includes the use of $3,000,000 
in unobligated carryover balances previously appropriated in 
the departmental administration account. In accordance with the 
authority provided in Section 306 of this Act, those balances 
are to be available in fiscal year 2000 in accordance with the 
Committee recommendation. The $3,000,000 is composed of the 
following amounts: $31,000 from the Board of Contract Appeals, 
$53,340 from the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental 
Affairs, $122,238 from the Office of Economic Impact and 
Diversity, $149,225 from the Office of Field Management program 
direction, $203,835 from the Office of General Counsel program 
direction, $136,525 from the Office of Policy program 
direction, $131,128 from the Office of Public Affairs, $94,615 
from departmental administration program support, $424,180 from 
the Office of the Secretary, $1,103,313 from the Office of the 
Chief Financial Officer, $571,500 from management and 
administration.

                           inspector general

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $29,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      30,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      29,000,000

    The Committee has provided $29,000,000, the current level, 
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

    The atomic energy defense activities programs of the 
Department of Energy are divided into separate appropriation 
accounts as follows: weapons activities; defense environmental 
restoration and waste management; defense facilities closure 
projects; defense environmental management privitization; other 
defense programs; and defense nuclear waste disposal. 
Descriptions of each of these accounts are provided below.

                           Weapons Activities

Appropriations, 1999....................................  $4,400,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................   4,531,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   4,609,832,000

    Weapons activities support the Nation's national security 
mission of nuclear deterrence by preserving nuclear weapons 
technology and competence in the laboratories and maintaining 
the reliability and safety of the weapons in the enduring 
nuclear stockpile. The United States continues to retain 
strategic nuclear forces sufficient to deter future hostile 
countries from seeking a nuclear advantage. In the past, 
confidence in the nuclear weapons stockpile was assured through 
a combination of underground nuclear and laboratory testing. 
Since October 1992 the United States has maintained a 
moratorium on underground nuclear testing and has explored 
other means to assure confidence in the safety, reliability, 
and performance of nuclear weapons.
    The mission of defense programs is to maintain the safety, 
security, and reliability of the Nation's enduring nuclear 
weapons stockpile within the constraints of a comprehensive 
test ban, utilizing a science-based approach to stockpile 
stewardship and management in a smaller, more efficient weapons 
complex infrastructure. The future weapons complex will rely on 
scientific understanding and expert judgment, rather than on 
underground nuclear testing and the development of new weapons, 
to predict, identify, and correct problems affecting the safety 
and reliability of the stockpile. Enhanced experimental 
capabilities and new tools in computation, surveillance, and 
advanced manufacturing will become necessary to certify weapon 
safety, performance, and reliability without underground 
nuclear testing. Weapons will be maintained, modified, or 
retired and dismantled as needed to meet arms control 
objectives or remediate potential safety and reliability 
issues. As new tools are developed and validated, they will be 
incorporated into a smaller, more flexible and agile weapons 
complex infrastructure for the future.
    The Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program is a 
single, highly integrated technical program for maintaining the 
safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile in an era 
without underground nuclear testing and without new nuclear 
weapons development and production. Traditionally, the 
activities of the three weapons laboratories and the Nevada 
test site have been regarded separately from those of the 
weapons production plants. However, although there remain 
separate budget items within defense programs, all stockpile 
stewardship and management activities have achieved a new, 
closer linkage to each other.
    There are three primary goals of the Stockpile Stewardship 
and Management Program: (1) provide high confidence in the 
safety, security, and reliability of the U.S. stockpile to 
ensure the continuing effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear 
deterrent while simultaneously supporting U.S. arms control and 
nonproliferation policy; (2) provide a small, affordable, and 
effective production complex to provide component and weapon 
replacements when needed, including limited lifetime components 
and tritium; and (3) provide the ability to reconstitute U.S. 
nuclear testing and weapon production capacities, consistent 
with Presidential directives and the ``Nuclear Posture 
Review,'' should national security so demand in the future.
    The policy framework which guides the Department of 
Energy's stockpile stewardship and management activities is the 
``Nuclear Posture Review'' which is approved by the President. 
The requirements for DOE stated in terms of infrastructure to 
support U.S. nuclear forces are: (1) maintain nuclear weapons 
capability (without underground nuclear testing); (2) 
demonstrate the capability to design, fabricate, and certify 
weapon types in the enduring stockpile; (3) maintain the 
capability to design, fabricate, and certify new warheads; and 
(4) ensure tritium availability. In addition, the President has 
also requested a new annual certification process to certify 
that the stockpile is safe and reliable in the absence of 
underground nuclear testing, and to produce a statement about 
the future confidence in the safety and reliability of the 
stockpile.
    The Committee has serious concerns that projected budget 
profiles for Defense missions of the Nation are sufficient to 
sustain the important stockpile stewardship and management 
initiatives of DOE. The Committee believes that the issue of 
sufficient resources for the Department of Energy to ensure the 
certification of the weapons stockpile safety and reliability 
is of such importance it requires the ongoing attention of the 
Department of Defense and the Department of Energy. With 
programs constrained by budget ceilings, aggressive management 
at all levels is mandatory. The Committee is aware of instances 
at DOE laboratories where projects have not been well defined 
and there has been a lack of management attention. This 
situation has resulted in scope creep, extended project 
completion schedules, and cost growth far in excess of what is 
acceptable. If the capability of the national laboratories to 
provide the certification, required by the President, is to be 
maintained under a severely restricted budget environment, it 
is mandatory that DOE and the national laboratories take 
whatever steps are necessary to assure the proper focus. It is 
essential that critical, centerpiece missions not be impacted 
because of poor management attention.

                         stockpile stewardship

    An appropriation of $2,351,800,000 is recommended for the 
stockpile stewardship activities of the Department of Energy.
    The stockpile stewardship program addresses issues of 
maintaining confidence in weapons stockpile safety and 
reliability without underground nuclear testing through a 
technically challenging science-based stockpile stewardship 
program utilizing upgraded or new experimental and 
computational capabilities.
    The Committee continues to view laboratory directed 
research and development [LDRD] as an integral, essential 
component of the Department's ability to respond to changing 
needs and requirements, and maintaining the preeminence of the 
national laboratories in the areas of science and engineering. 
The Committee directs DOE to continue current guidelines for 
managing laboratory directed research and development.
    Core stockpile stewardship.--The Core Stockpile Stewardship 
Program provides the physical, technical, and intellectual 
infrastructure necessary to support a reliable, safe, and 
secure nuclear weapons stockpile. The Committee has recommended 
a total of $1,696,455,000 for core stockpile stewardship 
programs.
    The Committee is concerned that the funding level proposed 
for fiscal year 1999 and future budget planning projections of 
the Department of Energy are not sufficient to address the 
critical needs of an aging stockpile. The Committee believes 
that preservation of core intellectual, scientific, and 
technical competencies and the continued ability of the weapons 
complex to respond to changing world situations is critically 
important. Further, the Committee is not convinced that 
engineering and surveillance approaches of yesterday will be 
adequate to maintain the safety and reliability of the nuclear 
weapons stockpile in the absence of underground testing.
    An appropriation of $341,000,000 is recommended for the 
accelerated strategic computing initiative [ASCI]. The ASCI 
program will provide the computing software, computer platforms 
and an operating environment to allow the national laboratories 
to make critical decisions about the safety and reliability of 
the nuclear weapon stockpile without underground nuclear 
testing. The Committee is concerned with the rate of growth of 
the ASCI program when considered in the context of constrained 
DOE defense programs budgets. The Department has embarked on a 
high-risk, aggressive program to significantly upgrade the 
computing capabilities of the weapons labs. This computing 
capability is the glue or common element which ties the entire 
stockpile stewardship and management effort together, thereby 
enable certification of the safety and reliability of the 
nuclear weapons stockpile.
    The Committee commends the Department of Energy for the 
achievement of the ASCI program and recommends the acceleration 
of the program to reach the 100 TeraFlop goal.
    Direct Stockpile Activities.--An appropriation of 
$250,452,000 is recommended for Direct Stockpile Activities. 
This funding provides for pre-production design and engineering 
activities, design and development of weapon modifications, 
technical aspects of laboratory surveillance, and analysis of 
stockpile behind safety studies and assessments. In addition, 
this program support studies and research to apply basic 
science to weapon stockpile problems producing new 
technologies, products and processes in the vital surety areas 
(safety, security, and use control) technology development and 
implementation.
    The Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore National 
Laboratory (LLNL), the Los Alamos National Laboratory, (LANL), 
Sandia National Laboratory (SNL), and Nevada Test Site (NTS) 
are major national resources for science and research. These 
resources not only maintain and ensure the safety and 
reliability of our nation's nuclear weapons stockpile, but also 
keep America strong by staying on the cutting edge of 
technology development, scientific advancements and 
experimental methods. As with all viable programs, we must 
continually assess the mission, purpose, and focus of crucial 
resources to ensure that they are being engaged efficiently, 
effectively and in the best interest of our nation.
    With this in mind, the Committee is aware that the 
Department of Energy is considering several strategic actions 
needed to address emerging requirements and assure the national 
security, and the scientific and research capability of these 
institutions. While the detailed plan is still under 
development, the broad outline is now evident.
    First, is to re-balance the directed weapons work between 
LANL and LLNL by moving the responsibility for the W80 system 
from LANL to LLNL. Second, the hydrodynamic test infrastructure 
and support throughout the complex should be consolidated at 
LANL, both x-ray-based and proton-based radiography. This 
eliminates duplication and creates a more effective and 
efficient structure to respond to mission requirements. Third, 
is to establish a major effort in applied microsystems at SNL. 
This will provide for design options and prototype 
manufacturing process development needed for certification of 
weapon systems consistent with planned refurbishment schedules 
of the stockpile. The final element is an enhancement of the 
capability of the NTS in the areas of subcritical experiments 
and advanced diagnostics. This insures a credible capability at 
the NTS to resume underground testing of nuclear weapons should 
it be in the nation's best interest to do so.
    The Committee has recommended an additional $35,000,000 to 
initiate this new strategy, including $5,000,000 for activities 
at LLNL, $10,000,000 for LANL, and $20,000,000 for work at SNL.
    Testing capabilities and readiness.--An appropriation of 
$182,126,000 is recommended for testing capabilities and 
readiness activities. Current Presidential direction is to 
maintain a readiness capability to conduct an underground 
nuclear test at the Nevada test site. Therefore, infrastructure 
and other measures are to be maintained to support this 
requirement. Presidential direction also indicates that 
resources should be included that are necessary to conduct 
experimental activities planned by the nuclear weapons design 
laboratories and appropriate to the national nuclear testing 
policy.
    The Committee has recommended an additional $15,000,000 in 
fiscal year 2000 for the Nevada Test Site to begin to field an 
increased number of subcritical experiments, including more 
classified geometries at the U1a complex and work with the 
other national laboratories to develop appropriate advanced 
diagnostics. As part of efforts to reshape and better integrate 
the capabilities of the Test Site and the national 
laboratories, $5,000,000 is provided to begin the process of 
moving the Atlas pulsed power experimental facility from Los 
Alamos to the Nevada Test Site to support code modeling and 
validation and diagnostics development. Also, as part of this 
refocused and integrated concept, Pegasus, the existing pulse 
power experimental facility at Los Alamos, is to be relocated 
to the University of Nevada at Las Vegas to enhance the 
existing joint work among the NTS, the national labs and the 
university on physics and diagnostics development.
    The Department is encouraged to complete construction of 
the dual-stage gas gun at the Nevada Test site as soon as 
possible.
    Construction projects.--An appropriation of $133,145,000 is 
recommended for construction projects under core stockpile 
stewardship activities for fiscal year 2000. The Committee 
recommendation is the same as the budget request.
    Inertial confinement fusion [ICF].--An appropriation of 
$475,700,000 is recommended for the Inertial Confinement Fusion 
Program. The ICF Program continues to be a major contributor to 
the science and technology base supporting the nuclear 
deterrent through improved understanding of the underlying 
physics of nuclear weapons and computational modeling that will 
provide the future basis for ensuring safety, reliability, and 
performance on nuclear components.
    The Committee recommendation includes $248,100,000 to 
continue construction of the National Ignition Facility and 
$15,900,000 for operating expenses to support research 
activities related to NIF. The President's fiscal year 2000 
budget request significantly underfunded several areas of NIF 
research which would place at risk the success of scientific 
and stewardship objectives of the National Ignition Facility. 
With a capital investment of over $1,000,000,000, the Committee 
believes the Department's budget request is unwise and 
jeopardizes a key element of the Stockpile Stewardship effort 
and; therefore, our national security, and the safety and 
reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile. The additional 
$10,000,000 recommended by the Committee provides an additional 
$3,600,000 for core NIF diagnostics, $1,000,000 for direct 
drive laser beam smoothing development, and $5,400,000 to 
initiate critical cryogenic activities. Without this additional 
funding, the operational schedule, established by the 
Department of Energy, would be delayed by 1 year at a minimum.
    Project 96-D-111, national ignition facility [NIF].--The 
NIF is a key facility in maintaining nuclear weapons science 
expertise required for the stockpile stewardship program, and 
in supporting weapons effects testing. An appropriation of 
$248,100,000, the full amount needed in fiscal year 2000 to 
keep this important project on schedule, is recommended for the 
NIF project. Fiscal year 1999 was the peak year for 
construction funding, and with the appropriation recommended 
for fiscal year 2000, the project will be 75 percent complete 
on an appropriations basis. The project remains on schedule and 
within the projected construction cost of $1,046,000,000. The 
Committee is pleased with the management and oversight 
attention provided by LLNL on the project.
    Technology transfer and education.--The technology transfer 
and education program directly supports core competencies 
through the development of technologies and intellectual 
capabilities to meet current and future defense mission needs.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $46,500,000 
for these activities for fiscal year 2000 to support ongoing 
cooperative research and development agreements and education 
activities.
    The Committee recommendation includes funding as requested 
in the budget to continue activities at the Amarillo Plutonium 
Research facility. No funding is provided for a new or 
relocated National Atomic Museum.

