Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
                                                       Calendar No. 876
110th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     110-416

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



 
         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2009

                                _______
                                

                 July 14, 2008.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                                 REPORT

                         [To accompany S. 3258]

    The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 3258) 
making appropriations for energy and water development and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, 
and for other purposes, favorably thereon and recommends that 
the bill do pass.



Amount in new budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2009

Total of bill as reported to the Senate................. $33,767,000,000
Amount of 2008 appropriations...........................  31,508,398,000
Amount of 2009 budget estimate..........................  31,695,700,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to--
    2008 appropriations.................................  +2,258,602,000
    2009 budget estimate................................  +2,071,300,000


                                CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Purpose..........................................................     4
Summary of Estimates and Recommendations.........................     4
Title I:
    Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army:
        Corps of Engineers--Civil:
            General Investigations...............................    21
            Construction, General................................    33
            Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries.....    53
            Operation and Maintenance, General...................    56
            Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies................    79
            Regulatory Program...................................    79
            Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program......    80
            General Expenses.....................................    81
            General Provisions--Corps of Engineers--Civil........    83
Title II:
    Department of the Interior:
        Central Utah Project Completion Account..................    85
        Bureau of Reclamation:
            Water and Related Resources..........................    85
            Central Valley Project Restoration Fund..............    93
            California Bay-Delta Restoration.....................    94
            Policy and Administration............................    94
        General Provisions--Department of the Interior...........    94
Title III:
    Department of Energy:
        Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy...................    97
            Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability..........   104
            Nuclear Energy.......................................   105
            Fossil Energy Research and Development...............   107
            Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves...............   110
            Strategic Petroleum Reserve..........................   110
            Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve...................   110
            Energy Information Administration....................   110
        Non-defense Environmental Cleanup........................   111
        Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning 
          Fund...................................................   113
        Science..................................................   113
            High Energy Physics..................................   113
            Nuclear Physics......................................   114
            Biological and Environmental Research................   114
            Basic Energy Sciences................................   116
        Nuclear Waste Disposal...................................   118
        Departmental Administration..............................   119
        Office of Inspector General..............................   120
        Atomic Energy Defense Activities:
            National Nuclear Security Administration:
                Weapons Activities...............................   120
                Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.................   127
                Naval Reactors...................................   129
                Office of the Administrator......................   129
        Environmental and Other Defense Activities:
            Defense Environmental Cleanup........................   129
            Other Defense Activities.............................   133
            Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal.......................   133
            Power Marketing Administrations:
                Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power 
                  Administration.................................   134
                Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power 
                  Administration.................................   134
                Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and 
                  Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration.   134
            Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Salaries and 
              Expenses...........................................   135
        General Provisions--Department of Energy.................   157
Title IV:
    Independent Agencies:
        Appalachian Regional Commission..........................   158
        Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board..................   159
        Delta Regional Authority.................................   159
        Denali Commission........................................   159
        Nuclear Regulatory Commission............................   159
            Office of Inspector General..........................   160
        Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.....................   160
        Tennessee Valley Authority Office of the Inspector 
          General................................................   161
Title V: General Provisions......................................   162
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of 
  the 
  Senate.........................................................   163
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules 
  of the 
  Senate.........................................................   163
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of 
  the 
  Senate.........................................................   164
Budgetary Impact Statement.......................................   173
Disclosure of Congressionally Directed Spending Items............   173

                                PURPOSE

    The purpose of this bill is to provide appropriations for 
the fiscal year 2009 beginning October 1, 2008, and ending 
September 30, 2009, for energy and water development, and for 
other related purposes. It supplies funds for water resources 
development programs and related activities of the Department 
of the Army, Civil Functions--U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' 
Civil Works Program in title I; for the Department of the 
Interior's Bureau of Reclamation in title II; for the 
Department of Energy's energy research activities, including 
environmental restoration and waste management, and atomic 
energy defense activities of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration in title III; and for related independent 
agencies and commissions, including the Appalachian Regional 
Commission, Delta Regional Authority, Denali Commission, and 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in title IV.

                SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    The fiscal year 2009 budget estimates for the bill total 
$31,695,700,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The 
recommendation of the Committee totals $33,767,000,000. This is 
$2,071,300,000 above the budget estimates and $2,258,602,000 
above the enacted appropriation for the current fiscal year.

                         Subcommittee Hearings

    The Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water held 
six sessions in connection with the fiscal year 2009 
appropriation bill. Witnesses included officials and 
representatives of the Federal agencies under the 
subcommittee's jurisdiction.
    The recommendations for fiscal year 2009 therefore, have 
been developed after careful consideration of available data.

                         Votes in the Committee

    By a vote of 28 to 10 the Committee on July 10, 2008, 
recommended that the bill, as amended, be reported to the 
Senate.

                                TITLE I

                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

                              INTRODUCTION

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

      OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET REQUEST

    The fiscal year 2009 budget request for the Corps of 
Engineers is composed of $4,741,000,000 in new budget 
authority. This is a decrease of $130,000,000 from the fiscal 
year 2008 request. The President's overall budget priorities 
are stated to be to (1) continue long-term economic growth, (2) 
win the global war on terror, and (3) secure the homeland. The 
Committee fails to understand how this budget proposal for the 
Corps complies with either goal 1 or goal 3. How can one be 
taken seriously about providing for long term economic growth 
when one is proposing less funding for national infrastructure 
that contributes to economic growth than had been proposed in 
the previous year. It is certainly not because a large number 
of projects were completed in fiscal year 2008 or that a 
considerable amount of backlogged maintenance work was done. It 
appears to once again be a short-sighted budgetary decision. 
The Committee finds it remarkable that the administration can 
request and receive billions of dollars for infrastructure 
improvements in other countries and yet continues to 
shortchange our own. This budget request is more than 
$846,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2008 enacted budget for 
the Corps. The fiscal year 2008 enacted amount was contained in 
a bill the President signed that comported to his top-line 
budget numbers. However, once again, it appears that the 
baseline for the Corps budget is not the enacted amount but the 
amount the President proposes. If the administration would 
accept the reality of the Nation's infrastructure needs and 
budget accordingly, the gulf between the budget request and the 
enacted amount might not be as large. At a time when this 
existing infrastructure, the foundation of our economic 
security and quality of life, is depreciating much faster than 
it is being recapitalized, when our increasing population is 
placing much greater stress on the Nation's vital water 
resources, when shifts in population centers mean new and 
different problems and when a growing environmental awareness 
requires new solutions to persistent problems, this 
underfunding is unacceptable and threatens our continued well-
being.
    The Nation has been struck by a number of natural disasters 
over the last several years ranging from hurricanes, tornados, 
nor'easters and river flooding. This Committee has appropriated 
more than $14,000,000,000 to the Corps of Engineers to cope 
with the effects of these disasters on Federal facilities or 
facilities that are part of the Federal protection systems. 
This is more than six times the annual construction budget of 
the Corps. Some of these damages may not have been incurred had 
more robust infrastructure budgets been proposed by this and 
prior administrations. Yet no lesson seems to be learned from 
these disasters. The current flooding in the Midwest is in many 
ways a predictable repeat of the 1993 flood. Few of the 
recommendations made after that event were implemented. If they 
had, much of the damage and suffering currently occurring might 
have been avoided. Congress has successfully increased 
investments in our Nation's infrastructure over the last 8 
years however these increases have most often been accomplished 
without the active support of the administration.
    The administration budget continues the trend of 
underfunding the General Investigations [GI] account thereby 
depriving us of the Nation's primary tool to identify future 
challenges and develop innovative solutions to water resources 
challenges and needs. The fiscal year 2002 GI request was 
$130,000,000. This has declined to $91,000,000 in fiscal year 
2009. Compare this to the fiscal year 2008 enacted amount of 
$167,000,000. This decline is not due to a reduction in water 
resources needs, rather, it appears to be a deliberate attempt 
to choke off the Corps planning program. Of the $91,000,000 
recommended in the budget request less than 50 percent is for 
actual studies that might eventually become projects. Nearly 
half of these study funds are dedicated to a single study. 
Therefore, the rest of the Nation has to share a little over 
$21,000,000 for all of the rest of the studies in the Nation. 
This budget request greatly inhibits the Corps ability to do 
proper planning or to address workforce considerations. Budgets 
such as these, if enacted, will erode the Corps technical 
competency in the planning area.
    Planning in the Corps is a specialized skillset and once 
that ability is lost, it is difficult to reestablish. Most of 
the criticisms of the Corps project development process in 
recent years have centered on the planning process. The 
administration is providing funding for some improvements to 
the Planning program such as funding the Planning Associates 
Program and Planning Centers of Expertise. However, planning 
studies have to be undertaken to utilize these improvements. 
The Committee believes that the Corps should have a robust 
planning program to not only address new water resource needs 
but to evaluate changes throughout the project development 
process. Continued budgets like this will lead to a complete 
loss of this vital Corps of Engineers' competency. The 
administration should seriously revise their priorities for 
this account in the fiscal year 2010 budget.
    The Construction, General [CG] and Operation and 
Maintenance [O&M;] accounts have to be discussed jointly due to 
the way the budget request blurs the line between the 
traditional project split between the two accounts.
    Priorities for the CG account are based on six criteria for 
fiscal year 2009. The primary criterion again is the project's 
benefit to cost ratio [BCR]. Projects with high risk to human 
safety and a BCR greater than 1.5 or are significant or cost 
effective aquatic ecosystem restoration projects are given 
funding for current contract needs. No new construction starts 
met the administration's new start criteria for fiscal year 
2009. Projects complying with treaties and biological opinions 
and/or meeting mitigation requirements as well as dam safety, 
seepage control and static instability correction were given 
the maximum funding for efficient and effective execution.
    Once again, the O&M; account appears to have been increased 
by more than $231,000,000 above the fiscal year 2008 enacted 
amount. However the administration has again proposed shifting 
major project rehabilitations and environmental compliance 
activities associated with completed projects from CG to O&M.; 
Also shifted to O&M; are dredged material disposal projects, 
beach erosion restoration due to completed navigation projects 
and initial nourishment of beach projects. This shifting of 
projects was allegedly done in the name of budget 
transparency--trying to show the true costs of project 
operations. This seems to be a very weak justification in that 
the Bureau of Reclamation which has similar projects in their 
construction accounts still has not received similar guidance 
in their budget preparation. By shifting some of these projects 
such as major rehabs and beach nourishments to O&M; the 
administration was able to circumvent their own new start 
criteria. Further, by funding environmental compliance 
activities in the individual O&M; projects seems to make the 
budget process less transparent by hiding how much these 
activities are costing the Nation by distributing these costs 
across multiple projects as opposed to a single line item in 
previous budgets. Finally, the administration's budget proposal 
limits coastal storm damage reduction projects that require 
periodic sand renourishments to those where the erosion is due 
to navigation projects. It also proposes to limit Federal 
participation to initial beach nourishment.
    Shifting of projects from the two accounts totals almost 
$265,000,000. This corresponds to a similar decrease in CG 
funding for fiscal year 2009. If the projects are shifted back 
to their traditional accounts, the O&M; budget is 
$2,210,225,000. That is over $33,000,000 less than the fiscal 
year 2008 enacted amount. Further the administration proposed 
spreading the O&M; funding over 28 additional individual 
projects than what they had proposed in fiscal year 2008. This 
is the ultimate example of doing more with less. Prices for 
labor, fuel and materials have all increased over the previous 
year, not decreased and yet the Corps is expected to do more 
with less. The Committee notes that the Corps maintenance 
backlog is more than $1,000,000,000 and increases by about 
$100,000,000 annually as the inventory of projects ages.
    After criticism from this Committee concerning the 
presentation of O&M; as 21 separate regions based on watersheds, 
the administration modified their proposal for fiscal year 
2009. The O&M; budget is now proposed as 54 separate regions 
based on sub watersheds as opposed to discrete projects. The 
discrete projects are still listed for each region, it is just 
that the administration has not attached any funding levels to 
any of the projects so this Committee nor any one else would 
know how much funding might be provided for individual 
projects. The lack of specificity and detail in a nearly 
$2,500,000,000 request is appalling and will be discussed in 
more detail later. The Committee continues to believe this so 
called ``regional budget' is no more than an aggregation of the 
projects within a specific watershed not the development of a 
regional budget. The Committee believes that the Corps should 
budget regionally and take advantage of whatever efficiencies 
can be gained by budgeting in this manner. However, it should 
also be noted that projects are individually analyzed and 
authorized. Estimates of O&M; costs are established as a part of 
the project development process. If individual O&M; estimates 
are not displayed, there is no way to know if the projects are 
costing more or less than was anticipated and no way to learn 
from past errors in developing O&M; costs or procedures.
    The regulatory budget is $180,000,000 for fiscal year 2009. 
This is the same as in fiscal year 2008.
    The Committee is disappointed that funding for the Formerly 
Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program [FUSRAP] was cut by 
$10,000,000 from the fiscal year 2008 amount of $140,000,000. 
This program was transferred to the Corps from the Department 
of Energy, because the Committee was concerned with management 
and cost issues of the program within the Energy Department. 
This is a program that is being well managed by the Corps and 
should have stable, adequate budget resources to continue these 
radiological clean-up activities.
    The Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account is funded 
at $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2009. The Committee supports 
this funding for disaster readiness and preparedness activities 
of the Corps of Engineers.
    The budget request separates the budget request for the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) 
from the General Expenses [GE] account. The Committee continues 
to believe that the Assistant Secretary's office should be 
funded in the Defense Appropriations bill. However, until such 
time as that can be reintegrated into that bill, the Committee 
is grateful to see that the budget request proposes it as a 
separate account. The Assistant Secretary's duties encompass 
much more than the civil works functions of the Corps of 
Engineers and the budget needs of the office should be 
addressed separately.
    The Committee is pleased to see an increase in the GE 
budget for fiscal year 2009. With the increases in 
responsibilities for the headquarters of the Corps in 
overseeing larger budgets as well as the massive rebuilding of 
the flood and storm damage reduction measures in the New 
Orleans area, it is appropriate that this account should be 
increased. The Committee notes that the Corps operates one of 
the most efficient headquarters staffs in the National Capital 
region. Only about 3.5 percent of their staffing is at their 
headquarters level as opposed to 10 percent or more for 
comparable agencies in the National Capital region.
    The administration has proposed legislation and funding to 
complete the 100-year protection for the greater New Orleans 
Hurricane Protection System as a part of the fiscal year 2009 
budget request. The administration has proposed to authorize a 
single hurricane protection project to encompass the Lake 
Ponchartrain and Vicinity and the West Bank and Vicinity 
projects along with the other improvements that were authorized 
and funded in Public Law 109-148 and Public Law 109-234. The 
Southeast Louisiana projects that provide interior drainage to 
this system are also proposed to be included. The Budget 
proposes $5,671,000,000 in emergency funding as a part of the 
fiscal year 2009 request. The budget proposal also provides 
legislation to modify the cost sharing for the remaining 
uncompleted cost shared project features to 65 percent Federal 
and 35 percent non-Federal. This change results in an increase 
to the non-Federal interests of $213,000,000 for a total non-
Federal share that exceeds $1,500,000,000. The administration 
says that the Federal funds are needed no later than October 1, 
2008 in order to have all of this work completed by the 
beginning of hurricane season in June 2011.
    The Congress provided these emergency funds in the 
Supplemental Appropriations Act, (Public Law 110-252) signed by 
the President on June 30, 2008.