                          stockpile management

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,025,300,000 
for stockpile management activities.
    The stockpile management mission is to provide for 
maintenance, evaluation, dismantlement, transportation, and 
disposal of nuclear weapons in accordance with quality, 
quantity, and schedule requirements approved by the President 
in the nuclear weapons stockpile plan. The program addresses 
issues of near-term and long-range support for the enduring 
stockpile, and for ensuring an adequate supply of tritium. 
Along with routine stockpile surveillance, this includes 
corrective maintenance and system replacement, as well as 
weapon dismantlement. The goal is to support the national 
security of the United States by maintaining a safe and 
reliable nuclear deterrent.
    Of the additional funds recommended for stockpile 
management, the Committee has provided an increase of 
$27,000,000 for the weapons production plants, including, 
$15,000,000 for future requirements at the Kansas City Plant 
compatible with the Advanced Development and Production 
Technologies [ADAPT] program and the Enhanced Surveillance 
program. Without additional funding, the Department and the 
Kansas City Plant will be unable to integrate new technologies 
required to meet new, future production requirements, and will 
delay the incorporation of advanced, critical electronic 
components into the nuclear weapon refurbishment and upgrade 
program. The additional funding also supports current workload 
requirements and efficiency needs.
    The Committee recommendation also includes an additional 
$10,000,000 for core stockpile management weapon activities to 
support work load requirements at the Pantex plant in Amarillo, 
Texas; and $2,000,000 to plan modifications of the nuclear 
materials vault area at Los Alamos, TA-55 so that it can be 
used to handle materials used in research and technology 
development.
    The Committee's is concerned that the budget request for 
the Pantex Plant is $32,700,000 less than in fiscal year 1999. 
The Committee's recommendation restores part of this funding. 
Given the significance of Pantex in evaluating and maintaining 
the viability of our weapons in an era of no testing and its 
significant dismantlement responsibilities pursuant to Arms 
Control treaties, the Committee directs the Department to 
address the facilities infrastructure, and take steps to 
prevent the loss of skilled technicians and other staff.
    Project 97-D-122 Nuclear Materials and Storage Facility, 
LANL.--The Committee understands that recently completed Title 
I design activities for Project 97-D-122, the Nuclear Materials 
Storage Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory, have 
indicated that continuing with this project is not warranted. 
The Committee also understands that sufficient uncosted prior 
year obligations remain against the project to allow the 
expeditious closeout of the project. The Committee expects the 
Department to proceed promptly with this closeout. Uncosted 
obligations remaining against this project after closeout may 
be directed toward nuclear material storage activities 
including the provision of interim storage capacity at Los 
Alamos. The Department is requested to provide the Congress 
with a definitive plan for meeting long term nuclear material 
storage needs at Los Alamos before proceeding further. The 
Committee is also interested in alternative uses for the 
existing facility, if any, in lieu of its intended nuclear 
material storage mission.
    Construction projects.--An appropriation of $158,679,000 is 
recommended for line item construction projects under core 
stockpile management for fiscal year 2000. The Committee 
recommendation is the same as the budget request.
    95-D-102 Chemical and Metallurgical Research (CMR) Building 
Upgrades, Los Alamos.--The Committee recommends that no further 
funding be used to upgrade the CMR facility at Los Alamos. The 
Committee believes that, given the age of the existing building 
(45 years old) further investment is not justified in light of 
a 10-year life extension of the facility after the upgrades are 
completed. Instead, the Committee directs the Department to use 
the budget request of $18,000,000 to initiate the process of 
planning, designing and construction of a replacement facility. 
The long term weapons mission support requirements and the need 
for specialized laboratory space highlight the urgency for the 
Department of Energy to expedite the definition of programmatic 
needs, and begin those activities necessary to provide a new 
replacement facility as quickly as possible. The Committee 
expects to kept informed of the Department's progress on a 
regular basis.
    Tritium Source.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$64,000,000, the full budget request, for Tritium Production 
projects for fiscal year 2000. The Department has selected the 
Civilian Light Water Reactor (CLWR) to serve as the primary 
source of tritium, and decided that the Accelerator Production 
of Tritium (APT) option is to be developed as the backup 
capacity. Therefore, the Committee has included $33,000,000 to 
proceed with the Project 98-D-125, the Tritium Extraction 
Facility at the Savannah River Site which is needed to process 
target assemblies irradiated in a CLWR to remove the tritium 
gas. An amount of $31,000,000 is recommended for Project 98-D-
126, the Accelerator Production of Tritium project to complete 
engineering development, demonstration and preliminary design 
for an accelerator-based plant to be available if needed in the 
future.
    Funding Adjustments.--The Committee has recommended funding 
adjustments totaling $13,768,000 made up of $7,668,000 of prior 
year balances, and $6,100,000 in contractor travel savings. The 
Committee is aware that after several years of savings, travel 
costs are beginning to increase. Therefore, the reduction is 
proposed to keep these costs in line with prior year levels.

                           program direction

    An appropriation of $246,500,000 is recommended for program 
direction activities. This is the same as the budget request.
    Program Direction provides funds for all Federal personnel-
related expenses for Defense Programs offices at the Department 
of Energy headquarters and the field operations offices. It 
also provides technical support throughout the Defense Programs 
complex in the areas of environment, safety and health; 
safeguards and security; NEPA compliance, and compliance with 
Federal and state laws, and recommendations of the Defense 
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

                        recommendation summaries

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

         Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management

Appropriations, 1999....................................  $4,310,227,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................   4,505,676,000
Committee recommendation................................   4,551,676,000

    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 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.
    The fiscal year 1999 budget request marks the first fiscal 
year that the environmental management program structure is 
aligned with DOE's 2006 plan. All activities have been 
organized into projects, which have more defined scopes, 
schedules, and costs that support a defined end state at each 
specific site. In addition, the environmental management budget 
is organized into program decision units that focus on the end-
date of the project. Those decision units are site closure, 
site/project completion, post-2006 completion; science and 
technology; and program direction.
    The Committee believes that the environmental management 
program of the Department of Energy is beginning to turn the 
corner in the cleanup effort. Leadership within the Department 
has put in place initiatives which have produced greater 
efficiencies, reduced cost growth on many projects, and 
resulted in moving the program from the study phase to the 
cleanup of facilities. The Committee believes that the program 
recommended for fiscal year 1999 is within the acceptable range 
and will meet all legal requirements and other agreements.
    Budget constraints will continue to check future large 
increases and additional efficiencies will be required. 
However, even with these constraints, tremendous progress 
continues to be made both in tangible, on-the-ground results 
and in the business practices within the program. The Committee 
expects the Department to continue to seek every opportunity to 
bring about more efficiencies and tough businesslike approaches 
to program execution. The Department should continue the 
critical review of the need and requirement for each individual 
support service contract, and duplicative and overlapping 
organizational arrangements and functions.
    While it is imperative that the Department's cleanup costs 
be brought down, there are instances where relative small 
amounts of additional funding invested in the near-term offer 
the potential for significant reductions in long-term budgetary 
requirements. The Committee continues to be concerned with 
growing landlord costs required to maintain buildings and 
facilities that are ready for demolition, and the high costs 
associated with temporarily storing and monitoring wastes that 
are ready for permanent disposal. In order to reduce these 
costs in the future, it is important that the Department 
expedite demolition work, waste shipments, and permanent 
storage whenever possible.

                      Site and Project Completion

    An appropriation of $993,292,000 is recommended for site/
project completion activities. This is the same as the budget 
request.
    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.
    The Committee recommendation provides an additional 
$10,000,000 to address funding shortfalls in meeting 
environmental restoration Tri-Party Agreement compliance 
deadlines, and to accelerate interim safe storage of reactors 
along the Columbia River. In providing additional resources, 
the Committee does not want to minimize the challenge goals for 
savings and efficiencies to be realized at the site. This, in 
combination with the additional funding, will help maintain 
mandates milestones and augment deactivation and 
decommissioning activities.
    The Committee has also recommended an additional $6,000,000 
in operating funds to support research and development 
associated with resolving technology issues related to the 
processing wastes at the Savannah River Site.