                      PERFORMANCE BASED BUDGETING

    The Committee has watched with interest over the last 5 
years as the Corps has moved to a ``performance based budget'' 
model. Unfortunately, the Committee does not see improvement in 
the budgeting of the Nation's Civil Works infrastructure 
program as a result of this new model. In fact, the Committee 
believes quite the opposite is true. Rather than an integrated 
program, the budget for the Civil Works program seems to 
continue to degenerate toward a yearly collection of 
interchangeable projects dependent only on the budgetary whims 
and criteria in use in that particular year. The current method 
of performance based budgeting utilized in this budget 
preparation turns the Nation away from infrastructure 
investments that return two and even three times their cost.
    In fiscal year 2005, more than 130 projects were budgeted 
by the administration for construction; this year there are 
only about 82. However, Congress funded more than 300 projects 
in fiscal year 2008 and has averaged about 315 annually since 
fiscal year 2000. Unfortunately, the budget request pretends 
that these on-going projects which have been funded annually 
for many years in enacted legislation do not exist. Further the 
budget assumes it costs nothing to ignore these projects. If 
Congress funded only the budget request for Construction, 
General, the administration would quickly discover that 
termination costs for unfunded ongoing projects could easily 
exceed the request. This is irresponsible budgeting on the part 
of the administration.
    From the Committee's perspective, the Corps' budget seems 
to be developed exactly in the opposite manner that it should 
be. It appears that overall spending targets are set by the 
administration and then their priority projects are inserted 
within these targets. Criteria are then established to justify 
funding the lower priority projects within the remaining 
funding targets. The problem with budgeting in this manner is 
evident in the construction account for fiscal year 2009. Six 
priority projects consume 32 percent of the requested dollars 
in this account. Another 11 projects related to dam safety 
consume another 27 percent. That means that some 65 projects 
have to split the remaining 41 percent of the budgeted 
construction dollars.
    The logic behind this budgeting rational appears to be that 
concentrating scarce resources on finishing a few higher 
performing projects will allow the Nation to reap the benefits 
of these projects sooner. The trouble with this is that these 
are long-term projects that take many years to complete. At the 
rate the budget is headed, we will only be funding the 
administration's six priority projects and the dam safety 
repairs in another couple of years with little else in the 
pipeline. The Committee questions this rationale when benefits 
of flood control projects can be accrued incrementally as 
project elements are completed. Even navigation projects can 
accrue benefits for a partially completed project. For 
instance, the administration claims to be providing completion 
funds for the Columbia River Channel Deepening project. 
However, the Committee understands that there is a 1 mile 
segment where additional work will be required once the 
dredging work is completed to provide full project depth and 
dimension. The cost of this 1 mile reach has not yet been 
determined. However, ports and terminals downstream of this 
reach will benefit from the deeper channel and those national 
benefits will accrue to the economy. Even the Port of Portland, 
which is above this reach, believes that with proper tidal 
conditions, they can reap some benefit from the deeper project 
until this remaining reach is completed. These are net positive 
benefits to the national economy compared to the value of the 
benefits that are deferred by suspending or terminating these 
other projects in order to concentrate resources on such a few 
projects.
    In some cases these deferred benefits may never be realized 
due to these terminations. Local sponsors who share in these 
projects' cost may lose their ability to share these costs or 
may lose public support for finishing these projects. Once 
these priority projects are completed, one has to wonder 
whether there will be any projects or sponsors interested in 
resuming construction in an infrastructure program that 
suspends projects based on changeable annual criteria.
    In the past, Corps budgets were developed from the bottom 
up, District to Division to Headquarters to ASA to OMB. 
District commanders were responsible for developing and 
managing a program within their geographic area. Division 
Commanders were responsible for integrating the District office 
programs into a single Division-wide program. The Headquarters 
office integrated the Division Programs into a single national 
program. The OASA assured that the program complied with 
administration policy and budgetary guidance and OMB developed 
the budgetary guidance and provided funding levels. Decisions 
for budgeting were made within the framework of administration 
policy by those who knew the projects and programs best, not 
Washington level bureaucrats.
    Another benefit of budgeting in this manner is that it 
allows the Corps to undertake workforce planning to distribute 
their work across the Nation. When one chooses to concentrate 
nearly 60 percent of the construction budget in a handful of 
projects, there is no way the workload can be balanced across 
the remainder of the Nation with what is left. Unlike other 
Federal agencies that have a salaries and expense component to 
their budget, the Corps does not, at least not at the District 
office level. Virtually all costs at District offices (rent, 
utilities, labor, materials, et cetera) are charged to projects 
and studies as directed by Congress. This enables the public to 
be informed of the true cost of all projects. Accordingly, it 
is necessary that the budget process be consistent with the 
accounting practice. When dealing with such large differences 
in workload from fiscal year to fiscal year it is clear that 
the administration gave little thought to how this budget would 
impact the Corps' organizational structure or ability to 
maintain a technically competent workforce. Congress has 
repeatedly demonstrated that it desires to keep the structure 
of the Corps of Engineers as it is currently configured. Yet, 
if the budget were enacted, there would be no way to maintain 
this workforce, due to how budgetary criteria skewed the 
projects to certain areas of the country. Neither a pure 
``bottom up'' budget process, nor a performance-based budget 
process is perfect. Experienced decision makers are expected to 
exercise informed judgment to achieve a balanced program 
considering all factors. Once more, the administration appears 
to have submitted a very unbalanced program using 
oversimplified decision metrics to consider only a few 
objectives (for example BCR and efficient completion of a few 
projects) that do not take into account the long-term needs of 
the Nation or the organization expected to manage the program.
    The recently enacted WRDA bill made numerous reforms to 
Corps of Engineers procedures. However, one change that 
Congress did not include was changing the BCR necessary for a 
project to be authorized for construction from the current 1.0 
to 1. The budgetary criterion mentioned above requires a BCR to 
be 3.0 to 1 for full budgeting or a 1.5 to 1 for partial 
budgeting. This performance based budgeting criteria furthers 
the divide between what is required for authorization and what 
is required to be budgeted.
    These criteria used to be one and the same. Many of the 
projects in the recently enacted water resources development 
act do not meet this criteria, increasing the backlog of 
authorized but unconstructed projects. These new projects, 
along with the ongoing projects not funded in the budget and 
the increasing number of major rehabilitations needed for aging 
infrastructure, are affecting and will continue to affect the 
national economy. Existing water resources infrastructure is 
wearing out. The Nation needs to recapitalize if we are to 
remain competitive in a global marketplace. Infrastructure 
budgets, starting from the administration level, have got to be 
increased. If not, the Nation will continue to face unscheduled 
outages, damaged incomplete infrastructure and other emergency 
situations that must be dealt with through ever increasing 
emergency appropriations.

                  FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET INITIATIVES

    The administration has proposed the same changes to how the 
civil works program is appropriated for fiscal year 2009 that 
have been proposed in fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2007. 
These include the regionalization of operations and maintenance 
funding and migrating four categories of projects from the 
Construction, General account to the Operations and Maintenance 
account. The Committee has rejected all of these initiatives.
    Regionalized operations and maintenance funding segregates 
funding for projects into 54 watershed regions around the 
country as opposed to displaying operations and maintenance 
costs by project as has been the tradition. As projects, not 
regions, are authorized and funded by Congress, the Committee 
must reject this proposal. Operation and Maintenance budgets 
are developed on a project by project basis. For large river 
basins such as the Ohio or the Missouri, budgeting for the 
individual projects, as authorized, involve multiple Districts 
and Divisions. As the proposals in the budget are not developed 
as a systemized budget, aggregating them in the fashion 
proposed does not lead to the ``true costs'' of operating the 
system, it just adds up the various parts. The Committee does 
not believe that this proposal advances the budgeting for 
operations and maintenance.
    The Committee is not opposed to a systemized budget for 
projects. In fact, in the fiscal year 2008 Energy and Water 
joint explanatory statement the Congress directed the Corps to 
prepare systemized, integrated budgets for four regions of the 
country to demonstrate the value of this approach to the 
Committee. The budget request did not include these regional 
budgets. Until the value of a regional budget is demonstrated 
to the Committee, regional budgeting will not be considered.
    The Committee rejects the initiative to move Endangered 
Species Act [ESA] compliance activities from Construction, 
General to Operations and Maintenance. The stated reason for 
this change was budget transparency or to more appropriately 
show the true costs of operating these projects. The Committee 
has two issues with this logic. Budget transparency fades when 
the costs are rolled into the regionalized budgets. However, 
even if they were budgeted on a project by project basis, the 
casual observer would have no notion of how much of the 
operational costs of these projects is related to ESA 
compliance. Second, these are only being considered as 
operational costs because mitigation for these projects was not 
undertaken when the projects were constructed as is now 
required by subsequent laws. Were these projects constructed 
today, formulation of the projects would have required 
avoidance and minimization measures for the endangered species 
as project construction costs.
    If one wanted to take this argument to the extreme, all of 
the Everglades Restoration should be budgeted under the Central 
and South Florida O&M; project since construction of this 
project resulted in the environmental restorations that are now 
being implemented. However, the costs for this work would not 
be transparent in the budget. By retaining the ESA compliance 
measures as separate line items in the CG account, it is much 
more transparent as to how much is being funded for these 
activities.
    The budget has proposed moving major rehabilitation for 
locks and dams from the Construction, General account to the 
Operations and Maintenance account. Corresponding to this is a 
legislative proposal to allow the proceeds from the Inland 
Waterway Trust Fund to be utilized in the Operations and 
Maintenance account. Current law only allows these funds to be 
utilized in the Construction, General account. The Congress 
moved major rehabilitation from the Construction, General 
account to the Operation and Maintenance account in fiscal year 
1985. Subsequently as the backlog increased, it was returned to 
the Construction, General account in the fiscal year 1993 
budget. The stipulations involved in moving it back to the 
Construction account included that these major rehabilitations 
would involve more than a simple restoration of project 
function. Operational improvements were considered as a part of 
the rehab. As such, the rehabilitated, or recapitalized, 
projects were considered new investment opportunities for the 
country, the same as other new projects, and had to compete as 
new starts in the Construction, General program. This is 
entirely appropriate as these recapitalized projects provide 
increased levels of service and performance not envisioned in 
their original construction. If they didn't, under existing 
administration policy, the repairs would be considered major 
maintenance and would be funded under the Operation and 
Maintenance account. To help fund these major rehabs, 
legislation allowed half the costs of the major rehab to be 
borne by the Inland Waterway Trust Fund with the other half to 
come from the General Treasury. The Committee does not believe 
moving these projects back to the Operations and Maintenance 
account will solve the backlog of major rehabs and rejects this 
proposal. The Committee believes that the real intent of this 
proposal is to skirt the new start issue in the CG account. The 
Corps has proposed initiating a major rehab report for the 
Lower Monumental Lock and Dam. By including this in O&M; they 
don't have to consider this as a new start under their own 
budgeting criterion.
    The Committee is disappointed that the administration has 
recycled their beach policy from the fiscal year 2008 budget. 
This proposal was rejected by the Congress. The authorizing 
committees that prepared the recently enacted Water Resources 
Development Act chose to reject this policy as well. The 
Committee rejects the policy again this year. The Committee 
notes that beaches are the leading tourist destination in the 
United States and that about 50 percent of our population lives 
near our Nation's coasts. Typically shore protection projects 
are justified on storm damages prevented alone, and the 
recreation benefits only enhance the benefit to cost ratio. 
Shore protection projects should be viewed in the same manner 
as levees along our rivers. These projects mitigate storm 
damage in the same fashion that levees mitigate riverine 
flooding.
    The maximum Federal Government contribution to Federal 
shore protection projects is 65 percent of the total project 
cost but the Government receives all the benefits in reducing 
Federal disaster assistance payments. Like much of our other 
infrastructure, by paying for Federal shore protection projects 
now, we can avoid many of the catastrophic losses and disaster 
assistance payments associated with hurricanes and coastal 
storms. Simply stated, the Nation can pay now to avoid losses 
or pay more later to recover from severe impacts. It truly 
makes sense to be proactive and not reactive in this 
environment.
    The Committee believes that this budget proposal is no way 
to run a robust national infrastructure program. The Committee 
recommended that the Corps include additional criteria into the 
project prioritization process and commends the administration 
for having done so for the fiscal year 2009 budget request. 
However, the net result is that the mix of projects is 
substantially unchanged. The Committee does not believe that 
this prioritization method can be salvaged into a useable 
system. Further, the Committee has seen no evidence that it has 
improved the budget process.
    Rather than trying new budget models and new prioritization 
criteria, the country needs to invest more heavily in its water 
resources. Water resource projects are some of the only Federal 
expenditures that go through a rigorous benefit to cost process 
to determine benefits to the national economy. The standard of 
living that we currently enjoy is due to the excess capacity 
that was built into our water resources infrastructure by 
previous generations. By failing to make new investments and 
recapitalizing aging infrastructure, the Nation is not only 
falling behind our competition around the world, but is 
jeopardizing our future economic growth.

                         BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS

    The Committee commends the Corps for the layout of the 
budget justifications for fiscal year 2009. Grouping projects 
by the Division office rather than according to business lines 
makes the justifications much more useful to the Committee and 
provides more easily accessible information to the public. The 
Committee expects that this method of displaying the budget 
justifications will be continued for the fiscal year 2010 
budget.
    The Committee finds the justifications for O&M; projects to 
be totally inadequate. Inadequate is an understatement, there 
were no justifications provided for O&M.; The only information 
provided was the business line totals for each region. How the 
information was established to justify these totals is a 
mystery in the justification statements. When the Committee 
staff initially inquired about information for the individual 
projects that made up the funded regions, they were told that 
OMB had directed that information concerning individual 
projects was not to be released. Fortunately OMB relented on 
this point and allowed the Corps to provide this information. 
For a $2,500,000,000 account this is an unacceptable manner to 
justify a budget. More information was provided for the 
$40,000,000 in studies in the GI account than was provided for 
all of O&M.;
    The Committee is also disappointed in the justifications 
for the Continuing Authorities Program and the Dam Safety/
Seepage Stability Correction Program. The justifications for 
these items showed a total dollar value and listed projects, 
but give the Committee no idea how the program totals were 
arrived at. There is no way to know whether the administration 
proposal underfunds or overfunds these programs.
    The Committee believes that budget justifications serve to 
justify the administration's request. The budget justifications 
could be improved by providing more relevant budget and project 
information. For fiscal year 2010 the Corps is directed to 
provide, at a minimum, detailed project information for each 
O&M; project justifying the needs for each project. If the 
administration chooses to continue to provide the business line 
information, it may be provided as a separate appendix to the 
justifications.

                       INLAND WATERWAY TRUST FUND

    When the fiscal year 2008 budget was presented to Congress, 
the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) notified the 
committee of a looming deficit in the Inland Waterway Trust 
Fund [IWTF] due to the amount of work that was being funded on 
the inland waterway system. He stated that legislation would be 
forthcoming from the administration to address this expected 
shortfall. The Congress never received a proposal in calendar 
year 2007. Even though the Environment and Public Works 
Committee was working on a WRDA bill, and the WRDA could have 
been the appropriate vehicle for the legislation, no 
legislation was forthcoming.
    When the fiscal year 2009 budget was presented to Congress, 
the budget announced a proposal to phase out the existing fuel 
tax that funds the IWTF and phase in a lockage fee. It also 
announced that a legislative proposal would be forthcoming. The 
legislative proposal was finally submitted to Congress on April 
4, 2008. Six months before the beginning of the new fiscal 
year. The administration's budget for fiscal year 2009 was 
predicated on this significant change in law being enacted by 
October 1, 2008. More funding was proposed to be utilized from 
the IWTF than was estimated to be available utilizing the 
current revenue source. The only way to fund the 
administration's budget request for IWTF projects, as they had 
been cost shared, was through a change in law.
    The Committee has supported and continues to support 
sharing the cost of construction and major rehabilitations 
between the IWTF and the General Treasury in the Construction, 
General account. The Committee believes that this arrangement 
makes the users active partners in the overall inland waterway 
system and provides for a better more efficient system. As the 
Congress already pays 100 percent of the O&M; costs of the 
inland waterway system, the Committee would not support a 
change in cost sharing for the IWTF. Even if it did support a 
cost share change, this would only prolong the inevitable 
bankrupting of the IWTF.
    The current fuel tax generates about $90,000,000 annually. 
Currently awarded continuing contracts for IWTF projects will 
require approximately $60,000,000 of this amount for the next 4 
years. The administration has proposed and the Committee has 
been appropriating considerably more than that amount from the 
fund over the last several years. Therefore, the Committee 
believes that the only way to solve the problem is to generate 
additional revenues in the fund. The current fuel tax is spread 
relatively equitably across all commercial users of the inland 
waterway system. However, the fuel tax has remained at $0.20 
per gallon of diesel fuel since 1996. Inflation and increased 
efficiency in tow boats has eroded the value of the fuel tax. 
One potential solution is to index the fuel tax to inflation. 
Another solution would be to keep the current fuel tax in place 
but to add a lock user fee to the revenue stream. This way, all 
users would pay something and those that use the locks would 
pay more. A wholesale change from a fuel tax to a user fee as 
proposed by the administration appears to be unacceptable to 
Congress or the inland waterway industry. However, the 
Committee only proffers these as discussion topics. The one 
problem the Committee sees with a user fee is that it could 
deter use of waterways. As waterways are the most efficient 
mode of transport any solution to the funding shortfall should 
not provide disincentives for using the inland waterways.
    To fund the administration request for fiscal year 2009 
would require approximately $117,000,000 in IWTF revenues. The 
Corps has informed the Committee that there will not be that 
much available in fiscal year 2009. The Corps has also informed 
the Committee that in order to keep from exceeding available 
revenues that they have not awarded a planned contract in 
fiscal year 2008 that would have requirements in fiscal year 
2009 for the Lock and Dams 2, 3, and 4 on the Monongahela 
River. To address the funding shortfall in the IWTF the 
Committee is taking the unusual step of directing in 
legislative text that only nine inland waterway projects will 
have access to IWTF revenues in fiscal year 2009 in order to 
assure that planned work does not exceed revenues. The Corps is 
directed in fiscal year 2009 to utilize the general fund of the 
U.S. Treasury to fund inland waterway projects without specific 
statutory requirements to be funded from the IWTF. The 
Committee intends this to be a single year change. Fiscal year 
2009 inland waterway projects funded entirely with General Fund 
revenues should be brought to a logical stopping point and 
deferred until such time as the IWTF revenue stream is enhanced 
and these projects can again be cost shared with the IWTF.
    Legislative text is also being included to prohibit the 
Corps from entering into any new continuing contracts for any 
inland waterway project until the revenue stream for the IWTF 
is enhanced. The administration should submit the fiscal year 
2010 budget based on expected revenues in the IWTF not based on 
projections based on legislation that may or may not happen. If 
the budget is submitted utilizing the same assumptions on the 
IWTF that the administration made this year, the Committee will 
have no choice but to curtail spending on all inland waterway 
projects in fiscal year 2010 to a level that fits within the 
IWTF estimated revenues.
    No change in law has been made nor will this Committee 
propose any to alleviate the funding problem that will occur in 
fiscal year 2009. That means the Committee cannot fund the 
administration's request as proposed.

                   CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

    The budget for the Corps of Engineers consists of 
individual line items of projects. As presented by the 
President, the budget contains 151 specific line item requests 
for funding. As was previously discussed the O&M; request 
proposed expending funds in an additional 54 line items listed 
as watershed basins or subbasins. However, once the detail was 
received from the administration concerning O&M;, the O&M; 
funding was spread across 820 specific line items. This totals 
971 specific line item requests for directed spending by the 
administration. Additional funding is requested by the 
administration for nationwide line items. The administration 
does not consider anything that the administration requests as 
an earmark. Yet all of these line items were specific requests 
by the administration of the Congress to be funded in fiscal 
year 2009. They did not request these funds programmatically, 
they requested them for a specific project in a specific 
location for a specific purpose.
    The President published an Executive Order [EO] on January 
29, 2008, that directs his agency heads to ignore 
congressionally directed spending items that are contained in 
the explanatory reports that accompany legislative text and 
states that an ``earmark'' is any funding requested by Congress 
that circumvents a merit based or competitive allocation 
process. The EO does not define what a merit based or 
competitive allocation process is, but one can assume that it 
will be how the administration chooses to define it and 
projects added by Congress will not be considered.
    The Committee has traditionally included funding for the 
Corps of Engineers by account in legislative text and provided 
the details for each account within the report that accompanies 
the legislation. This was primarily done to provide the agency 
some flexibility in how funds were expended and to allow the 
Corps to effectively manage their program while honoring the 
intent of Congress. The primary intent of Congress has always 
been that once the Congress funded a study, it intended for the 
study phase to be completed to determine if Federal investment 
is warranted. By the same token, once the Congress committed to 
initiation of construction of a project, it intended for the 
project to be completed and the national economy to accrue the 
project benefits. With this Executive Order in place, the 
Committee is concerned that this intent might not be followed. 
There appears to be little desire for discussion of what 
exactly is meant in this Executive Order, so the Committee has 
executed its constitutional prerogatives by including statutory 
language to incorporate by reference all of the details of each 
account from the report that accompanies the legislative text, 
into the actual legislative text. This will ensure that the 
intent of Congress is fully complied with.

                 CONTINUING CONTRACTS AND REPROGRAMMING

    The Committee expects the Chief of Engineers to execute the 
Civil Works program generally in accordance with congressional 
direction. This includes moving individual projects forward in 
accordance with the funds annually appropriated. However, the 
Committee realizes that many factors outside the Corps' control 
may dictate the progress of any given project or study. Because 
the individual projects are being incorporated into the 
legislative text the Corps is cautioned that while the 
Committee is firmly in favor of utilizing continuing contracts 
for the Civil Works program, it may be difficult to award this 
type of contract under these constraints.
    Because of the Committee's concern that congressional 
intent be followed, reprogramming authority has been withdrawn 
from all but the O&M; account and the O&M; portion of the 
Mississippi River and Tributaries project.
    Reprogramming authority is as follows:
    Operations and Maintenance.--Unlimited reprogramming 
authority is granted in order for the Corps to be able to 
respond to emergency situations. The Chief of Engineers must 
notify the House and Senate Appropriations Committees of these 
emergency actions as soon thereafter as practicable. For all 
other situations, for a base less than $1,000,000, the 
reprogramming limit is $150,000. For a base over $1,000,000, 15 
percent up to a limit of $5,000,000 per project or activity. 
Amounts over this limit require approval of the House and 
Senate Appropriations Committees. The Committee does not object 
reprogramming up to $150,000 to any continuing project or 
program that did not receive an appropriation in the current 
year.
    Mississippi River and Tributaries.--The Corps should follow 
the same reprogramming guidelines for the Operation and 
Maintenance portions of the Mississippi River and Tributaries 
account as listed above.