                          Post-2006 Completion

    The Committee recommendation for Post-2006 completion 
activities is $3,009,548,000, which includes $2,524,997,000 in 
operating expenses.
    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.
    Of the amounts recommended, the Committee has included an 
increase of $5,000,000 for the National Spent Fuel Program to 
address regulatory and repository issues associated with 
Department of Energy owned spent nuclear fuel, and an 
additional $10,000,000 for spent fuel activities related to the 
Idaho Settlement Agreement with the Department of Energy.
    The appropriation also includes an additional $30,000,000 
for tank cleanup activities at the Hanford Site. The Committee 
understands that additional funding will help to maintain 
schedules required by revised compliance agreement with the 
State of Washington.
    Project 00-D-401, Spent Nuclear Fuel Treatment and Storage 
Facility, SRS.--The Committee understands technical issues 
concerning the generation of larger than anticipated amounts of 
benzene gas have suspended all activities for pre-treatment of 
the salt feed for the Defense Waste Processing Facility at 
Savannah River, and that the fiscal year 2000 budget request 
includes funding for processing system engineering, and 
research and development necessary to evaluate all salt 
processing options prior to selecting the best option in fiscal 
year 2000. Further, the budget request includes $7,000,000 for 
design only of a new treatment and storage facility.
    Even though there are significant technical, regulatory and 
design risks, the Committee believes that the Department's 
approach should minimize the uncertainty, and understands that 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has concluded that melt and 
dilute would be an acceptable concept for geologic disposal of 
aluminum-based spent nuclear fuel. Therefore, the Committee has 
provided an additional $10,000,000 for detailed design of the 
project. The additional funding will help alleviate the delays 
based on the level of the budget request and to help mitigate 
the resultant increased costs associated with a projected 2-
year delay.
    The Committee has included a $3,000,000 increase over the 
current year funding level for DOE-funded studies or other 
activities associated with the health effects of radiation and 
other hazardous substances on DOE workers and communities. The 
Committee directs that these studies be managed by the Office 
of Environmental, Safety, and Health.

                         Science and Technology

    An appropriation of $230,500,000 is recommended for science 
and technology activities related to the environmental waste 
cleanup program.
    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 finds that the independent review provided 
through the consortium for risk evaluation and stakeholder 
participation to be important in providing balance and 
credibility to work performed for the Department. The 
recommendation continues support for the program at the level 
requested in the budget.
    The Committee recommendation supports the Department's 
efforts to complete the previously agreed privatization of the 
Western Environmental Technology Office.
    The Committee recognizes the work carried out by the 
Diagnostic Instrumentation and Analysis Laboratory [DIAL] for 
the Department of Energy's Environmental Management Program. 
This work has led to the development of instrumentation and 
technology of value to the Department's cleanup effort. The 
Committee recommendation supports DIAL at $6,000,000.
    Funding Adjustments.--The Committee has recommended funding 
adjustments totaling $22,373,000 made up of $20,000,000 of 
prior year balances, and $2,373,000 in contractor travel 
savings.

                           Program Direction

    The Committee recommendation for program direction totals 
$349,409,000, 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 amount recommended by the Committee supports the 
establishment of an Office of River Protection at the Hanford 
Site in accordance with the Strom Thurmond National Defense 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 1999. The Office will be 
responsible for all aspects of the Tank Waste Remediation 
system with the critical mission to immobilize Hanford's high-
level waste and protect the Columbia River.

                   Defense Facility Closure Projects

Appropriations, 1999....................................  $1,038,240,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................   1,054,492,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,069,492,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,069,492,000 
for the site closure program. This is an increase of 
$15,000,000 over the budget request.
    The ``Site closure'' account includes funding for sites 
where the environmental management program has established a 
goal of completing the cleanup mission by the end of fiscal 
year 2006. After the cleanup mission is complete at a site, no 
further DOE mission is envisioned, except for limited long-term 
surveillance and maintenance. This account provides funding to 
cleanup the Rocky Flats, Fernald, Mound, Ashtabula, and 
Battelle Columbus sites.
    The Committee continues to believe that a closure fund, 
which targets funding at specific facilities whose accelerated 
closure in the near-term results in significantly reduced out-
year costs, is important in freeing up budgetary resources in 
the longer term. The Committee has included an additional 
$20,000,000 to mitigate the funding shortfall proposed in the 
budget for the Rocky Flats site. The Committee understands that 
early closure of the Rocky Flats site could result in over 
$1,000,000,000 in saving.

             Defense Environmental Management Privatization

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $228,357,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     228,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     228,000,000

    An appropriation of $228,000,000 is recommended for the 
environmental management privatization initiative. This is the 
same as the budget request.
    The Department of Energy continues to rely upon the private 
sector to accomplish it's mission of environmental cleanup. 
Privatization is just one tool used by DOE to implement 
alternative business strategies for the procurement of goods 
and services required to fulfill their cleanup 
responsibilities. The term ``privatization'' as used by DOE 
refers to a method of financing, contracting and risk-sharing 
between the Department and firms in the private sector for good 
or services, and involves the use of fixed price contracts 
under which contractors use private funding to design, 
construct, operate, and deactivate equipment and facilities 
required in the cleanup mission. The vendor then receives 
payment for producing products that meet DOE performance 
specifications. Budget authority is set aside to cover future 
contractual obligations, as well as to provide an incentive for 
private sector investment.

                        recommendation summaries

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

                        Other Defense Activities

Appropriations, 1999....................................  $1,696,676,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................   1,792,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,872,000,000

    An appropriation of $1,872,000,000 is recommended by the 
Committee for other defense activities.
    This account includes the following programs: verification 
and control technology, nuclear safeguards and security, 
security investigations, security evaluations, the Office of 
Nuclear Safety, Worker, and Community Transition Assistance, 
fissile materials control and disposition, emergency 
management, international nuclear safety and security 
activities, and naval reactors. Descriptions of each account 
are provided below.

                 Nonproliferation and National Security

    The Nonproliferation and National Security Program includes 
activities related to nonproliferation and verification 
research and development, arms control, and intelligence. The 
Department is engaged in an active nuclear nonproliferation 
program through research and development activities performed 
at the national laboratories, by providing technical and 
analytical support to treaty development and implementation, 
and by providing intelligence support to these efforts. The 
Committee recommendation totals $822,300,000. The Committee 
continues to strongly support these important national security 
programs.
    Verification and control technology/arms control.--The 
Committee recommendation for verification and control 
technology research and development, and arms control totals 
$547,000,000. The funding level recommended by the Committee 
provides significant increases over the current year level for 
DOE to continue important activities related to the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including 
chemical and biological weapons; and increased initiatives to 
reduce the danger of nuclear smuggling and the associated 
potential of nuclear terrorism.
    The Committee recommendation also includes $84,000,000 for 
Deterrence and Detection Technologies, including $41,152,000 
for Chemical and Biological non-proliferation activities. This 
funding level supports an enhanced program of critical research 
to develop and test fast and selective detection technologies, 
predictive plume transport models suitable for urban areas, new 
recovery and restoration concepts, and advanced biological 
forensic methods for proliferation detection.
    The recommendation provides $165,000,000 for material 
protection, control, and accounting [MPC&A;] activities. The 
Committee continues to consider these activities important to 
reducing the threat created by the breakup of the former Soviet 
Union. The increased funding will allow additional material 
protection, control and security upgrade work at defense-
related and important civilian and regulatory sites in Russia. 
The recommendation also supports an enhanced program of 
material control, protection and accounting upgrades at several 
Russian Navy sites. The Committee continues to believe that 
these activities are critical elements of the United States 
non-proliferation efforts.
    The Committee action supports the budget request for both 
the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention and the Nuclear 
Cities program of the Department of Energy. These programs 
contribute to the international non-proliferation effort by 
engaging highly qualified and knowledgeable scientists, 
engineers, and technicians from Russia and the former States of 
the Soviet Union in cooperative commercial and other high 
technology non-military activities.
    Nuclear Safeguards and Security.--The Committee has 
provided $69,100,000 for Nuclear Safeguards and Security 
programs of the Department of Energy. These activities provide 
policy, programmatic direction and training for the protection 
of the Department's nuclear weapons, nuclear materials, 
classified information and facilities. An additional 
$10,000,000 is recommended to enhance and strengthen physical 
protection of critical facilities and infrastructure against 
physical and cyber attack.
    Security Investigations.--The Security Investigations 
Program funds background investigations for all DOE Federal 
staff and all Headquarters contractors, who, in the performance 
of their official duties, require access authorizations to 
Restricted Data, National Security Information or special 
material. Given the heightened awareness and sensitivity, the 
Committee expects the numbers of security background 
investigations to increase significantly. The Committee has 
recommended $45,000,000, an increase of $15,000,000 over the 
budget request, to respond to this increased requirement.
    The Committee understands that the cost of security 
clearances is to be offset by program organizations in the 
amount of $20,000,000.
    HEU (Highly Enriched Uranium) Transparency 
Implementation.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$15,750,000 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 permits the U.S. to have confidence that the 
Russian side is abiding by the Agreement.
    International Nuclear Safety.--The Committee recommendation 
is $34,000,000, the full budget request for the International 
Nuclear Safety program.
    This program supports international nuclear safety 
cooperation through project activities in host countries and 
through participation with international nuclear safety 
organizations. Project activities are focused to address the 
most significant safety issues in selected countries, including 
primarily those with Soviet-designed reactors.
    Intelligence.--The Committee recommendation totals 
$36,059,000.
    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 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.
    Counterintelligence.--An appropriation of $39,200,000 is 
provided for the counterintelligence activities of the 
Department of Energy. This is an increase of $22,559,000 over 
the current years appropriation. The funding recommendation 
recognizes that the $12,559,000 of the amount recommended is to 
be provided by the national laboratories.
    Recent security issues has revealed the need to strengthen 
and enhance the counterintelligence activities of the 
Department. The recommended increase in funding supports the 
efforts of the Department and further enhances the program in 
the area of cyber security and early warning and intrusion 
analysis. It is critical that the Department of Energy cyber 
security be brought into line with other U.S. intelligence 
community partners who are advancing a national CI-Cyber 
strategy.
    Emergency management.--The Committee has provided 
$21,000,000 for emergency management activities. The Office of 
Emergency Management serves as the single point of contact and 
control for all DOE emergency and threat assessment-related 
activities, and ensures an integrated response to emergencies 
affecting departmental operations and activities or requiring 
departmental assistance.