                  5-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE BUDGET PLANNING

    While the Committee appreciates the Corps' attempts to 
provide a meaningful 5-year budget plan, it recognizes the 
inherent difficulties between the legislative and executive 
branches in preparing a useful plan. The executive branch is 
unwilling to project a 5-year horizon for projects for which 
they do not budget leaving a sizeable percentage of the Corps 
annual appropriations with a year to year event horizon for 
planning purposes. The fact that a sizeable portion of the 
annual appropriations are dedicated to congressional priorities 
is not a new phenomenon. Many major public works projects over 
the last two centuries have been funded on an annual basis 
without a clear budget strategy. The Committee would welcome 
the ideas and the opportunity to work with the executive branch 
to determine a mutually agreeable way to develop an integrated 
5-year comprehensive budget that displays true funding needs 
for congressional as well as administration priorities. 
Anything less will only give a partial view of the investments 
needed in water resources infrastructure.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation includes a total of 
$5,300,000,000. This is $559,000,000 over the administration's 
budget request and $287,087,000 less than the fiscal year 2008 
enacted amount. This table excludes the request for emergency 
appropriations for the New Orleans hurricane protection system 
as requested in the budget since it has been funded through an 
emergency supplemental appropriations act. Funding is displayed 
in the following tables in the accounts where projects have 
been traditionally located and comparisons to the budget 
request are made as if the request was presented in the 
traditional manner. Funding by account is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Fiscal year 2009      Commettee        Request vs.
                                                                 request       recommendation    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Investigations....................................           $91,000          $166,000          +$75,000
Construction, General.....................................         1,666,775         2,004,500          +337,225
Mississippi River and Tributaries.........................           240,000           365,000          +125,000
Operation and Maintenance.................................         2,210,225         2,220,000            +9,775
Regulatory................................................           180,000           183,000            +3,000
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies.....................            40,000            40,000  ................
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program...........           130,000           140,000           +10,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the..................  ................  ................  ................
Army (Civil Works)........................................             6,000             4,500            -1,500
General Expenses..........................................           177,000           177,000  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total...............................................         4,741,000         5,300,000          +559,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               NEW STARTS

    The passage of the WRDA bill in 2007 presented the 
Committee with the challenge of 7 years of pent up demand for 
new studies and projects. The Committee had to balance the 
funding needs of ongoing work with the future ability to fund 
potential new start studies and projects. Ultimately the 
Committee decided to fund a very limited number of new studies 
and projects. The Committee's essential criterion for deciding 
new starts was to ensure that the projects or studies were only 
for traditional Corps missions. Therefore the Committee 
excluded from consideration:
    (1) New environmental infrastructure authorizations;
    (2) Non traditional project authorizations;
    (3) Authorizations that have not been through the 
traditional two phase planning process;
    (4) New projects under section 206 and section 1135 of the 
Continuing Authorities Program as these program sections are 
oversubscribed;
    (5) Projects that included demonstration features;
    (6) New projects that would require funds from the Inland 
Waterway Trust Fund because of lack of funding in the IWTF.

                         DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS

    The Committee received more than 3,000 requests for 
projects, programs, studies or activities for the Corps of 
Engineers for fiscal year 2009. These requests included the 
budget request as well as requests by Members. The Committee 
obviously was unable to accommodate all of these requests.
    In the interest of providing full disclosure of funding 
provided in the Energy and Water bill, all disclosures are made 
in the report accompanying the bill.
    All of the projects funded in this report have gone through 
the same rigorous public review and approval process as those 
proposed for funding by the President. The difference in these 
projects, of course, is that the congressionally directed 
projects are not subject to the artificial budgetary 
prioritization criteria that the administration utilizes to 
decide what not to fund.
    For those programs, projects, or studies that were included 
in the budgetary documents provided in the budget request, the 
words ``The President'' has been added to denote this 
administration request. The level of funding provided for each 
of these programs, projects or studies should not be construed 
as what was requested. Rather, the only intent is to disclose 
the requestor.
    It should be noted that many line items only have the 
President listed as the requestor. It should not be inferred 
that the affected Members are not interested in these projects 
studies or activities. Rather this is due to Committee 
direction that it is unnecessary to request the President's 
budget as the individual administration requests are the basis 
of the Senate bill.
    The purposes for the funding provided in the various 
accounts is described in the paragraphs associated with each 
account. The location of the programs, projects or studies are 
denoted in the account tables.

                         GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $167,261,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      91,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     166,000,000

    This appropriation funds studies to determine the need, 
engineering feasibility, economic justification, and the 
environmental and social suitability of solutions to water and 
related land resource problems; and for preconstruction 
engineering and design work, data collection, and interagency 
coordination and research activities.
    The planning program is the entry point for Federal 
involvement in solutions to the Nation's water resource 
problems and needs. Unfortunately, the General Investigations 
[GI] account is eviscerated in the budget request. Nationwide 
studies and programs consume over half of the administration's 
GI request. This budget is saying that the Nation should 
concentrate scarce resources on completing studies but not 
carrying forward ongoing studies or allowing new starts. The 
Committee continues to believe this argument is remarkably 
shortsighted. It assumes that the country will stop growing and 
that new investment opportunities will not be present.
    In truth, as the country grows, new investment 
opportunities will be presented and some previously authorized 
projects may no longer make sense or may be less competitive. 
The Corps should keep presenting the administration and 
Congress with new investment opportunities in order for the 
Nation to remain competitive in a global economy. The only 
conclusion one can draw from the administration's GI proposal 
is that they are determined to redirect the Corps toward 
construction, operation and maintenance by strangling their 
ability to evaluate water resource problems and needs.
    The Committee has provided for a robust and balanced 
planning program for fiscal year 2009. The Committee has used 
the traditional view within the Corps planning program that 
only considers new starts as those that have never received GI 
funds before. The Committee believes that to maintain a robust 
planning program, a mix of new reconnaissance studies must be 
included with the existing feasibility and PED studies. As such 
the Committee has included a few new reconnaissance studies in 
this account. To provide additional transparency in the budget 
process, the Committee has segregated the budget into three 
columns in the following table.
    The first column represents the reconnaissance phase of the 
planning process. These studies determine if there is a Federal 
interest in a water resource problem or need and if there is a 
cost sharing sponsor willing to move forward with the study. 
The next column represents the feasibility phase of the study. 
These detailed cost shared studies determine the selected 
alternative to be recommended to the Congress for construction. 
The third column represents the Preconstruction engineering and 
design phase. These detailed cost shared designs are prepared 
while the project recommended to Congress is awaiting 
authorization for construction.
    The Committee believes that by segregating the table in 
this manner that more attention will be focused on the various 
study phases, and a more balanced planning program will be 
developed by the administration. As the last two columns are 
generally cost shared, they demonstrate the commitment by cost 
sharing sponsors to be a part of the Federal planning process. 
By the same token, it also shows the level of commitment of the 
Federal Government to these cost sharing sponsors. The 
Committee directs that the fiscal year 2010 planning budget be 
presented to the Committee in this fashion.
    The budget request and the recommended Committee allowance 
are shown on the following table:

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

                       ALASKA

ANCHORAGE HARBOR DEEPENING, AK.....................           100    .........  .........        100         400
BARROW COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION, AK..........           400    .........  .........        400   .........
HOMER HARBOR MODIFICATION, AK......................  ..............  .........  .........        400   .........
KENAI RIVER BLUFF EROSION, AK......................  ..............  .........  .........        500   .........
MATANUSKA RIVER WATERSHED, AK......................  ..............  .........  .........        400   .........
VALDEZ HARBOR EXPANSION, AK........................  ..............  .........  .........        150   .........
YAKUTAT HARBOR, AK.................................           700    .........  .........        700   .........

                      ARIZONA

AGUA FRIA RIVER TRILBY WASH, AZ....................  ..............  .........  .........        250   .........
LITTLE COLORADO RIVER WATERSHED, AZ................  ..............  .........  .........        250   .........
PIMA COUNTY, AZ....................................           275    .........  .........        275   .........
VA SHLY-AY AKIMEL SALT RIVER RESTORATION, AZ.......  ..............        658  .........  ..........        658

                      ARKANSAS

LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESOURCE STUDY, AR.........  ..............  .........        254  ..........  .........
MAY BRANCH, FORT SMITH, AR.........................  ..............  .........  .........  ..........        250
PINE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR.............................  ..............  .........  .........  ..........        500
SOUTHWEST, ARKANSAS, AR............................  ..............  .........  .........        327   .........
WHITE RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, AR & MO...........  ..............  .........  .........        500   .........
WHITE RIVER NAVIGATION TO BATESVILLE, AR...........  ..............  .........  .........  ..........        325

                     CALIFORNIA

BOLINAS LAGOON ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA...........  ..............  .........  .........        350   .........
CALIFORNIA COASTAL SEDIMENT MASTER PLAN, CA........           900    .........  .........        900   .........
CARPINTERIA SHORELINE STUDY........................  ..............  .........  .........        443   .........
COYOTE & BERRYESSA CREEKS, CA......................  ..............        950  .........  ..........        950
COYOTE DAM, CA.....................................  ..............  .........  .........        250   .........
GOLETA BEACH, CA...................................  ..............  .........  .........        150   .........
HAMILTON CITY, CA..................................  ..............  .........  .........  ..........        500
HEACOCK AND CACTUS CHANNELS, CA....................  ..............  .........  .........  ..........        500
HUMBOLDT BAY LONG TERM SHOAL MGMT, CA..............  ..............  .........  .........        200   .........
LOWER CACHE CREEK, YOLO COUNTY, WOODLAND AND         ..............  .........  .........        200   .........
 VICINITY..........................................
LOS ANGELES RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA........  ..............  .........  .........        590   .........
LOWER MISSION CREEK, CA............................  ..............  .........  .........        400   .........
MALIBU CREEK WATERSHED, CA.........................  ..............  .........  .........        150   .........
MATILIJA DAM, CA...................................  ..............  .........  .........  ..........      1,000
MIDDLE CREEK, CA...................................  ..............  .........  .........  ..........        500
PAJARO RIVER, CA...................................  ..............  .........  .........  ..........      1,000
REDWOOD CITY HARBOR, CA............................  ..............  .........  .........        300   .........
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAMP, CA..........................  ..............  .........  .........        200   .........
ROCK CREEK, KEEFER SLOUGH, CA......................  ..............  .........  .........        200   .........
SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN COMP, CA....................  ..............  .........  .........      1,000   .........
SAC--SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ISLANDS AND LEVEES, CA......           468    .........  .........      2,000   .........
SAN DIEGO COUNTY SAMP, CA..........................  ..............  .........  .........        250   .........
SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHORELINE, CA.....................  ..............  .........  .........        200   .........
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN (SJRB), FRAZIER CREEK/       ..............  .........  .........        200   .........
 STRATHMO..........................................
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, WEST STANISLAUS, ORESTIMBA  ..............  .........  .........        400   .........
 CR................................................
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, LOWER SAN JAOQUIN RIVER,    ..............  .........  .........        600   .........
 CA................................................
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN (SJRB), WHITE RIVER/DRY      ..............  .........  .........        125   .........
 CREEK.............................................
SAN PABLO BAY WATERSHED, CA........................  ..............  .........  .........        250   .........
SOLANA-ENCINITAS SHORELINE, CA.....................           171    .........  .........        171   .........
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SHORELINE, CA..................  ..............  .........  .........      1,400   .........
SUTTER COUNTY, CA..................................           339    .........  .........        339   .........
TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING, CA AND NV.................  ..............  .........  .........        125   .........
UPPER PENITENCIA CREEK, CA.........................           191    .........  .........        191   .........

                      COLORADO

BASALT, CO.........................................  ..............  .........         50  ..........  .........
CACHE LA POUDRE, CO................................  ..............  .........  .........          5         125
CHATFIELD, CHERRY AND BEAR CREEK, RESERVOIRS, CO...  ..............  .........  .........        200   .........
SOUTH BOULDER CREEK, CO............................  ..............  .........          2        250   .........

                    CONNECTICUT

CONNECTICUT RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CT, MA, NH  ..............  .........  .........        450   .........
 & VT..............................................

                      DELAWARE

RED CLAY CREEK, CHRISTINA RIVER WATERSHED, DE......  ..............  .........  .........        300   .........

                      FLORIDA

FLAGER COUNTY, FL..................................  ..............  .........  .........        250   .........
LAKE WORTH INLET, FL...............................  ..............  .........  .........        200   .........
MILE POINT, FL.....................................            50    .........  .........         50   .........
PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL.........................           550    .........  .........        550   .........
SARASOTA, LIDO KEY, FL.............................  ..............  .........  .........  ..........        158
ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FL...............................  ..............  .........  .........        250   .........
WALTON COUNTY, FL..................................  ..............  .........  .........  ..........        591

                      GEORGIA

AUGUSTA, GA........................................  ..............        278  .........  ..........        278
LONG ISLAND, MARSH AND JOHNS CREEKS, GA............           150    .........  .........        150   .........
SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA......................  ..............        700  .........  ..........        700
TYBEE ISLAND, GA...................................           250    .........  .........        250   .........