               Environment, safety, and health (Defense)

    The Office of Environment, Safety, and Health is the 
departmental resource that provides oversight in the areas of 
environment, safety, health, and safeguards and security 
performance. The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$94,000,000.
    The Committee recommendation continues funding to support 
studies at and around DOE sites under a memorandum with the 
Department of Health and Human Services under defense 
activities as in past years. The recommendation also supports 
the program to monitor former DOE workers with significant 
occupational exposures at an increased level.
    The Committee has included within the recommended funding 
of $15,500,000 to support ongoing studies of the health effects 
of radiation on the survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki 
atomic bombings. The Committee directs the Department to 
undertake a review of the current dosimetry system, DS86, used 
to estimate the neutron dose at Hiroshima to determine if, 
based on the available activation measurements from Hiroshima, 
a corrective factor should be used in the system to account for 
distance from the hypocenter. The Department should report to 
the Committee within 60 days of enactment of this Act on its 
plans for such a review.

               Worker And Community Transition Assistance

    In accordance with section 3161 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act of 1993 and as a result of a change in the 
work force at defense nuclear facilities, defense employees of 
the Department may be provided various options to minimize 
impacts of these work force structure changes. These options 
include retraining, early retirement incentives, preference in 
hiring, outplacement assistance, and relocation assistance. In 
addition, this program funds contractor employment reduction 
requirements for severance and separation payments.
    The Committee recommendation is $30,000,000 for this 
program. The recommendation supports the Department's 
commitment to the State of Idaho at the amount contained in the 
budget request.
    The Committee supports efforts to diversify technical 
activities at the Nevada Test Site. The Committee believes that 
appropriate activities will share the infrastructure burden 
that is necessary to maintain test readiness. The Department is 
encouraged to provide assistance for implementation of such 
appropriate activities at the Nevada Test Site.

               Fissile Materials Control and Disposition

    The Fissile Materials Control and Disposition Program is 
responsible for the technical and management activities to 
assess, plan, and direct efforts to provide for the safe, 
secure, environmentally sound long-term storage of all weapons-
usable fissile materials and the disposition of fissile 
materials declared surplus to national defense needs. The 
Committee recommendation is $205,000,000 the same as 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 and 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 equal 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 recognizes that Russian plans to dispose of 
excess weapons plutonium are in part limited by the Russian 
Federation's limited requirement for mixed-oxide fuel. The 
Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 to support the 
joint United States-Russian program to develop an advanced 
reactor to consume large quantities of excess weapons 
plutonium.
    Funding Adjustments.--The Committee has recommended a 
$2,600,000 reduction in contractor travel savings for Other 
Defense Activities, excluding the Naval Reactor program.

                             Naval Reactors

    The Naval Reactors Program 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 combatants varying in size 
from small submarines to large surface ships. The Committee 
recommendation is $677,600,000.
    The Committee has provided an additional $12,600,000 to 
optimize the program to shutdown prototype reactors and conduct 
remediation work. The Committee supports this effort and urges 
the Department to review the need for additional funding in 
future years, and to take appropriate action to request 
additional resources as may be needed in future budgets.

                        RECOMMENDATION SUMMARIES

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

                     Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $189,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     112,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     112,500,000

    The Committee recommends $112,500,000 for defense nuclear 
waste disposal.
    Since passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as 
amended, the nuclear waste fund has incurred costs for 
activities related to disposal of high-level waste generated 
from the atomic energy defense activities of the Department of 
Energy. At the end of fiscal year 1998, the balance owed by the 
Federal Government to the nuclear waste fund was $1,191,000,000 
(including principal and interest). The ``Defense nuclear waste 
disposal'' appropriation was established to ensure payment of 
the Federal Government's contribution to the nuclear waste 
repository program. Through fiscal year 1998, a total of 
$987,830,000 has been appropriated to support nuclear waste 
repository activities attributable to atomic energy defense 
activities.

                    Power Marketing Administrations

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

                  bonneville power administration fund

    The Bonneville Power Administration 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 29 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 360 substations 
with an installed capacity of 21,500 megawatts.
    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.--A total of $3,750,000,000 has been 
made available to Bonneville as permanent borrowing authority. 
Each year the Committee reviews the budgeted amounts Bonneville 
plans to use of this total and reports a recommendation on 
these borrowing requirements. For fiscal year 2000, the 
Committee recommends an additional increment of $352,000,000 in 
new borrowing authority, the same as the budget request, for 
transmission system construction, system replacement, energy 
resources, fish and wildlife, and capitol equipment programs.
    Repayment.--During fiscal year 1999, Bonneville will pay 
the Treasury $607,000,000, of which $164,000,000 is to repay 
principal on the Federal investment in these facilities.
    Limitation on direct loans.--The Committee recommends that 
no new direct loans be made in fiscal year 2000.
    Budget revisions and notification.--The Committee expects 
Bonneville to adhere to the borrowing authority estimates 
recommended by the Congress and promptly inform the Committee 
of any exceptional circumstances which would necessitate the 
need for Bonneville to obligate borrowing authority in excess 
of such amounts.

      operation and maintenance, southeastern power administration

Appropriations, 1999....................................      $7,500,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................................
Committee recommendation................................      39,594,000

    The Southeastern Power Administration markets hydroelectric 
power produced at Corps of Engineers projects in 10 
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 wheeling arrangements between 
Southeastern and each of the area utilities with transmission 
lines connected to the projects. The utility agrees to deliver 
specified amounts of Federal power to customers of the 
Government, and Southeastern agrees to compensate the utility 
for the wheeling service performed.
    The Committee disagrees with the Department's proposal to 
eliminate funding for power purchases and wheeling and includes 
$28,000,000 for that purpose.

      operation and maintenance, southwestern power administration

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $26,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      27,940,000
Committee recommendation................................      28,000,000

    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 disagrees with the Department's proposal to 
eliminate funding for power purchases and wheeling and includes 
$833,000 for that purpose.

 construction, rehabilitation, operation and maintenance western area 
                          power administration

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $203,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     171,471,000
Committee recommendation................................     223,555,000

    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 16,727 miles 
of high-voltage transmission lines with 257 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.
    The Committee disagrees with the Department's proposal to 
eliminate funding for power purchases and wheeling and includes 
$53,886,000 for that purpose.
    The amount to be deposited in the ``Utah reclamation 
mitigation and conservation'' account is $5,036,000, the same 
amount as the request.

           falcon and amistad operating and maintenance fund

    Creation of the Falcon and Amistad operating and 
maintenance fund was directed by the Foreign Relations 
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994-95. This legislation also 
directed that the fund be administered by the Administrator of 
the Western Area Power Administration for use by the 
Commissioner of the United States Section of the International 
Boundary and Water Commission to defray operation, maintenance, 
and emergency costs for the hydroelectric facilities at the 
Falcon and Amistad Dams in Texas.
    The Committee recommendation is $1,309,000, 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, 1999....................................    $167,500,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     179,900,000
Committee recommendation................................     170,000,000

                salaries and expenses--revenues applied

Appropriations, 1999....................................   -$167,500,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................    -179,900,000
Committee recommendation................................    -170,000,000

    The Committee recommendation provides $170,000,000 for the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Revenues are established 
at a rate equal to the amount provided for program activities, 
resulting in a net appropriation of zero.

                GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    The Committee recommendation includes a Department of 
Energy general provision not included in the current year 
Energy and Water Development Act.
    Contractor travel expenses.--Department of Energy 
contractor travel costs are limited to not more than 
$200,000,000 in fiscal year 2000, and each contractor is 
limited to not more than 80 percent of the amount that 
contractor spent on travel in fiscal year 1998.

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

           SOLAR AND RENEWABLE RESOURCES TECHNOLOGIES

Solar energy:
    Solar building technology research..........................          2,900           5,500           2,000
    Photovoltaic energy systems.................................         66,800          93,309          64,000
    Photovoltaic energy research................................          2,883           2,847           2,847
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Photovoltaic....................................         69,683          96,156          66,847
                                                                 ===============================================
    Concentrating solar power...................................         17,000          18,850          15,000
    Biomass/biofuels energy systems:
        Power systems...........................................         31,000          38,950          34,950
        Transportation..........................................         41,750          53,441          38,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Biomass/biofuels energy systems.............         72,750          92,391          72,950
    Biomass/biofuels energy research............................         27,199          26,740          26,740
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Biomass.........................................         99,949         119,131          99,690
                                                                 ===============================================
    Wind energy systems.........................................         33,200          45,600          34,000
    Wind energy research........................................            283             283             283
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Wind............................................         33,483          45,883          34,283
                                                                 ===============================================
    Renewable energy production incentive program...............          4,000           1,500           1,500
    Solar program support.......................................  ..............         10,000           2,000
    International solar energy program..........................          3,750           6,000           3,000
    National renewable energy laboratory........................          2,000           1,100           1,100
    Construction: 96-E-100 FTLB renovation and expansion........  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, National renewable energy laboratory............          2,000           1,100           1,100
                                                                 ===============================================
    Solar photoconversion.......................................         14,532          14,260          14,260
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, Solar Energy.......................................        247,297         318,380         239,680
                                                                 ===============================================
Geothermal: Geothermal technology development...................         28,500          29,500          24,000
                                                                 ===============================================
Hydrogen research...............................................         21,000          28,000          27,000
Hydrogen energy research........................................          3,008           2,970           2,970
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, Hydrogen...........................................         24,008          30,970          29,970
                                                                 ===============================================
Hydropower......................................................          2,000           7,000           5,000
Renewable Indian energy resources...............................          3,500   ..............          4,000
                                                                 ===============================================
Electric energy systems and storage:
    Transmission reliability....................................          2,500           4,000           3,500
    High temperature superconducting R&D........................;         32,500          31,000          30,000
    Energy storage systems......................................          4,500           6,000   ..............
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, Electric energy systems and storage................         39,500          41,000          33,500
                                                                 ===============================================
Federal building/Remote power initiative........................          4,000   ..............  ..............
Program direction...............................................         17,100          19,171          17,750
                                                                 ===============================================
      TOTAL, SOLAR AND RENEWABLE RESOURCES TECHNOLOGIES.........        365,905         446,021         353,900
                                                                 ===============================================
                         NUCLEAR ENERGY

Nuclear energy R&D;:
    Advanced radioisotope power system..........................         37,000          37,000          37,000
    Test reactor area landlord..................................          4,000           6,070           6,070
        Construction:
            99-E-200 Test reactor area electrical utility                   341           1,430           1,430
             upgrade, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, ID.
            95-E-201 Test reactor area fire and life safety               2,425           1,500           1,500
             improvements, Idaho National Engineering
             Laboratory, ID.....................................
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                Subtotal, Construction..........................          2,766           2,930           2,930
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                Subtotal, Test reactor area landlord............          6,766           9,000           9,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    University reactor fuel assistance and support..............         11,000          11,345          12,000
    Nuclear energy plant optimization...........................  ..............          5,000           5,000
    Nuclear energy research initiative..........................         19,000          25,000          25,000
    Civilian research and development...........................  ..............  ..............          5,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, Nuclear energy R&D.................................;         93,766          87,345          93,000
                                                                 ===============================================
Fast flux test facility (FFTF)..................................         30,000          30,000          28,000
Termination costs...............................................         85,000          65,000          80,000
                                                                 ===============================================
Uranium programs................................................         49,000          41,000          39,000
    Construction:
        98-U-200 depleted UF6 cylinder storage yards, Paducah,    ..............  ..............  ..............
         KY.....................................................
        96-U-201 depleted UF6 cylinder storage yards, Paducah,    ..............  ..............  ..............
         KY.....................................................
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, Construction..............................  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            Total, Uranium programs.............................         49,000          41,000          39,000
                                                                 ===============================================
Isotope support.................................................         15,500          13,000          15,500
    Construction: 99-E-201 Isotope production facility (LANL)...          6,000           8,000           7,500
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, Isotope support....................................         21,500          21,000          23,000
                                                                 ===============================================
Program direction...............................................         24,700          24,960          24,700
                                                                 ===============================================
      TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY.....................................        283,966         269,305         287,700
                                                                 ===============================================
                 ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