                        GUAM

HAGATNA RIVER FLOOD CONTROL, GUAM..................           350    .........  .........        350   .........

                       HAWAII

ALA WAI CANAL, OAHU, HI............................           300    .........  .........        300   .........
HILO HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, HI......................  ..............  .........        100  ..........  .........
HYDROELECTRIC POWER ASSESSMENT, HI.................  ..............  .........        300  ..........  .........
KAHUKU, HI.........................................  ..............  .........  .........  ..........        344
KALAELOA BARBERS POINT HARBOR MODIFICATION, HI.....  ..............  .........  .........        350   .........
MAALAEA HARBOR, MAUI, HI...........................  ..............        200  .........        200   .........
WAILUPE STREAM, OAHU, HI...........................  ..............  .........  .........  ..........        300

                      ILLINOIS

DES PLAINES RIVER, IL (PHASE II)...................           500    .........  .........        500   .........
ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION, IL...............           400    .........  .........        400   .........
INTERBASIN CONTROL OF GREAT LAKES--MISSISSIPPI       ..............  .........  .........        300   .........
 RIVER AQ NUISANCE SPECIES, IL, IN, OH, WI.........
KEITH CREEK, ROCKFORD, IL..........................  ..............  .........  .........        548   .........
PEORIA RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, IL..................  ..............  .........  .........  ..........         50
PRAIRIE DUPONT LEVEE, IL...........................  ..............  .........  .........        200   .........
S. FORK, SOUTH BRANCH, CHICAGO RIVER, (BUBBLY        ..............  .........  .........        400   .........
 CREEK)............................................
UPPER MISS--ILLINOIS WW SYSTEM, IL, IA, MN, MO &     ..............  .........  .........     10,000   .........
 WI................................................
UPPER MISS RVR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IL, IA, MO, MN &  ..............  .........        220  ..........  .........
 WI................................................

                      INDIANA

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

                        IOWA

CEDAR RIVER TIME CHECK AREA, IA....................  ..............  .........  .........        300   .........
HUMBOLT, IA........................................  ..............  .........          2        150   .........

                       KANSAS

MANHATTAN, KS......................................  ..............  .........  .........        300   .........
TOPEKA, KS.........................................  ..............        100  .........  ..........        100
UPPER TURKEY CREEK, KS.............................  ..............  .........  .........  ..........        150

                     LOUISIANA

AMITE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION,   ..............  .........  .........        250   .........
 LA................................................
BAYOU SORREL LOCK, LA..............................  ..............      1,599  .........  ..........      1,599
BOSSIER PARISH, LA.................................  ..............  .........  .........        200   .........
CALCASIEU LOCK, LA.................................            53    .........  .........        600   .........
CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA.......................  ..............  .........  .........        162   .........
CALCASIEU RIVER BASIN, LA..........................            67    .........  .........         67   .........
CROSS LAKE, LA.....................................  ..............  .........  .........        250   .........
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM REST, LA (SCIENCE         10,000    .........  .........  ..........  .........
 PRO...............................................
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA...        10,000    .........  .........     10,000   .........
PORT OF IBERIA, LA.................................  ..............  .........  .........  ..........      1,000
ST. CHARLES PARISH URBAN FLOOD CONTROL, LA.........           500    .........  .........        500   .........
ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST URBAN FLOOD CONTROL, LA.......  ..............  .........  .........        250   .........
SOUTHWEST COASTAL LOUISIANA HURRICANE PROTECTION,    ..............  .........  .........      1,500   .........
 LA................................................
WEST SHORE, LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN, LA.................  ..............  .........  .........        900   .........

                       MAINE

SEARSPORT HARBOR, ME...............................  ..............  .........  .........        157   .........

                      MARYLAND

ANACOSTIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES COMP PLAN, MD......  ..............  .........  .........        400   .........
BALTIMORE METRO WATER RESOURCES--PATAPSCO URBAN      ..............  .........  .........        250   .........
 RIVER.............................................
CHESAPEAKE BAY MARSHLANDS, MD......................  ..............  .........  .........      1,000   .........
CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINE, MARYLAND COASTAL           ..............  .........  .........        200   .........
 MANAGEMENT........................................
CHESAPEAKE BAY SUSQUEHANNA RESERVOIR SEDIMENT        ..............  .........        100        100   .........
 MANAGEMENT........................................
EASTERN SHORE, MID-CHESAPEAKE BAY ISLAND, MD.......  ..............  .........  .........  ..........        983
LOWER POTOMAC ESTUARY WATERSHED, ST. MARY'S, MD....  ..............  .........  .........  ..........        150
MIDDLE POTOMAC COMP PLAN, MD, VA, PA, WV, DC.......  ..............  .........  .........        175   .........
MIDDLE POTOMAC WATERSHED, GREAT SENECA CREEK, AND    ..............  .........  .........        300   .........
 MUDDY.............................................
SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN LOW FLOW MANAGEMENT AND      ..............  .........  .........        300   .........
 ENVIRO............................................

                   MASSACHUSETTS

BOSTON HARBOR (45-FOOT CHANNEL), MA................  ..............      2,300  .........  ..........      2,300
PILGRIM LAKE, TRURO & PROVINCETOWN, MA.............            96    .........  .........         96   .........

                      MICHIGAN

GREAT LAKES NAV SYST STUDY, MI, IL, IN, MN, NY, OH,           200    .........        200  ..........  .........
  PA...............................................
GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS (RAP), MI........  ..............  .........  .........      1,000   .........
LANSING, GRAND RIVER WATERFRONT RESTORATION, MI....  ..............  .........         50  ..........  .........
ST. CLAIR RIVER, MI................................  ..............  .........  .........        200   .........

                     MINNESOTA

MARSH LAKE, MN (MN RIVER AUTHORITY)................  ..............  .........  .........        227   .........
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED, MN......................  ..............  .........  .........        350   .........
MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN, MN & SD.....................  ..............  .........  .........        350   .........
WILD RICE RIVER, RED RIVER OF THE NORTH BASIN, MN..           271    .........  .........        271   .........

                    MISSISSIPPI

PEARL RIVER WATERSHED, MS..........................  ..............  .........  .........        250   .........

                      MISSOURI

BRUSH CREEK BASIN, KS & MO.........................  ..............  .........  .........        274   .........
KANSAS CITYS, MO & KS..............................           262    .........  .........        315   .........
MISSOURI RIVER DEGRADATION, MO.....................            88    .........  .........        588   .........
MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, UNITS L45 & R460-471,   ..............  .........  .........  ..........        300
 MO................................................
RIVER DES PERES, MO................................  ..............  .........  .........        150   .........
SWOPE PARK, KANSAS CITY, MO........................  ..............        138  .........  ..........  .........

                      MONTANA

YELLOWSTONE RIVER CORRIDOR, MT.....................           200    .........  .........        500   .........

                      NEBRASKA

LOWER PLATTE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NE.............  ..............  .........  .........        177   .........

                   NEW HAMPSHIRE

MERRIMACK RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, NH & MA...........           200    .........  .........        200   .........
PORTSMOUTH HARBOR AND PISCATAQUA RIVER, HN &  ME...  ..............  .........  .........         82   .........

                     NEW JERSEY

DELAWARE RIVER COMPREHENSIVE, NJ...................           290    .........  .........        290   .........
HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS, NJ           204    .........  .........        204   .........
HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, LOWER PASSAIC RIVER, NJ...           200    .........  .........        500   .........
LOWER SADDLE RIVER, BERGEN COUNTY, NJ..............  ..............  .........  .........  ..........        375
NEW JERSEY SHORE PROTECTION, HEREFORD TO CAPE MAY    ..............  .........  .........          4         150
 INLET.............................................
NEW JERSEY SHORELINE ALTERNATIVE LONG-TERM           ..............  .........  .........        150   .........
 NOURISHMENT.......................................
PASSAIC RIVER MAIN STEM, NJ........................  ..............  .........  .........  ..........        250
PASSAIC RIVER, HARRISON, NJ........................  ..............  .........  .........  ..........        297
PECKMAN RIVER BASIN, NJ............................  ..............  .........  .........        375   .........
RAHWAY RIVER BASIN, NJ.............................  ..............  .........  .........        300   .........
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, HIGHLANDS, NJ......  ..............  .........  .........        300   .........
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, LEONARDO, NJ.......  ..............  .........  .........  ..........        100
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, UNION BEACH, NJ....  ..............  .........  .........  ..........        100
SHREWSBURY RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES...................  ..............  .........  .........  ..........        250
SOUTH RIVER, RARITAN RIVER BASIN, NJ...............  ..............  .........  .........  ..........        375
STONY BROOK, MILLSTONE RIVER BASIN, NJ.............  ..............  .........  .........        250   .........

                     NEW MEXICO

ESPANOLA VALLEY RIO GRANDE AND TRIBS, NM...........  ..............  .........  .........        400   .........
RIO GRANDE BASIN, NM, CO & TX......................  ..............  .........  .........        500   .........
SANTA FE, NM.......................................  ..............  .........  .........         28   .........

                      NEW YORK

BUFFALO RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, NY...........           100    .........  .........        100   .........
FORGE RIVER WATERSHED, LONG ISLAND, NY.............  ..............  .........  .........        125   .........
HASHAMOMUCK COVE, SOUTHOLD, NY.....................  ..............  .........  .........        125   .........
HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, NY & NJ...................           200    .........  .........        200   .........
LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR, NY............................  ..............  .........  .........        250   .........
MONTAUK POINT, NY..................................  ..............  .........  .........  ..........        375
NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, ASHAROKEN, NY..........  ..............  .........  .........        150   .........
NORTH SHORE LONG ISLAND, BAYVILLE, NY..............  ..............  .........  .........        175   .........
SAW MILL RIVER WATERSHED, NY.......................  ..............  .........  .........  ..........        250
SOUTH SHORE OF STATEN ISLAND, NY...................  ..............  .........  .........        200   .........
TEN MILE RIVER WATERSHED, DUTCHESS CTY, NY &         ..............  .........  .........        125   .........
 LITCHFIEL.........................................
WESTCHESTER COUNTY STREAMS, NY.....................  ..............  .........  .........        175   .........
UPPER DELAWARE RIVER WATERSHED, NY.................  ..............  .........  .........        300   .........

                       NEVADA

TRUCKEE MEADOWS, NV................................  ..............  .........  .........  ..........      5,000

                   NORTH CAROLINA

BOGUE BANKS, NC....................................  ..............  .........  .........        132   .........
CURRITUCK SOUND, NC................................           150    .........  .........        150   .........
NEUSE RIVER BASIN, NC..............................  ..............        200  .........  ..........        200
NORTH CAROLINA INTERNATIONAL PORT, NC..............  ..............  .........        100  ..........  .........
SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH, NC..............  ..............  .........  .........        386   .........

                    NORTH DAKOTA

MISSOURI RIVER, ND, MT, SD, NE, IA, KS, MO.........  ..............  .........  .........      3,000   .........
RED RIVER OF THE NORTH BASIN, MN, ND, SD &           ..............  .........  .........        500   .........
 MANITOBA, CANADA..................................

                        OHIO

BELPRE, OH.........................................  ..............  .........  .........  ..........        150
CUYAHOGA RIVER BULKHEAD STUDY, OH..................  ..............  .........  .........  ..........        126
HOCKING RIVER BASIN, MONDAY CREEK, OH..............  ..............  .........  .........  ..........        300
MAHONING RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, OH..........  ..............  .........  .........  ..........        500
WESTERN LAKE ERIE BASIN, BLANCHARD RIVER WATERSHED,  ..............  .........  .........        250   .........
 OH................................................
WESTERN LAKE ERIE BASIN, OH, IN, & MI..............  ..............  .........  .........        250   .........

                      OKLAHOMA

GRAND (NEOSHO) RIVER BASIN WATERSHED, OK, MO, KS &   ..............  .........  .........         60   .........
 AR................................................
GRAND LAKE COMPREHENSIVE, OK.......................  ..............  .........  .........        250   .........
SOUTHEAST OKLAHOMA WATER RESOURCE STUDY, OK........  ..............  .........  .........        500   .........
WASHITA RIVER BASIN, OK............................  ..............  .........  .........        250   .........

                       OREGON

AMAZON CREEK, OR...................................  ..............  .........  .........        350   .........
WALLA WALLA RIVER WATERSHED, OR & WA...............  ..............  .........  .........  ..........        500
WILLAMETTE RIVER FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION, OR........           240    .........  .........        240   .........

                    PENNSYLVANIA

BLOOMSBURG, PA.....................................  ..............  .........  .........  ..........        700
DELAWARE RIVER DREDGED MATERIAL UTILIZATION, PA,     ..............  .........        125  ..........  .........
 DE, &.............................................
UPPER OHIO NAVIGATION STUDY, PA....................  ..............  .........  .........      4,200   .........