Environment, safety and health..................................         32,000          31,752          30,000
Program direction...............................................         18,398          18,998          18,998
                                                                 ===============================================
      TOTAL, ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH.....................         50,398          50,750          48,998
                                                                 ===============================================
                    ENERGY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES

Technical information management program........................          1,600           1,600           1,600
Program direction...............................................          7,000           7,500           7,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, Technical information management program...........          8,600           9,100           8,600
                                                                 ===============================================
Transfer to OSHA for external regulation pilot projects.........          1,000   ..............  ..............
Field operations................................................        104,127         102,000         100,000
Oak Ridge Landlord..............................................         11,000          11,812          11,000
                                                                 ===============================================
      TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES..........................        124,727         122,912         119,600
                                                                 ===============================================
      Subtotal, Energy supply...................................        824,996         888,988         810,198
                                                                 ===============================================
Renewable energy research program...............................        -47,905         -47,100         -47,100
Use of prior year balances......................................        -50,000   ..............        -31,589
Transfer from Geothermal and USEC...............................  ..............         -5,821          -5,821
Contractor travel savings.......................................  ..............  ..............        -10,276
                                                                 ===============================================
      TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPLY......................................        727,091         836,067         715,412
                                                                 ===============================================
              NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Site closure....................................................        254,344         211,146         210,000
Site/project completion.........................................        102,948          98,366          98,000
    Construction: 93-E-900 Long-term storage of TMI-2 fuel, INEL  ..............          2,500           2,500
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Site/project completion.........................        102,948         100,866         100,500
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Post 2006 completion............................................         83,908          18,922          17,422
Use of prior year balances......................................        -10,000   ..............  ..............
                                                                 ===============================================
      TOTAL, NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT...............        431,200         330,934         327,922
                                                                 ===============================================
   URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING FUND

Decontamination and decommissioning.............................        190,200         210,198         175,000
Uranium/thorium reimbursement...................................         30,000          30,000          25,000
                                                                 ===============================================
      TOTAL, URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND                     220,200         240,198         200,000
       DECOMMISSIONING..........................................
                                                                 ===============================================
                             SCIENCE

High energy physics:
    Research and technology.....................................        215,865         227,190         221,190
    Facility operations.........................................        459,635         441,200         441,200
        Construction:
            00-G-307 SLAC office building.......................  ..............          2,000           2,000
            99-G-306 Wilson hall safety improvements, Fermilab..          6,700           4,700           4,700
            98-G-304 Neutrinos at the main injector, Fermilab...         14,300          22,000          22,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, Construction............................         21,000          28,700          28,700
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, Facility operations.....................        480,635         469,900         469,900
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
              Total, High energy physics........................        696,500         697,090         691,090
                                                                 ===============================================
Nuclear physics.................................................        318,480         342,940         330,000
    Construction: 91-G-300 Relativistic heavy ion collider (BNL)         16,620   ..............  ..............
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, Nuclear physics....................................        335,100         342,940         330,000
                                                                 ===============================================
Biological and environmental research...........................        443,600         411,170         429,700
                                                                 ===============================================
Basic energy sciences:
    Materials sciences..........................................        417,216         407,636         405,000
    Chemical sciences...........................................        209,582         215,577         212,000
    Engineering and geosciences.................................         44,413          37,545          37,545
    Energy biosciences..........................................         32,489          31,226          31,000
    Construction:
        99-E-334 Spallation neutron source (ORNL)...............        101,400         196,100         169,000
        96-E-300 Combustion research facility, Phase II, SNL/L..          4,000   ..............  ..............
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Construction................................        105,400         196,100         169,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
          Total, Basic energy sciences..........................        809,100         888,084         854,545
                                                                 ===============================================
Other energy research:
    Computational and technology research.......................        143,000         198,875         129,000
    Energy research analyses....................................          1,000           1,000           1,000
    Multiprogram energy labs--facility support..................
    Infrastructure support......................................          1,160           1,160           1,160
    Construction: MEL-001 Multiprogram energy laboratory                 14,924          18,351          18,351
     infrastructure projects, various locations.................
    Multiprogram general purpose facilities:
        Construction:94-E-363 Roofing improvements (ORNL).......          4,908           1,749           1,749
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Multiprogram gen. purpose facilities........          4,908           1,749           1,749
                                                                 ===============================================
    Environment, safety and health:
        Construction: 96-E-333 Multiprogram energy laboratories             268   ..............  ..............
         upgrades, various locations............................
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, Environment, safety and health............            268   ..............  ..............
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, Multiprogram energy labs--fac. suppor.....         21,260          21,260          21,260
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            Total, Other energy research........................        165,260         221,135         151,260
                                                                 ===============================================
Fusion energy sciences program..................................        223,300         222,614         220,614
Program direction...............................................         49,800          52,360          52,360
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Science.........................................      2,722,660       2,835,393       2,729,569
                                                                 ===============================================
Use of prior year SSC balances..................................         -7,600   ..............  ..............
Use of other prior year balances................................        -13,000   ..............  ..............
Contractor travel savings.......................................  ..............  ..............         -4,500
General reduction...............................................         -5,700   ..............  ..............
General reduction for policy papers for CCTI....................        -13,500   ..............  ..............
                                                                 ===============================================
      TOTAL, SCIENCE............................................      2,682,860       2,835,393       2,725,069
                                                                 ===============================================
                   DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

Administrative operations:
    Salaries and expenses:
        Office of the Secretary.................................          4,175           4,940           4,940
        Board of contract appeals...............................            715             838             838
        Chief financial officer.................................         22,350          23,792          23,000
        Contract reform.........................................          3,200           3,200           3,000
        Congressional and intergovernmental affairs.............          4,900           4,910           4,910
        Economic impact and diversity...........................          4,700           5,046           4,700
        Field management........................................          7,500           8,080   ..............
        General counsel.........................................         19,250          21,434          20,000
        Management and administration...........................         97,000         101,273          98,000
        Policy office...........................................         14,000          17,430          15,500
        Public affairs..........................................          3,500           3,963           3,963
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Salaries and expenses.......................        181,290         194,906         178,851
    Program support:
        Minority economic impact................................          1,700           1,700           1,700
        Policy analysis and system studies......................            350           1,000             500
        Environmental policy studies............................          2,000           2,432           2,000
        Scientific and technical training.......................            450             450             450
        Corporate management information program................          8,000          13,000          12,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Program support.............................         12,500          18,582          16,650
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
          Total, Administrative operations......................        193,790         213,488         195,501
                                                                 ===============================================
Cost of work for others.........................................         44,312          34,027          34,027
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Departmental Administration.....................        238,102         247,515         229,528
Use of prior year balances......................................  ..............  ..............         -3,000
Work for others prior year balances.............................  ..............  ..............         -7,113
Transfer from other defense activities..........................        -37,627   ..............  ..............
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, Departmental administration (gross)................        200,475         247,515         219,415
Miscellaneous revenues..........................................       -136,530        -116,887        -116,887
                                                                 ===============================================
      TOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION (net)..................         63,945         130,628         102,528
                                                                 ===============================================
                   OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Office of Inspector General.....................................         29,000          30,000          29,000
                                                                 ===============================================
                ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

                       WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Stockpile stewardship:
    Core stockpile stewardship..................................      1,482,632       1,635,355       1,696,455
        Construction:
            00-D-103, Terascale simulation facility, LLNL,        ..............          8,000           8,000
             Livermore, CA......................................
            00-D-105 Strategic computing complex, LANL Los        ..............         26,000          26,000
             Alamos, NM.........................................
            00-D-107 Joint computational engineering laboratory,  ..............          1,800           1,800
             SNL, Albuquerque, NM...............................
            99-D-102 Rehabilitation of maintenance facility,              4,000           3,900           3,900
             LLNL, Livermore, CA................................
            99-D-103 Isotope sciences facilities, LLNL,                   2,000           2,000           2,000
             Livermore, CA......................................
            99-D-104 Protection of real property (roof                    2,500           2,400           2,400
             reconstruction-Phase II), LLNL, Livermore, CA......
            99-D-105 Central health physics cailbration                   2,900           1,000           1,000
             facility, LANL, Los Alamos, NM.....................
            99-D-106 Model validation & system certication                1,600           6,500           6,500
             center, SNL, Albuquerque, NM.......................
            99-D-108 Renovate existing roadways, Nevada Test              2,000           7,005           7,005
             Site, NV...........................................
            97-D-102 Dual-axis radiographic hydrotest facility           36,000          61,000          61,000
             (LANL), Los Alamos, NM.............................
            96-D-102 Stockpile stewardship facilities                    20,423           2,640           2,640
             revitalization (Phase VI), various locations.......
            96-D-103 ATLAS, Los Alamos National Laboratory......          6,400   ..............  ..............
            96-D-104 Processing and environmental technology             18,920          10,900          10,900
             laboratory (SNL)...................................
            96-D-105 Contained firing facility addition (LLNL)..          6,700   ..............  ..............
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, Construction............................        103,443         133,145         133,145
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, Core stockpile stewardship..............      1,586,075       1,768,500       1,829,600
    Inertial fusion.............................................        223,800         217,600         227,600
        Construction: 96-D-111 National ignition facility, LLNL.        284,200         248,100         248,100
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Inertial fusion.............................        508,000         465,700         475,700
    Technology transfer/education:
        Technology transfer.....................................         45,000          22,200          22,200
        Education...............................................          9,000          29,800          24,300
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Technology transfer/education...............         54,000          52,000          46,500
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
          Total, Stockpile stewardship..........................      2,148,075       2,286,200       2,351,800
                                                                 ===============================================
Stockpile management............................................      1,986,803       1,839,621       1,866,621
    Construction:
        99-D-122 Rapid reactivation, various locations..........         11,200          11,700          11,700
        99-D-123 Replace mechanical utility systems, Y-12, Oak            1,900   ..............  ..............
         Ridge, TN..............................................
        99-D-125 Replace boilers and controls, Kansas City                1,000   ..............  ..............
         plant, Kansas City, MO.................................
        99-D-127 Stockpile management restructuring initiative,          13,700          17,000          17,000
         Kansas City plant, Kansas City, MO.....................
        99-D-128 Stockpile management restructuring initiative,           1,108           3,429           3,429
         Pantex consolidation, Amarillo, TX.....................
        99-D-132 SMRI nuclear material safeguards and security            9,700          11,300          11,300
         upgrade project (LANL), Los Alamos, NM.................
        98-D-123 Stockpile mgmt. restructuring initiative                27,500          21,800          21,800
         Tritium factory modernization and consolidation,
         Savannah River, SC.....................................
        98-D-124 Stockpile mgmt. restructuring initiative Y-12           10,700           3,150           3,150
         consolidation, Oak Ridge, TN...........................
        98-D-125 Tritium extraction facility, SR................          6,000          33,000          33,000
        98-D-126 Accelerator production of Tritium, various              20,000          31,000          31,000
         locations..............................................
        97-D-122 Nuclear materials storage facility renovation            2,500   ..............  ..............
         (LANL), Los Alamos, NM.................................
        97-D-123 Structural upgrades, Kansas City plant, Kansas           6,400           4,800           4,800
         City, KS...............................................
        96-D-122 Sewage treatment quality upgrade (STQU), Pantex          3,700   ..............  ..............
         plant..................................................
        95-D-102 Chemistry and metallurgy research (CMR)                  5,000          18,000          18,000
         upgrades project (LANL)................................
        93-D-122 Life safety upgrades, Y-12 plant...............          3,250   ..............  ..............
        88-D-123 Security enhancements, Pantex plant, Amarillo,   ..............          3,500           3,500
         TX.....................................................
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, Construction..............................        123,658         158,679         158,679
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            Total, Stockpile management.........................      2,110,461       1,998,300       2,025,300
                                                                 ===============================================
Program direction...............................................        250,000         246,500         246,500
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Weapons activities..............................      4,508,536       4,531,000       4,623,600
                                                                 ===============================================
Use of prior year balances......................................        -82,536   ..............         -7,668
Contractor travel savings.......................................  ..............  ..............         -6,100
                                                                 ===============================================
      TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES.................................      4,426,000       4,531,000       4,609,832
                                                                 ===============================================
        DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND WASTE MGMT.