                   SOUTH CAROLINA

EDISTO ISLAND, SC..................................           218    .........  .........        218   .........

                    SOUTH DAKOTA

JAMES RIVER, SD & ND...............................  ..............  .........  .........        350   .........
WATERTOWN AND VICINITY, SD.........................  ..............  .........  .........  ..........        450

                      TENNESSE

MILL CREEK WATERSHED, DAVIDSON COUNTY, TN..........           100    .........  .........        100   .........

                       TEXAS

ABILENE, TX........................................  ..............  .........  .........        150   .........
BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, BROWNSVILLE CHANNEL, TX......           400    .........  .........        400   .........
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX....................  ..............        150  .........  ..........  .........
DALLAS FLOODWAY, UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TX.....  ..............        207  .........  ..........      1,000
FREEPORT HARBOR, TX................................           400    .........  .........        400   .........
GIWW, HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS RIVER REALIGNMENTS,  TX           200    .........  .........        200   .........
GIWW, HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS RIVER, TX..............  ..............        150  .........  ..........        150
GIWW, PORT OCONNOR TO CORPUS CHRISTI BAY, TX.......           350    .........  .........        350   .........
GUADALUPE AND SAN ANTONIO RIVER BASINS, TX.........           223    .........  .........        223   .........
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN, TX.....................           425    .........  .........        425   .........
NUECES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, TX...................           250    .........  .........        650   .........
RAYMONDVILLE DRAIN, TX.............................  ..............  .........  .........  ..........        350
RIO GRANDE BASIN, TX...............................           100    .........  .........        100   .........
SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX.........................  ..............  .........  .........  ..........        500
SABINE PASS TO GALVESTON BAY, TX...................  ..............  .........  .........        400   .........
SPARKS ARROYO COLONIA, EL PASO COUNTY, TX..........  ..............  .........  .........        150   .........

                      VERMONT

 MONTPELIER, VT....................................  ..............  .........  .........        750   .........

                      VIRGINIA

AIWW BRIDGE AT DEEP CREEK, VA......................  ..............  .........  .........  ..........        500
CLINCH RIVER WATERSHED, VA.........................  ..............  .........  .........        150   .........
DISMAL SWAMP AND DISMAL SWAMP CANAL, VA............  ..............  .........  .........        262   .........
ELIZABETH RIVER, HAMPTON ROADS, VA.................  ..............         97  .........  ..........         97
FOUR MILE RUN, VA..................................  ..............  .........  .........        300   .........
JOHN H. KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA & NC (SECTION              300    .........  .........        300   .........
 216)..............................................
LYNNHAVEN RIVER BASIN, VA..........................           175    .........  .........        175   .........
NEW RIVER, CLAYTOR LAKE, VA........................  ..............  .........  .........  ..........        150
UPPER RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER, VA (PHASE II)............  ..............  .........  .........        200   .........
VICINITY AND WILLOUGHBY SPIT, VA...................  ..............  .........  .........  ..........        200

                     WASHINGTON

CENTRALIA, WA......................................  ..............  .........  .........  ..........      1,200
CHEHALIS RIVER BASIN, WA...........................  ..............  .........  .........      1,000   .........
ELLIOTT BAY SEAWALL, WA............................  ..............  .........  .........        750   .........
LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, WA & OR           100    .........  .........        100   .........
PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE MARINE HABITAT RESTORATION,             400    .........  .........      1,500   .........
 WA................................................
PUYALLUP RIVER, WA.................................  ..............  .........         57  ..........  .........
SKAGIT RIVER, WA...................................  ..............  .........  .........        505   .........
SKOKOMISH RIVER BASIN, WA..........................  ..............  .........  .........        375   .........

                   WEST VIRGINIA

CHERRY RIVER BASIN, WV.............................  ..............  .........  .........        150   .........
LITTLE KANAWHA RIVER, WV...........................  ..............  .........  .........        300   .........
OHIO RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE STUDY, WV, KY, OH,    ..............  .........  .........        600   .........
 PA................................................

                     WISCONSIN

WAUWATOSA, WI......................................  ..............  .........        200  ..........  .........
                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL FOR PROJECTS........................        33,356        7,727      1,760     83,207      30,306

                 NATIONAL PROGRAMS

AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT TRI-CADD.....           350    .........  .........        350   .........
ACTIONS FOR CHANGE TO IMPROVE INVESTIGATIONS.......         2,000    .........  .........  ..........  .........
COASTAL FIELD DATA COLLECTION......................         1,400    .........  .........      5,600   .........
    Coastal Data Information Program...............  ..............  .........  .........     (1,000)  .........
    Pacific Island Land Ocean Typhoon Experiment,    ..............  .........  .........     (1,000)  .........
     HI............................................
    Surge and Wave Island Modeling Studies, HI.....  ..............  .........  .........     (1,200)  .........
    Wave Data Study................................  ..............  .........  .........     (1,000)  .........
COMMITTEE ON MARINE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS.........           100    .........  .........        100   .........
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STUDIES.........................            75    .........  .........         75   .........
FEMA/MAP MOD COORDINATION..........................         1,500    .........  .........      1,500   .........
FLOOD DAMAGE DATA..................................           220    .........  .........        220   .........
FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES....................         8,000    .........  .........     11,000   .........
    White Clay Creek, New Castle, Delaware.........  ..............  .........  .........       (200)  .........
    Hurricane Evacuation Studies, Hawaii...........  ..............  .........  .........     (1,000)  .........
    Kekaha Flood Study, HI.........................  ..............  .........  .........       (100)  .........
    Iowa Multi-State Dam Safety Analyses, Iowa.....  ..............  .........  .........        (37)  .........
    Little Sioux Watershed, IA.....................  ..............  .........  .........        (30)  .........
    Mon--Maq Dam Removal Study & Local Floodplain    ..............  .........  .........       (100)  .........
     Mas...........................................
    City of Gretna GIS, Louisiana..................  ..............  .........  .........       (254)  .........
    East Baton Rouge Parish, LA [GIS]..............  ..............  .........  .........       (400)  .........
    Livingston Parish, LA (GIS)....................  ..............  .........  .........       (735)  .........
    Papillion Creek Watershed, Flood Plain Mapping,  ..............  .........  .........       (500)  .........
    Southeastern, PA...............................  ..............  .........  .........       (300)  .........
HYDROLOGIC STUDIES.................................           250    .........  .........        250   .........
INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW............................         1,000    .........  .........      1,000   .........
INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES........................           200    .........  .........        200   .........
NATIONAL SHORELINE STUDY...........................           375    .........  .........        375   .........
OTHER COORDINATION PROGRAMS........................         4,080    .........  .........      4,580   .........
Lake Tahoe Coordination............................  ..............  .........  .........       (500)  .........
PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES......................         7,000    .........  .........      8,750   .........
    Delaware Estuary Salinity Monitoring Study,      ..............  .........  .........       (200)  .........
     Dela-  ware...................................
    Bacon Creek, Sioux City, IA....................  ..............  .........  .........        (50)  .........
    Boyer River, Missouri Valley, IA...............  ..............  .........  .........        (13)  .........
    Little Sioux Watershed, IA.....................  ..............  .........  .........        (30)  .........
    Kansas River Basin Technical Assistance, Kansas  ..............  .........  .........       (400)  .........
    Fife Lake Aquatic Weed Control, MI.............  ..............  .........  .........       (300)  .........
    Choctaw County Reservoir, MS...................  ..............  .........  .........       (100)  .........
    Jones County Water Supply, MS..................  ..............  .........  .........        (50)  .........
    Mississippi Band of Choctaws, MS...............  ..............  .........  .........        (50)  .........
    Assessment of Bridges and Impacts on Flows and   ..............  .........  .........       (150)  .........
     F.............................................
    Asheville, NC..................................  ..............  .........  .........        (50)  .........
PLANNING SUPPORT PROGRAM...........................         2,100    .........  .........      3,100   .........
PRECIPITATION STUDIES (NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE)...           225    .........  .........        225   .........
REMOTE SENSING/GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM                  150    .........  .........        150   .........
 SUPPORT...........................................
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT...........................        16,892    .........  .........     28,000   .........
    Submerged Aquatic Vegetation, Maryland.........  ..............  .........  .........     (1,000)  .........
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTERS.......            50    .........  .........         50   .........
STREAM GAGING (U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY).............           600    .........  .........        600   .........
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS.............................           350    .........  .........        350   .........
TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.........................         1,000    .........  .........      1,000   .........
WATER RESOURCES PRIORITIES STUDY...................         2,000    .........  .........  ..........  .........
                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, NATIONAL PROGRAMS..................        49,917    .........  .........     67,375   .........
SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE...............................  ..............  .........  .........    -16,648   .........
                                                    ============================================================
      TOTAL........................................        83,273        7,727      1,760    133,934      30,306
      GRAND TOTAL..................................        91,000       91,000  .........    166,000   .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Anchorage Harbor Deepening, Alaska.--The Committee 
recommended $500,000 to complete the feasibility study and to 
initiate preconstruction engineering and design. Anchorage 
harbor provides services to approximately 90 percent of the 
total population of Alaska, including two military bases.
    Valdez Harbor Expansion, Alaska.--The Committee recommends 
$150,000 to complete the feasibility phase of the study. The 
demand for moorage space in the harbor far exceeds the existing 
capacity of 510 vessels. Rafting during the commercial fishing 
season has been reported up to eight boats deep on a regular 
basis.
    May Branch, Fort Smith, Arkansas.--$500,000 is recommended 
to continue preconstruction engineering and design for this 
flood control project.
    Bolinas Lagoon, California.--The Committee recommends 
$350,000 to continue feasibility studies of providing solutions 
that would restore and maintain a natural tidal prism 
configuration and tidal circulation in the lagoon.
    Los Angeles River Ecosystem Restoration, California.--
$590,000 is recommended to continue the feasibility studies for 
environmental and historic riparian habitat restoration. 
Potential projects may provide opportunities to restore 
environmental conditions, improve water quality, public access, 
open space and recreation. The potential projects will maintain 
or improve the current level of flood damage reduction 
benefits.
    Malibu Creek Watershed, California.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $150,000 to complete the draft 
feasibility report of methods to manage the sediment to 
facilitate ongoing efforts to improve the ecosystem in Malibu 
Creek and lagoon.
    Rock Creek and Keefer Slough, California.--$200,000 is 
recommended to continue the feasibility phase of the study. The 
primary project purposes include flood control with the use of 
setback levees and floodwalls, and ecosystem restoration and 
minimum maintenance. The flood control facilities are to be 
designed with additional capacity to allow for the natural 
development of habitat.
    Sacramento-San Joaquin Comprehensive Study, California.--
The Committee recommended $1,000,000 for the feasibility study. 
The study provides a long-range management program for the 
Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins with the objective of 
improving the flood carrying capacity of the system while 
restoring and protecting environmental features including 
wetlands as well as fish and wildlife habitat.
    Chatfield, Cheery Creek and Bear Creek, Reservoirs.--The 
recommendation includes $200,000 for feasibility studies to 
convert flood control storage to water supply storage.
    Basalt, Colorado.--The Committee recommended $50,000 to 
review planning studies that were initiated under section 206 
of the Continuing Authorities Program to determine if there is 
a Federal interest in this ecosystem restoration project.
    Flagler County, Florida.--$250,000 is recommended to 
continue feasibility studies for shore damage reduction. The 
Committee notes that recent storms have begun to threaten the 
county's major evacuation route to State Road A1A.
    Walton County, Florida.--$591,000 is recommended to 
continue the preconstruction, engineering and design phase. 
This study is a test bed for the Institute of Water Resources 
Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction model.
    Hilo Harbor Modifications, Hawaii.--The Committee 
recommends $100,000 to initiate the reconnaissance study to 
address the Federal interest in modifying the 1930s era 
designed harbor to accommodate large modern cargo vessels and 
improve safety in the harbor.
    Interbasin Control of Great Lakes--Mississippi Aquatic 
Nuisance Species, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin.--The 
Committee recommends $300,000 to initiate studies of the range 
of options and technologies available to prevent the spread of 
aquatic nuisance species between the Great lakes and the 
Mississippi River Basins through various aquatic pathways.
    Upper Mississippi River--Illinois Waterway Navigation 
System, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin.--
The Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 for 
continuation of preconstruction engineering and design studies. 
The Committee recognizes the need to modernize this more than 
60-year-old navigation system and has provided continued 
funding for both structural design and environmental 
restoration work.
    Humbolt, Iowa.--The Committee recommends $152,000 to 
initiate a cost-shared feasibility study that would investigate 
ecosystem restoration on the West Fork of the Des Moines River 
(fish passage, dam removal, dredging, tributary and floodplain 
restoration) and ancillary recreational features.
    Cross Lake, Louisiana.--$250,000 is recommended for 
investigations of improvements to Cross Lake and alternative 
sources of fresh water for Shreveport and Caddo Parish.
    Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration, Louisiana.--
The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for these important 
studies. The Committee has again elected not to fund a separate 
Science and Technology line item under this study and directs 
the Corps not to include this line item in the fiscal year 2010 
budget. As has been previously stated by this Committee 
worthwhile science work should be budgeted within the study 
line item as is done for all other studies and projects. A 
separate line item is superfluous.
    The reduction made to these studies should not be viewed as 
any diminution of support for these efforts, rather it is an 
attempt to balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide 
program among the various missions of the Corps.
    To the extent practicable, the Committee directs the Corps 
to expedite preconstruction engineering and design studies of a 
sediment diversion at Myrtle Grove. The work should focus on 
project performance using capacity to take sufficient advantage 
of large pulsed flows during these less-than-annual high-flow 
periods, and during river flood events, when a large amount of 
sediment is freely available in the river water column. The 
Committee further notes that the success of ongoing efforts to 
bolster structural hurricane protection and rebuilding 
hurricane damaged communities depends on arrest and reversal of 
the coastal land lost problems in the near term, that 
resolution of the land loss issue will require construction of 
sediment reintroduction projects, such as the Myrtle Grove 
diversion.
    Chesapeake Bay, Susquehanna Reservoir Sediment Management, 
Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia.--It has been estimated 
that 280 million tons of sediment originating from the 
Susquehanna River watershed are trapped behind the four 
hydroelectric dams located on the Lower Susquehanna River 
between Havre de Grace, Maryland, and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 
Three of the four dams Holtwood, Safe Harbor, and York Haven 
have reached steady state. It is estimated that the Conowingo 
Dam will cease to have trapping capacity in 15 to 20 years. 
Once this last reservoir reaches steady state, the sediment 
input to the bay may increase dramatically. The Committee 
recommendation includes $200,000 for to examine the impact of 
the Lower Susquehanna River Dams on sediment transport into the 
Bay.
    Minnesota River Basin, Minnesota.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $350,000 for continuation of the 
feasibility study. This study will evaluate projects/methods to 
reduce flood damages, restore aquatic ecosystems, create 
wildlife habitat, reduce erosion and sediment, and improve 
water quality in the Minnesota River Basin and upper 
Mississippi River.
    Missouri River Degradation, Mile 340 to 400, Missouri and 
Kansas.--The Committee recommended $588,000 to initiate 
feasibility studies. The Missouri River in this reach has 
experienced significant degradation or downcutting of the river 
bed. There is a strong indication that this degradation could 
impact navigation, flood control and other infrastructure in 
the area.
    Yellowstone River Corridor, Montana.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $500,000 to continue feasibility 
studies.
    Delaware Basin Comprehensive, New Jersey.--The Committee 
recommended $290,000 to continue evaluation of alternative 
solutions to the region's problems regarding flooding and 
environmental restoration along the New Jersey portion of the 
Delaware River and tributaries.
    Western Lake Erie Basin Study, Ohio, Indiana and 
Michigan.--$250,000 is recommended to continue the 
Comprehensive investigation of measures to improve fish and 
wildlife habitat, navigation, flood damage reduction, 
recreation, and water quality in the Maumee, Ottawa and Portage 
River watersheds.
    Walla Walla River Basin, Oregon and Washington.--$500,000 
is recommended to continue preconstruction, engineering and 
design studies for environmental restoration of the watershed; 
focusing primarily on establishing year round instream flows.
    Neches River Basin, Texas.--$100,000 is recommended to 
initiate reconnaissance studies for flood damage reduction, 
ecosystem restoration, water supply, and recreation 
possibilities within the watershed.
    Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Bridge Replacement at Deep 
Creek, Chesapeake, Virginia.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $500,000 to continue preconstruction engineering and 
design phase of the replacement bridge.
    Montpelier, Vermont.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$750,000 to initiate feasibility studies of flood damage 
reduction on the Winooski River.
    Vicinity of Willoughby Spit, Norfolk, Virginia.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $200,000 to continue the 
general reevaluation study of the shore protection project that 
was severely damaged by Hurricane Isabel.
    Actions for Change to Improve Investigations.--The 
Committee did not recommend funding for this item. The 
Committee believes that the activities proposed in the budget 
request for this line item should be incorporated into the 
various funded planning activities that the Corps has underway.
    Planning Support Program.--The Committee has recommended an 
additional $1,000,000 above the budget request to support the 
Planning Centers of Expertise. A portion of these funds should 
be provided to the National Planning Center of Expertise for 
Coastal Storm Damage Reduction to develop a process for 
managing shore protection projects as part of a systems 
approach to coastal protection for the purpose of achieving 
improved project performance, increased cost effectiveness, and 
enhanced benefits.
    Other Coordination Programs.--$500,000 is recommended for 
Lake Tahoe coordination activities.
    Planning Assistance to States.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $9,000,000 for this nationwide cost-
shared program. The Committee recognizes that there are 
hundreds of these studies on-going at any given time. The 
Committee has provided a listing in the table of projects that 
should be given priority if cost sharing funds are available 
from the local sponsors.
    Coastal Field Data Collection.--The Committee has 
recommended $5,600,000 for this nationwide program. In addition 
to budgeted funds, $4,200,000 has been recommended to continue 
the Coastal Data Information Program; Surge and Wave Island 
Modeling Studies, Hawaii; the Pacific Island Land Ocean Typhoon 
Experiment Program and the Wave Data Study. The California 
Beach Processes Study has been incorporated into the Coastal 
Data Information Program. These are all studies that have been 
underway for a number of years and the Committee supports their 
continuation.
    Flood Plain Management Services Program.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $11,000,000. The Committee has 
recommended a listing in the table of projects that should be 
given priority if cost sharing funds are available from the 
local sponsors.
    Research and Development.--The Committee has included 
$28,000,000 for the Corps nationwide research and development 
programs. The Committee believes that this is an important area 
of the Corps' program that should be supported and has 
recommended $11,108,000 above the budget request. Within the 
funds recommended, the Corps should continue submerged aquatic 
vegetation research in the Chesapeake Bay.