Site/project completion:
    Operation and maintenance...................................        858,090         892,629         905,002
    Construction:
        99-D-402 Tank farm support services, F&H; area, Savannah           2,745           3,100           3,100
         River site, Aiken, SC..................................
        99-D-404 Health physics instrumentation laboratory                  950           7,200           7,200
         (INEL), ID.............................................
        98-D-401 H-tank farm storm water systems upgrade,                 3,120           2,977           2,977
         Savannah River, SC.....................................
        98-D-453 Plutonium stabilization and handling system for         26,814          16,860          16,860
         PFP, Richland, WA......................................
        98-D-700 Road rehabilitation (INEL), ID.................          7,710           2,590           2,590
        97-D-450 Savannah River nuclear material storage,                79,184           4,000           4,000
         Savannah River Site, Aiken, SC.........................
        97-D-470 Regulatory monitoring and bioassay laboratory,           7,000          12,220          12,220
         Savannah River site, Aiken, SC.........................
        96-D-406 Spent nuclear fuels canister storage and                38,680          24,441          24,441
         stabilization facility, Richland, WA...................
        96-D-464 Electrical & utility systems upgrade, Idaho             11,544          11,971          11,971
         chemical processing plant (INEL), ID...................
        96-D-471 CFC HVAC/chiller retrofit, Savannah River site,          8,000             931             931
         Aiken, SC..............................................
        95-D-456 Security facilities consolidation, Idaho                   485   ..............  ..............
         chemical processing plant (INEL), ID...................
        92-D-140 F&H; canyon exhaust upgrades Savannah River, SC.          3,667   ..............  ..............
        86-D-103 Decontamination and waste treatment facility             4,752           2,000           2,000
         (LLNL), Livermore, CA..................................
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, Construction..............................        194,651          88,290          88,290
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            Total, Site/project completion......................      1,052,741         980,919         993,292
                                                                 ===============================================
Post 2006 completion:
    Operation and maintenance...................................      2,261,107       2,478,997       2,524,997
    Uranium enrichment D&D; fund contribution....................        398,088         420,000         420,000
    Construction:
        00-D-401 Spent Nuclear Fuel treatment and storage         ..............          7,000          17,000
         facility Title I & II, Savannah River, SC..............
        99-D-403 Privatization Phase I infrastructure support,           14,800          13,988          13,988
         Richland, WA...........................................
        97-D-402 Tank farm restoration and safe operations,              22,723          20,516          20,516
         Richland, WA...........................................
        96-D-408 Waste management upgrades, Richland, WA........            171   ..............  ..............
        94-D-407 Initial tank retrieval systems, Richland, WA...         32,860           4,060           4,060
        93-D-187 High-level waste removal from filled waste              15,214           8,987           8,987
         tanks, Savannah River, SC..............................
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, Construction..............................         85,768          54,551          64,551
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            Total, Post 2006 completion.........................      2,744,963       2,953,548       3,009,548
                                                                 ===============================================
Science and technology..........................................        247,000         230,500         230,500
Program direction...............................................        337,073         349,409         349,409
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Defense environmental management................      4,381,777       4,514,376       4,582,749
                                                                 ===============================================
Use of prior year balances/general reduction....................        -71,550   ..............        -20,000
Contractor travel savings.......................................  ..............  ..............         -2,373
Offsetting collections..........................................  ..............         -8,700          -8,700
                                                                 ===============================================
      TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRON. RESTORATION AND WASTE MGMT........      4,310,227       4,505,676       4,551,676
                                                                 ===============================================
               DEFENSE FACILITIES CLOSURE PROJECTS

Closure projects................................................      1,038,240       1,054,492       1,069,492

         DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRIVATIZATION

Privatization initiatives, various locations....................        228,357         253,000         253,000
Use of prior year balances......................................  ..............        -25,000         -25,000
                                                                 ===============================================
      TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT. PRIVATIZATION..........        228,357         228,000         228,000
                                                                 ===============================================
      TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT...................      5,576,824       5,788,168       5,849,168
                                                                 ===============================================
                    OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Other national security programs:
    Nonproliferation and national security:
        Verification and control technology:
            Nonproliferation and verification, R&D..............;        210,000         215,000         225,000
                Construction: 00-D-192 Nonproliferation and       ..............          6,000           6,000
                 international security center (NISC), LANL.....
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                    Subtotal, Nonproliferation & verification...        210,000         221,000         231,000
            Arms control........................................        256,900         296,000         316,000
            Intelligence........................................         41,600   ..............  ..............
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, Verification and control technology.....        508,500         517,000         547,000
        Emergency management....................................         21,000          21,000          21,000
        Nuclear safeguards and security.........................         55,200          59,100          69,100
        Security investigations.................................         30,000          30,000          45,000
        HEU transparency implementation.........................  ..............         15,750          15,750
        International nuclear safety............................  ..............         34,000          34,000
        Program direction--NN...................................         86,900          90,450          90,450
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Nonproliferation and national security......        701,600         767,300         822,300
    Intelligence................................................  ..............         36,059          36,059
    Counterintelligence.........................................  ..............         31,200          39,200
    Environment, safety and health (Defense)....................         66,731          67,231          69,231
    Program direction--EH.......................................         24,769          24,769          24,769
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Environment, safety & health (Defense)..........         91,500          92,000          94,000
    Worker and community transition.............................         26,000          26,500          26,500
    Program direction--WT.......................................          3,900           3,500           3,500
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Worker and community transition.................         29,900          30,000          30,000
    Fissile materials disposition...............................        116,372         129,766         134,766
    Program direction--MD.......................................          4,588           7,343           7,343
    Construction:
        00-D-142 Immobilization and associated processing         ..............         21,765          21,765
         facility, various locations............................
        99-D-141 Pit disassembly and conversion facility,                20,000          28,751          28,751
         various locations......................................
        99-D-143 Mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility, various          28,000          12,375          12,375
         locations..............................................
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, Construction..............................         48,000          62,891          62,891
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, Fissile materials disposition.............        168,960         200,000         205,000
    Nuclear energy (Defense):
        International nuclear safety: Soviet designed reactors..         30,000   ..............  ..............
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Nuclear energy (Defense)....................         30,000   ..............  ..............
    National Security programs administrative support...........         37,627   ..............  ..............
    Office of hearings and appeals..............................          2,400           3,000           3,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Other national security programs................      1,061,987       1,159,559       1,229,559
    Contractor travel savings...................................  ..............  ..............         -2,600
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, Other national security programs...................      1,061,987       1,159,559       1,226,959
                                                                 ===============================================
Independent assessment of DOE projects..........................  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                 ===============================================
Naval reactors:
    Naval reactors development..................................        628,289         620,400         633,000
        Construction:
            GPN-101 General plant projects, various locations...          9,000           9,000           9,000
            98-D-200 Site laboratory/facility upgrade, various            7,000           3,000           3,000
             locations..........................................
            90-N-102 Expended core facility dry cell project,             5,800          12,000          12,000
             Naval Reactors Facility, ID........................
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                Subtotal, Construction..........................         21,800          24,000          24,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                Subtotal, Naval reactors development............        650,089         644,400         657,000
    Program direction...........................................         20,100          20,600          20,600
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, Naval reactors.....................................        670,189         665,000         677,600
                                                                 ===============================================
      Subtotal, Other defense activities........................      1,732,176       1,824,559       1,904,559
                                                                 ===============================================
Use of prior year balances......................................        -15,500   ..............  ..............
Offset to user organizations....................................        -20,000         -20,000         -20,000
Contribution from labs..........................................  ..............        -12,559         -12,559
                                                                 ===============================================
      TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES...........................      1,696,676       1,792,000       1,872,000
                                                                 ===============================================
                 DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Defense nuclear waste disposal..................................        189,000         112,000         112,500
                                                                 ===============================================
      TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES...................     11,888,500      12,223,168      12,443,500
                                                                 ===============================================
                 POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

                SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance:
    Operation and maintenance/program direction.................          4,370   ..............         11,594
    Purchase power and wheeling.................................          6,130   ..............         28,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Operation and maintenance.......................         10,500   ..............         39,594
Use of prior year balances......................................         -3,000   ..............  ..............
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION..................          7,500   ..............         39,594
                                                                 ===============================================
                SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION
Operation and maintenance:
    Operating expenses..........................................          2,722           3,625           3,625
    Purchase power and wheeling.................................             59   ..............            833
    Program direction...........................................         16,402          17,631          16,858
    Construction................................................          6,817           6,684           6,684
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION..................         26,000          27,167          28,000
                                                                 ===============================================
                WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION
Operation and maintenance:
    Construction and rehabilitation.............................         20,802          26,802          25,000
    System operation and maintenance............................         36,469          35,096          35,096
    Purchase power and wheeling.................................         53,886   ..............         53,886
    Program direction...........................................        107,383         104,537         104,537
    Utah mitigation and conservation............................          5,036           5,036           5,036
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Operation and maintenance.......................        223,576         171,471         223,555
Use of prior year balances......................................        -20,576   ..............  ..............
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION..................        203,000         171,471         223,555
                                                                 ===============================================
        FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