                         CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL

Appropriations, 2008....................................  $2,294,029,000
Budget estimate, 2009\1\................................   1,402,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,004,500,000

\1\Excludes emergency appropriations of $5,761,000,000.

    This appropriation includes funds for construction, major 
rehabilitation and related activities for water resources 
development projects having navigation, flood and storm damage 
reduction, water supply, hydroelectric, environmental 
restoration, and other attendant benefits to the Nation. The 
construction and major rehabilitation for designated projects 
for inland and costal waterways will derive one-half of the 
funding from the Inland Waterway Trust Fund. Funds to be 
derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund will be applied 
to cover the Federal share of the Dredged Material Disposal 
Facilities Program.
    The Committee has previously stated its rejection of the 
administration's proposal to move projects from this account to 
the Operations and Maintenance account.
    Consequently, the Committee has elected to display the 
President's budget request as if these projects had been 
requested in the CG account rather than the O&M; account. This 
makes the actual budget request for CG, $1,666,775,000 rather 
than $1,402,000,000 as requested in the budget. The projects 
moved from the O&M; request include:

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Project Name                            Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Columbia River Fish Recovery OR & WA..................           $95,700
Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Recovery, IA, KS, MO,            85,000
 MT, NE, ND, SD.......................................
Chief Joseph Dam Gas Abatement, WA....................             6,500
Howard Hanson Dam Ecosystem Restoration, WA...........            15,000
Williamette River Temperature Control, OR.............             3,331
Lower Snake River, WA & OR............................             1,500
Assategue, MD.........................................               500
Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, NJ............               150
Folly Beach, SC.......................................                35
Fire Island Inlet to Jones Inlet, NY..................               500
Cape May Inlet to Lower Township, NJ..................             2,500
Delaware Bay Coastline, Roosevelt Inlet to Lewes                     350
 Beach, DE............................................
Houston Ship Channel, TX..............................               500
Section 111 Program...................................             5,325
Poplar Island, MD.....................................             9,185
Dredged Material Disposal Facilities..................             8,965
Indiana Harbor (Confined Disposal Facility), IN.......             8,385
Section 204/145.......................................             2,278
Lower Monumental Lock and Dam, OR and WA..............             3,123
Markland Locks & Dam, KY & IL.........................            10,600
Locks No. 27, Mississippi River, IL...................             2,598
Lock and Dam 11, Mississippi River, IA................             2,750
                                                       -----------------
      TOTAL Projects Migrating from Construction to              264,775
       O&M............................................;
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The projects that included in the line item above for 
Dredged Material Disposal Facilities are listed in the 
Construction, General table.
    Due to constrained funding, the Committee reduced the 
requested amounts for some administration projects. This should 
not be perceived as a lack of support for any of these 
projects, rather it is an attempt by the Committee to balance 
out the program across the Nation and fund most of the projects 
or studies that were funded in fiscal year 2008 but were not 
addressed by the administration proposal.
    Even with a $559,000,000 increase to the Corps' accounts, 
the Committee is unable to address all of the needs. By the 
Committee's estimate, less than 60 percent of the needed 
funding is available for this account. Construction schedules 
will slip due to this constrained funding. This will result in 
deferred benefits to the national economy. The Committee does 
not believe that there is any way to prioritize our way out of 
this problem without serious unintended consequences. Adequate 
resources have been denied for too long. Only providing 
adequate resources for these national investments will resolve 
this situation.
    The Committee has included a limited number of new 
construction starts as well as provided completion funding for 
a number of projects. As in the General Investigations account, 
the Committee has embraced the traditional view of new starts. 
New starts are generally defined as those projects that have 
not received Construction, General funding in the past or those 
that required new authorization to undertake the work. The 
Committee has not included the administration's proposed new 
construction starts for the lower Monumental Lock and Dam, 
Washington, major rehabilitation study that was proposed for 
funding in the Operations and Maintenance account because it 
would be cost-shared with the Inland Waterway Trust Fund.
    The appropriation provides funds for the Continuing 
Authorities Program (projects which do not require specific 
authorizing legislation), which includes projects for flood 
control (section 205), emergency streambank and shoreline 
protection (section 14), beach erosion control (section 103), 
mitigation of shore damages (section 111), navigation projects 
(section 107), snagging and clearing (section 208), aquatic 
ecosystem restoration (section 206), beneficial uses of dredged 
material (section 204), and project modifications for 
improvement of the environment (section 1135).
    The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 
shown on the following table:

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

                ALABAMA

MOBILE HARBOR TURNING BASIN, AL.......  ...............           3,400
PINHOOK CREEK, HUNTSVILLE, AL.........  ...............           1,400
TUSCALOOSA, AL........................  ...............           7,500

                ALASKA

AKUTAN HARBOR, AK.....................  ...............           3,000
ALASKA COASTAL EROSION, AK............  ...............           4,500
HAINES BOAT HARBOR, AK................  ...............           1,000
SEWARD HARBOR BREAKWATER EXTENSION....  ...............           1,000
ST. PAUL HARBOR, AK...................  ...............           2,000
UNALASKA, AK..........................  ...............           6,000

                ARIZONA

NOGALES WASH, AZ......................  ...............           3,000
RIO DE FLAG FLAGSTAFF, AZ.............  ...............           3,000
TRES RIOS, AZ.........................  ...............           3,000

               ARKANSAS

OZARK--JETA TAYLOR POWERHOUSE, AR               17,300           17,300
 (MAJOR REHAB)........................
RED RIVER BELOW DENISON DAN, LA, AR &   ...............           2,500
 TX...................................
RED RIVER EMERGENCY BANK PROTECTION,    ...............           4,000
 AR & LA..............................
WHITE RIVER MINIMUM FLOW, AR..........  ...............           2,000

              CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (COMMON                13,000           13,000
 FEATURES) , CA.......................
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM             9,000            9,000
 MODIFICATIONS), CA...................
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM    ...............           2,000
 RAISE), CA...........................
CALFED LEVEE STABILITY PROGRAM, CA....  ...............           5,000
GUADALUPE RIVER, CA...................  ...............           5,000
HAMILTON AIRFIELD WETLANDS                       4,900            4,900
 RESTORATION, CA......................
HARBOR/SOUTH BAY WATER RECYCLING        ...............           3,000
 PROJECT, CA..........................
KAWEAH RIVER, CA......................           1,000            1,000
LLAGAS CREEK, CA......................  ...............             400
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA..           5,700            5,700
MID VALLEY AREA LEVEE, CA.............  ...............           1,500
MURRIETA CREEK, CA....................  ...............           5,000
NAPA RIVER, CA........................           7,395           11,000
OAKLAND HARBOR (50-FOOT PROJECT), CA..          25,092           24,000
PETALUMA RIVER, CA....................  ...............             350
PORT LOS ANGELES HARBOR MAIN CHANNEL    ...............             885
 DEEPENING, CA........................
SACRAMENTO DEEPWATER SHIP CHANNEL, CA.             900              900
SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION                23,968           23,968
 PROJECT, CA..........................
SACRAMENTO RIVER FLOOD CONTROL, GRR,    ...............             500
 CA...................................
SACRAMENTO RIVER, GLENN-COLUSA          ...............             500
 IRRIGATION, CA.......................
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TO STOCKTON, CA.....  ...............           1,000
SAN LUIS REY RIVER, CA................  ...............             750
SAN RAMON VALLEY RECYCLED WATER, CA...  ...............           3,500
SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA..........           8,100           14,000
SANTA MARIA RIVER LEVEES, CA..........  ...............           6,000
SOUTH SACRAMENTO COUNTY STREAMS, CA...          12,000           12,000
SUCCESS DAM, TULE RIVER, CA (DAM                 8,000            8,000
 SAFETY)..............................
SUCCESS DAM, TULE RIVER (ENLARGEMENT),  ...............             500
 CA...................................
TAHOE BASIN RESTORATION, CA...........  ...............           3,000
UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER, CA.............  ...............           5,000
UPPER NEWPORT BAY, CA.................  ...............           3,000
WEST SACRAMENTO, CA...................  ...............           2,000
YUBA RIVER BASIN, CA..................  ...............           3,000
CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT ENVIRONMENTAL    ...............             500
 INFRASTRUCTURE, CT...................