Operation and maintenance.......................................          1,010           1,309           1,309
                                                                 ===============================================
      TOTAL, POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS....................        237,510         199,947         292,458
                                                                 ===============================================
              FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Federal energy regulatory commission............................        167,500         179,900         170,000
FERC revenues...................................................       -167,500        -179,900        -170,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION...............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                 ===============================================
                     NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Repository program..............................................        112,000         186,397         172,897
Program direction...............................................         53,000          71,603          69,603
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal from Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund.................        165,000         258,000         242,500
Transfer from defense nuclear waste disposal....................  ..............        (39,000)  ..............
Civilian research and development...............................          4,000   ..............  ..............
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL.............................        169,000         258,000         242,500
                                                                 ===============================================
      GRAND TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.........................     16,449,306      17,084,335      17,078,389
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                     TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                    Appalachian Regional Commission

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $66,400,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      66,400,000
Committee recommendation................................      71,400,000

    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 $71,400,000.
    Consistent with the administration's budget request, the 
Committee recommendation does not include funding for ARC 
highways. Funding for ARC development highways will be provided 
through the highway trust fund beginning in fiscal year 1999 
through 2004 consistent with provision contained in the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act.
    The Committee understands the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 
for the Fourth Circuit ruled in January of this year that the 
revised EIS for the Richie County Dam was sufficient, thereby, 
clearing the way for construction of the facility. The 
Committee further understands that the long delay caused by the 
litigation has resulted in increased project costs. Therefore, 
the Committee has provided $5,000,000 to cover a portion of the 
increased costs, which with $4,000,000 to be provided by the 
State of West Virginia, will provide sufficient funding to 
complete the project.

                           Denali Commission

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $20,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................................
Committee recommendation................................      25,000,000

    The Committee recommendation includes $25,000,000 for the 
Denali Commission and recommends that the Commission contract 
for a state-wide infrastructure development plan. The plan 
should address energy, water and sewer, solid waste, access and 
other infrastructure issues and provide particular 
consideration to efficiency, reliability, and maintenance 
requirements.

                Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board


                         salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 1999....................................     $16,500,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      17,500,000
Committee recommendation................................      17,500,000

    An appropriation of $17,500,000 is recommended for fiscal 
year 2000. 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 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.

                     Nuclear Regulatory Commission


                         salaries and expenses


                          gross appropriation

Appropriations, 1999....................................    $465,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................     465,400,000
Committee recommendation................................     465,400,000

                                revenues

Appropriations, 1999....................................   -$444,800,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................    -442,400,000
Committee recommendation................................    -442,400,000

                           net appropriation

Appropriations, 1999....................................      $20,200,00
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      23,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      23,000,000

    In the report accompanying the Fiscal Year 1999 Energy and 
Water Development Act, the Committee was critical of the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, listed a series of specific 
concerns regarding the Commission, and directed the Commission 
to report monthly to the Committee on the status of the 
Commission's licensing and regulatory duties.
    The Commission as a whole, the five Commissioners 
individually, and the Commission staff deserve a great deal of 
credit for the Commission's accomplishments in the last year.
    There are certainly areas that continue to need attention. 
However, it is the Committee's view that the Commission is 
actively identifying and considering those issues and taking 
steps to address them including the recent submission to 
Congress of a number of legislative proposals. The Committee 
strongly endorses that effort and will work with the 
appropriate authorizing Committees in that regard.
    The Commission's monthly reports to the Committee have been 
informative and useful in tracking progress at the Commission, 
and the Commission should continue to provide them.
    The Committee recommendation includes $465,400,000, the 
same amount as the request, for the Commission and includes a 
single year extension of the NRC's user fee collection 
authority. The Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act of 1990, 
as amended, requires that the Commission recover 100 percent of 
its budget authority, less the appropriation from the nuclear 
waste fund, by assessing licenses and annual fees. That 
authority expires in 1999, and unless additional fee collection 
authority is enacted prior to or concurrent to enactment of 
this Act, the Commission's authority to collect user fees would 
be limited to 33 percent of its budget. The Committee is aware 
that the Environment and Public Works Committee may soon 
consider legislation in this regard and intends that the 1-year 
extension included in this measure serve as a safeguard should 
that legislation not be enacted by October 1, 1999.

                      Office of Inspector General


                          gross appropriation

Appropriations, 1999....................................      $4,800,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................       6,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,000,000

                                revenues

Appropriations, 1999....................................     -$4,800,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      -6,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      -5,000,000

    This appropriation provides for the Office of Inspector 
General of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.

                  Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

Appropriations, 1999....................................      $2,600,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................       3,150,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,150,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,150,000 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.

                       Tennessee Valley Authority

Appropriations, 1999....................................................
Budget estimate, 2000...................................      $7,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       7,000,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,000,000 for 
the Tennessee Valley Authority, the same as the budget request. 
The funding is provided for the operation and maintenance of 
the Land Between the Lakes recreation area.

                          TITLE V--RESCISSIONS

    Severely constrained spending limits required under the 
Discretionary budget caps imposed by the Congressional Budget 
Resolution have made it most difficult for the Committee to 
formulate a balanced Energy and Water Development 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000. In order the adhere 
to the subcommittee's allocations and address the critical 
ongoing programs and activities, and respond to the numerous 
requests of the Members, the Committee finds it necessary to 
recommend a series of rescissions in the Corps of Engineers and 
the Department of Energy. A good portion of the funding 
recommended for rescission is not needed in fiscal year 2000 or 
future years due to project completion or program termination. 
However, the Committee has included rescissions of several 
projects that will require completion funding in future years. 
In those cases, while recommending a rescission, sufficient 
funding remains to continue those projects in fiscal year 2000.

  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 1998, is currently being considered by the Senate.
    Also, contained in title III, Department of Energy, in 
connection with the appropriation under the heading ``Nuclear 
Waste Disposal Fund,'' the recommended item of appropriation is 
brought to the attention of the Senate.

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

    Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, the Committee 
ordered reported en bloc, S. 1186, an original fiscal year 2000 
Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill, and S. 1143, 
an original fiscal year 2000 Transportation Appropriations 
bill, both subject to amendment and subject to the section 302 
budget allocation, by a recorded vote of 27-1, a quorum being 
present. The vote was as follows:
        Yeas                          Nays
Chairman Stevens                    Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. Gorton
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Campbell
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. Kyl
Mr. Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Hollings
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Lautenberg
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Reid
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mr. Durbin

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

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

                       TITLE 16--CONSERVATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



CHAPTER 12H--PACIFIC NORTHWEST ELECTRIC POWER PLANNING AND CONSERVATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Sec. 839b. Regional planning and participation

(a) Pacific Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Planning Council; 
                    establishment and operation as regional agency

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


(h) Fish and wildlife

    (1)(A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (10)(A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (D) Independent Scientific Review Panel.--(i) The Northwest 
Power Planning Council (Council) shall appoint an Independent 
Scientific Review Panel (Panel), which shall be comprised of 
eleven members, to review projects proposed to be funded 
through that portion of the Bonneville Power Administration's 
(BPA) annual fish and wildlife budget that implements the 
Council's fish and wildlife program. Members shall be appointed 
from a list of no fewer than 20 scientists submitted by the 
National Academy of Sciences (Academy), provided that Pacific 
Northwest scientists with expertise in Columbia River 
anadromous and non-anadromous fish and wildlife and ocean 
experts shall be among those represented on the Panel. The 
Academy shall provide such nominations within 90 days of 
September 30, 1996, and in any case not later than December 31, 
1996. If appointments are required in subsequent years, the 
Council shall request nominations from the Academy and the 
Academy shall provide nominations not later than 90 days after 
the date of this request. If the Academy does not provide 
nominations within these time requirements, the Council may 
appoint such members as the Council deems appropriate.
    (ii) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [(vii) Cost Limitation.--The cost of this provision shall 
not exceed $2,000,000 in 1997 dollars.
    [(viii) Expiration.--This paragraph shall expire on 
September 30, 2000.]
    (vii) Cost limitation.--The annual cost of this provision 
shall not exceed $500,000 in 1997 dollars.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


              TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



        CHAPTER 23--DEVELOPMENT AND CONTROL OF ATOMIC ENERGY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Division A--Atomic Energy

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



            SUBCHAPTER XIII--GENERAL AUTHORITY OF COMMISSION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Sec. Sec. 2214. NRC user fees and annual charges

(a) Annual assessment
    (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (3) Last assessment of annual charges
        The last assessment of annual charges under subsection 
(c) of this section shall be made not later than [September 30, 
1999] September 30, 2000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


            Division B--United States Enrichment Corporation


                   SUBCHAPTER I--GENERAL PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Sec. 2297b-7. Accounts

(a) Establishment of United States Enrichment Corporation Fund

    [There is established] (1) Establishment.--There is 
established in the Treasury of the United States a revolving 
fund, to be known as the ``United States Enrichment Corporation 
Fund''[, which] (referred to in this section as the `Fund'), 
which shall be available to the Corporation, without need for 
further appropriation and without fiscal year limitation, for 
carrying out its purposes, functions, and powers, and which 
shall not be subject to apportionment under subchapter II of 
chapter 15 of title 31.
    (2) Investment of amounts.--
            (A) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
        shall invest such portion of the Fund as is not, in the 
        judgment of the Secretary, required to meet current 
        withdrawals. Investments may be made only in interest-
        bearing obligations of the United States.
            (B) Acquisition of obligations.--For the purpose of 
        investments under subparagraph (A), obligations may be 
        acquired--
                    (i) on original issue at the issue price; 
                or
                    (ii) by purchase of outstanding obligations 
                at the market price.
            (C) Sale of obligations.--Any obligation acquired 
        by the Fund may be sold by the Secretary of the 
        Treasury at the market price.
            (D) Credits to fund.--The interest on, and the 
        proceeds from the sale or redemption of, any 
        obligations held in the Fund shall be credited to and 
        form a part of the Fund.

(b) Transfer of unexpended balances

    On the transfer date, the Secretary shall, without need of 
further appropriation, transfer to the Corporation the 
unexpended balance of appropriations and other monies available 
to the Department (inclusive of funds set aside for accounts 
payable), and accounts receivable which are related to 
functions and activities acquired by the Corporation from the 
Department pursuant to this division, including all advance 
payments.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                           Public Law 105-204


SECTION 1. UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORPORATION.

    (a) Plan.--The Secretary of Energy shall prepare, and the 
President shall include in the budget request for [fiscal year 
2000] fiscal year 2001, a plan and proposed legislation to 
ensure that all amounts accrued on the books of the United 
States Enrichment Corporation for the disposition of depleted 
uranium hexafluoride will be used to commence construction of, 
not later than January 31, 2004, and to operate, an onsite 
facility at each of the gaseous diffusion plants at Paducah, 
Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio, to treat and recycle depleted 
uranium hexafluoride consistent with the National Environmental 
Policy Act.
    (b) Limitation.--Notwithstanding the privatization of the 
United States Enrichment Corporation and notwithstanding any 
other provision of law (including the repeal of chapters 22 
through 26 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2297 et 
seq.) made by section 3116(a)(1) of the United States 
Enrichment Corporation Privatization Act (104 Stat. 1321-349), 
no amounts described in subsection (a) shall be withdrawn from 
the United States Enrichment Corporation Fund established by 
section 1308 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2297b-
7) or the Working Capital Account established under section 
1316 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2297b-15) 
until the date that is 1 year after the date on which the 
President submits to Congress the budget request for [fiscal 
year 2000] fiscal year 2001.
    (c) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
that Congress should authorize appropriations during [fiscal 
year 2000] fiscal year 2001 in an amount sufficient to fully 
fund the plan described in subsection (a).

                                            BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
  PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
                                                     AMENDED
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Budget authority               Outlays
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                                               Committee    Amount  of   Committee    Amount  of
                                                               allocation      bill      allocation      bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations
 to its subcommittees of amounts in the First Concurrent
 Resolution for 2000: Subcommittee on Energy and Water
 Development:
    General purpose discretionary...........................       21,280       21,277       20,868   \1\ 20,868
    Violent crime reduction fund............................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Mandatory...............................................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:
    2000....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........   \2\ 13,326
    2001....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        6,366
    2002....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        1,240
    2003....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........           28
    2004 and future year....................................  ...........  ...........  ...........          222
Financial assistance to State and local governments for 2000           NA          104           NA          150
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.


  COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
                                                                        YEAR 2000
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                       Senate Committee recommendation
                                                                                                                           compared with (+ or -)
                           Item                                   1999         Budget estimate       Committee     -------------------------------------
                                                             appropriation                         recommendation          1999
                                                                                                                      appropriation     Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                  DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                Corps of Engineers--Civil

General investigations...................................           161,747            135,000            125,459            -36,288             -9,541
Construction, general....................................         1,429,885          1,239,900          1,113,227           -316,658           -126,673
    Supplemental appropriations (Public Law 105-277).....            35,000   .................  .................           -35,000   .................
Flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries,                   321,149            280,000            315,630             -5,519            +35,630
 Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
 Missouri, and Tennessee.................................
    Emergency appropriations (Public Law 105-277)........             2,500   .................  .................            -2,500   .................
Operation and maintenance, general.......................         1,653,252          1,835,900          1,790,043           +136,791            -45,857
    Emergency appropriations (Public Law 105-277)........            99,700   .................  .................           -99,700   .................
Regulatory program.......................................           106,000            117,000            115,000             +9,000             -2,000
    Defense function.....................................           140,000            150,000            150,000            +10,000   .................
General expenses.........................................           148,000            148,000            151,000             +3,000             +3,000
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, title I, Department of Defense--Civil.......         4,097,233          3,905,800          3,760,359           -336,874           -145,441
                                                          ==============================================================================================
           TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

         Central Utah Project Completion Account

Central Utah project construction........................            25,741             21,002             21,002             -4,739   .................
Fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation and                        10,476             12,047             12,047             +1,571   .................
 conservation............................................
Utah reclamation mitigation and conservation account.....             5,000              5,000              5,000   .................  .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...........................................            41,217             38,049             38,049             -3,168   .................

Program oversight and administration.....................             1,283              1,321              1,321                +38   .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Central Utah project completion account.....            42,500             39,370             39,370             -3,130   .................

                  Bureau of Reclamation

Water and related resources..............................           617,045            652,838            612,451             -4,594            -40,387
    (By transfer)........................................           (25,800)  .................  .................          (-25,800)  .................
Loan program.............................................             8,421             12,425             12,425             +4,004   .................
    (Limitation on direct loans).........................           (38,000)           (43,000)           (43,000)           (+5,000)  .................
Central Valley project restoration fund..................            33,130             47,346             37,346             +4,216            -10,000
California Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration...............            75,000             95,000             50,000            -25,000            -45,000
Policy and administration................................            47,000             49,000             49,000             +2,000   .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Bureau of Reclamation.......................           780,596            856,609            761,222            -19,374            -95,387
                                                          ==============================================================================================
      Total, title II, Department of the Interior........           823,096            895,979            800,592            -22,504            -95,387
          (By transfer)..................................           (25,800)  .................  .................          (-25,800)  .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
             TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Energy supply............................................           727,091            836,067            715,412            -11,679           -120,655
    (By transfer)........................................  .................            (5,821)            (5,821)           (+5,821)  .................
    Supplemental appropriations (Public Law 105-277).....            60,000   .................  .................           -60,000   .................
Non-defense environmental management.....................           431,200            330,934            327,922           -103,278             -3,012
Uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning              220,200            240,198            200,000            -20,200            -40,198
 fund....................................................
Science..................................................         2,682,860          2,835,393          2,725,069            +42,209           -110,324
    Supplemental appropriations (Public Law 105-277).....            15,000   .................  .................           -15,000   .................
Nuclear Waste Disposal...................................           169,000            258,000            242,500            +73,500            -15,500
    (By transfer)........................................  .................           (39,000)  .................  .................          (-39,000)

Departmental administration..............................           200,475            247,515            219,415            +18,940            -28,100
    Miscellaneous revenues...............................          -136,530           -116,887           -116,887            +19,643   .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Net appropriation..................................            63,945            130,628            102,528            +38,583            -28,100

Y2K conversion (emergency appropriations)................            10,000   .................  .................           -10,000   .................
Office of the Inspector General..........................            29,000             30,000             29,000   .................            -1,000

Environmental restoration and waste management:
    Defense function.....................................        (5,576,824)  .................  .................       (-5,576,824)  .................
    Non-defense function.................................          (651,400)  .................  .................         (-651,400)  .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total..............................................        (6,228,224)  .................  .................       (-6,228,224)  .................

             Atomic Energy Defense Activities

Weapons activities.......................................         4,400,000          4,531,000          4,609,832           +209,832            +78,832

Defense environmental restoration and waste management...         4,310,227          4,505,676          4,551,676           +241,449            +46,000
    Y2K conversion (emergency appropriations)............            10,340   .................  .................           -10,340   .................
Defense facilities closure projects......................         1,038,240          1,054,492          1,069,492            +31,252            +15,000
    Y2K conversion (emergency appropriations)............             3,500   .................  .................            -3,500   .................
Defense environmental management privatization...........           228,357            228,000            228,000               -357   .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Defense environmental management.........         5,590,664          5,788,168          5,849,168           +258,504            +61,000

Other defense activities.................................         1,696,676          1,792,000          1,872,000           +175,324            +80,000
    Emergency appropriations (Public Law 105-277)........           525,000   .................  .................          -525,000   .................
    Y2K conversion (emergency appropriations)............            13,650   .................  .................           -13,650   .................
Defense nuclear waste disposal...........................           189,000            112,000            112,500            -76,500               +500
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities............        12,414,990         12,223,168         12,443,500            +28,510           +220,332

             Power Marketing Administrations

Operation and maintenance, Southeastern Power                         7,500   .................            39,549            +32,049            +39,549
 Administration..........................................
Operation and maintenance, Southwestern Power                        26,000             27,167             28,000             +2,000               +833
 Administration..........................................
    (By transfer)........................................  .................              (773)  .................  .................             (-773)
Construction, rehabilitation, operation and maintenance,            203,000            171,471            223,555            +20,555            +52,084
 Western Area Power Administration.......................
Falcon and Amistad operating and maintenance fund........             1,010              1,309              1,309               +299   .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Power Marketing Administrations.............           237,510            199,947            292,413            +54,903            +92,466

           Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Salaries and expenses....................................           167,500            179,900            170,000             +2,500             -9,900
    Revenues applied.....................................          -167,500           -179,900           -170,000             -2,500             +9,900
                                                          ==============================================================================================
      Total, title III, Department of Energy.............        17,060,796         17,084,335         17,078,344            +17,548             -5,991
          Appropriations.................................       (16,423,306)       (17,084,335)       (17,078,344)         (+655,038)           (-5,991)
          Supplemental appropriations....................           (75,000)  .................  .................          (-75,000)  .................
          Emergency appropriations.......................          (525,000)  .................  .................         (-525,000)  .................
          Y2K conversion (emergency appropriations)......           (37,490)  .................  .................          (-37,490)  .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
              TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Appalachian Regional Commission..........................            66,400             66,400             71,400             +5,000             +5,000
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board..................            16,500             17,500             17,500             +1,000   .................
Denali Commission........................................            20,000   .................            25,000             +5,000            +25,000

Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
    Salaries and expenses................................           465,000            465,400            465,400               +400   .................
    Revenues.............................................          -444,800           -442,400           -442,400             +2,400   .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...........................................            20,200             23,000             23,000             +2,800   .................

    Office of Inspector General..........................             4,800              6,000              5,000               +200             -1,000
    Revenues.............................................            -4,800             -6,000             -5,000               -200             +1,000
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...........................................  .................  .................  .................  .................  .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total..............................................            20,200             23,000             23,000             +2,800   .................

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.....................             2,600              3,150              3,150               +550   .................
Tennessee Valley Authority: Tennessee Valley Authority     .................             7,000              7,000             +7,000   .................
 Fund....................................................
    Supplemental appropriations (Public Law 105-277).....            50,000   .................  .................           -50,000   .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
      Total, title IV, Independent agencies..............           175,700            117,050            147,050            -28,650            +30,000
                                                          ==============================================================================================
                   TITLE V--RESCISSIONS

               DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                  DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                Corps of Engineers--Civil

General investigations (rescissions).....................  .................  .................            -1,512             -1,512             -1,512
Construction, general (rescission).......................  .................  .................           -62,053            -62,053            -62,053
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Corps of Engineers--Civil...................  .................  .................           -63,565            -63,565            -63,565
                                                          ==============================================================================================
            SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Purchase power and wheeling (rescissions)................  .................  .................            -5,500             -5,500             -5,500
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, South Eastern Power Administration..........  .................  .................            -5,500             -5,500             -5,500
                                                          ==============================================================================================
      Total, title V, Rescissions........................  .................  .................           -69,065            -69,065            -69,065
                                                          ==============================================================================================
      Grand total:
          New budget (obligational) authority............        22,156,825         22,003,164         21,717,280           -439,545           -285,884
              Appropriations.............................       (21,492,135)       (22,003,164)       (21,786,345)         (+294,210)         (-216,819)
              Rescissions................................  .................  .................          (-69,065)          (-69,065)          (-69,065)
              Emergency appropriations...................          (664,690)  .................  .................         (-664,690)  .................
          (By transfer)..................................           (25,800)           (45,594)            (5,821)          (-19,979)          (-39,773)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------