               DELAWARE

DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, ROOSEVELT       ...............             350
 INLET TO LEWES BEACH.................
DELAWARE COAST PROTECTION, DE.........  ...............             390

                FLORIDA

BREVARD COUNTY, FL....................  ...............             500
CEDAR HAMMOCK, WARES CREEK, FL........           2,773            2,773
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY              ...............           2,200
 IMPROVEMENTS, FL.....................
HERBERT HOOVER DIKE, FL (SEEPAGE                77,400           77,400
 CONTROL).............................
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL...............  ...............           3,500
LAKE WORTH SAND TRANSFER PLANT, FL....  ...............           1,000
MIAMI HARBOR, FL......................  ...............             500
PANAMA CITY BEACHES, FL...............  ...............           1,000
SOUTH FLORIDA EVERGLADES ECOSYSTEM             185,000          130,000
 RESTORATION, FL......................
    Central and Southern Florida, FL..        (100,188)         (95,188)
    Everglades and S. Florida                   (3,797)          (3,797)
     Ecosystem Restoration............
    Kissimmee River, FL...............         (31,015)         (31,015)
    Modified Water Deliveries, FL.....         (50,000)  ...............
ST. LUCIE INLET, FL...................           4,000            4,000
TAMPA HARBOR, FL......................  ...............             500

                GEORGIA

ATLANTA, EI, GA.......................  ...............           2,000
RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA &             1,450            1,450
 SC...................................
HAWAII IAO STREAMS, HI................  ...............             500

                 IDAHO

RURAL IDAHO...........................  ...............           4,000

               ILLINOIS

CHAIN OF ROCKS CANAL, MISSISSIPPI                2,500            2,500
 RIVER, IL (DEF CORR).................
CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL                  5,750            5,750
 DISPERSAL BARRIER, IL................
CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL,                   500              500
 SECOND BARRIER, IL...................
CHICAGO SHORELINE, IL.................           1,000            4,000
DES PLAINES RIVER, IL.................           5,620            8,000
EAST ST. LOUIS, IL....................             200            1,207
EAST ST. LOUIS AND VICINITY, IL.......  ...............             375
ILLINOIS WATERWAY, LOCKPORT LOCK AND            28,600           28,600
 DAM, IL (REPLACEM....................
LOCK AND DAM 27, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL  ...............           2,598
 (MAJOR REHAB)........................
MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS, IL....          34,000           34,000
NUTWOOD DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICT,    ...............             300
 IL...................................
OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL          114,000          114,000
 & KY.................................
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION,            20,000           18,000
 IL, IA, MN, MO &.....................
WOOD RIVER LEVEE, IL..................             684            3,700

                INDIANA

NDIANA HARBOR CONFIND DISPOSAL          ...............           8,385
 FACILITY, IN\1\......................
LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, IN..............           8,000            8,000

                 IOWA

DAVENPORT, IA.........................  ...............           4,850
DES MOINES AND RACCOON RIVERS, IA.....  ...............           5,000
DES MOINES RECREATIONAL RIVER AND       ...............           3,900
 GREENBELT, IA........................
LOCK AND DAM 11, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IA  ...............           2,750
 (MAJOR REHAB)........................
MISSOURI RIVER FISH MITIGATION, IA,     ...............          70,000
 KS, MO, MT, NE \1\...................
PERRY CREEK, IA.......................  ...............           3,800

                KANSAS

TURKEY CREEK BASIN, KS & MO...........          10,000           10,000
TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS (DAM SAFETY)....          23,800           23,800

               KENTUCKY

KENTUCKY LOCK AND DAM, TENNESSEE                22,330           22,330
 RIVER, KY............................
MARKLAND LOCKS AND DAM, KY, IL (MAJOR   ...............          10,600
 REHAB)\1\............................
MCALPINE LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, KY           6,270            6,270
 & IN.................................
WOLF CREEK, KY (SEEPAGE CONTROL)......          57,000           57,000

               LOUISIANA

COMITE RIVER DIVERSION CANAL, LA......  ...............          10,000
EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LA (FC)......  ...............           2,000
INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL LOCK      ...............           2,000
 REPLACEMENT, LA......................
J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA.......           1,500            8,500
LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LA (CG)......  ...............           2,500
OUACHITA RIVER LEVEES, LA.............  ...............           1,600

               MARYLAND

ANACOSTIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, MD &   ...............              30
 DC...................................
ASSATEAGUE ISLAND, MD\1\..............  ...............           1,900
ATLANTIC COAST OF MARYLAND, MD........  ...............             200
BALTIMORE METRO RESOURCES, GWYNNS       ...............             500
 FALLS, MD............................
CHARLESTOWN, MD.......................  ...............              50
CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL            ...............           2,500
 RESTORATION AND PROTECTION...........
CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD &    ...............           2,000
 VA...................................
CUMBERLAND, MD........................  ...............             200
POPLAR ISLAND, MD\1\..................  ...............          12,000

           MASSASSACHUSETTS

MUDDY RIVER, MA.......................           4,000            5,000

               MICHIGAN

GENESEE COUNTY, MI....................  ...............             600
GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM       ...............           2,500
 RESTORATION, MI......................
NEGAUNEE, MI..........................  ...............             500
SAULT STE. MARIE, MI..................  ...............           2,000

               MINNESOTA

BRECKENRIDGE, MN......................  ...............           2,877
CROOKSTON, MN.........................             300              300
LOCK AND DAM 3, MISSISSIPPI RIVER       ...............           2,000
 (MAJOR REHAB), MN....................

              MISSISSIPPI

DESOTO COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER       ...............           4,860
 SYSTEM, MS...........................
MISSISSIPPI ENVIRONMENTAL               ...............          18,000
 INFRASTRUCTURE, MS...................

               MISSOURI

BLUE RIVER BASIN, KANSAS CITY, MO.....  ...............           2,000
BLUE RIVER CHANNEL, KANSAS CITY, MO...           1,700            1,700
CHESTERFIELD, MO......................  ...............           3,000
CLEARWATER LAKE, MO (SEEPAGE CONTROL).          25,000           25,000
MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS           5,011            5,011
 (REG WORKS), MO......................
MISSOURI & MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVERS    ...............           1,500
 ENHANCEMENT, MO......................
MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM (L-385),    ...............           2,600
 MO, IA, NE & KS......................
ST. LOUIS FLOOD PROTECTION, MO........           2,000            3,750
SWOPE PARK INDUSTRIAL AREA, KANSAS      ...............           2,000
 CITY, MO.............................

                MONTANA

FORT PECK CABIN CONVEYANCE, MT........  ...............           1,500
RURAL MONTANA, MT.....................  ...............           5,000

               NEBRASKA

ANTELOPE CREEK, LINCOLN, NE...........           4,828            4,828
MISSOURI NATIONAL RECREATIONAL RIVER,   ...............           1,000
 NE & SD..............................
SAND CREEK, SAUNDERS COUNTY, NE.......  ...............           2,400
WESTERN SARPY COUNTY AND CLEAR CREEK,   ...............           3,000
 NE...................................

                NEVADA

RURAL, NV (EI)........................  ...............          18,000

              NEW JERSEY

BARNEGAT INLET TO LITTLE EGG HARBOR,            11,700           11,700
 NJ (NJ SHORE PROT....................
BRIGANTINE INLET TO GREAT EGG HARBOR    ...............           3,000
 INLET (ABSECON IS....................
BRIGANTINE INLET TO GREAT EGG HARBOR    ...............              80
 INLET, BRIGANTINE....................
CAPE MAY INLET TO LOWER TOWNSHIP,       ...............           2,500
 NJ\1\................................
DELAWARE RIVER MAIN CHANNEL DEEPENING,  ...............           5,000
 NJ, PA & DE..........................
GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET & PECK BEACH,    ...............           3,000
 NJ...................................
GREAT EGG HARBOR TO TOWNSENDS INLET,    ...............             250
 NJ...................................
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS, NJ............  ...............             100
JOSEPH G. MINISH WATERFRONT, NJ.......  ...............           4,000
LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAY        ...............             150
 POINT, NJ\1\.........................
PASSAIC RIVER PRESERVATION OF NATURAL   ...............           1,500
 STORAGE AREAS, NJ....................
RAMAPO RIVER AT MAHWAH AND SUFFERN, NJ  ...............             500
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, PORT    ...............           2,000
 MONMOUTH, NJ.........................
RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK SUB-           10,000           10,000
 BASIN, NJ............................
SANDY HOOK TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ......  ...............           2,000
TOWNSENDS INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET, NJ.  ...............           3,000

              NEW MEXICO

ACEQUIAS IRRIGATION SYSTEM, NM........  ...............           2,400
ALAMOGORDO, NM........................           4,200            4,200
CENTRAL NEW MEXICO, NM................  ...............           5,000
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE FLOOD PROTECTION,     ...............             800
 BERNALILLO TO BELE...................
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE RESTORATION, NM.....  ...............          24,016
NEW MEXICO (Environmental               ...............           7,000
 Infrastructure), NM..................
RIO GRANDE FLOODWAY, SAN ACACIA TO                 800              800
 BOSQUE DEL APACHE, NM................
SOUTHWEST VALLEY ALBUQUERQUE, NM......  ...............           8,000

               NEW YORK

ATLANTIC COAST OF LONG ISLAND, LONG     ...............             100
 BEACH ISLAND, NY.....................
ATLANTIC COAST OF NYC, ROCKAWAY INLET            3,800            3,800
 TO NORTON POINT,.....................
EAST ROCKAWAY INLET TO ROCKAWAY INLET   ...............             750
 & JAMAICA BAY, NY....................
FIRE ISAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY\1\  ...............             500
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, NY           2,150            2,150
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY &            90,000           85,000
 NJ...................................
NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED, NY...........  ...............           1,000

            NORTH CAROLINA

BRUNSWICK COUNTY BEACHES, NC..........  ...............             250
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC.................  ...............           2,000
WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NC................  ...............             300

             NORTH DAKOTA

GARRISON DAM AND POWER PLANT, ND                 3,500            3,500
 (REPLACEMENT)........................
LAKE SAKAKAWEA PROJECT, ND............  ...............          17,048
MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, ND........  ...............           1,000
NORTH DAKOTA ENVIRONMENTAL              ...............          10,000
 INFRASTRUCTURE, ND...................

                 OHIO

METROPOLITAN REGION OF CINCINNATI,               4,000            4,000
 DUCK CREEK, OH.......................

               OKLAHOMA

CANTON LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY)..........          21,200           21,200

                OREGON

COLUMBIA RIVER CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS,            36,000           36,000
 OR & WA..............................
COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY FISHING ACCESS             2,455            2,455
 SITES, OR & WA.......................
ELK CREEK LAKE, OR....................           3,120            3,120
WILLAMETTE TEMPERATURE CONTROL, OR\1\.  ...............           3,331

             PENNSYLVANIA

EMSWORTH L&D;, OHIO RIVER, PA (STATIC            25,800           25,800
 INSTABILITY CORRE....................
GRAYS LANDING LOCK AND DAM,                        600              600
 MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA................
LACKAWANNA RIVER, SCRANTON, PA........  ...............           4,782
LOCKS AND DAMS 2, 3, AND 4,                     40,806           19,050
 MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA................
POINT MARION, LOCK AND DAM 8,                      150              150
 MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA &..............
PRESQUE ISLE, PA......................  ...............           1,000
WYOMING VALLEY (LEVEE RAISING), PA....  ...............           3,000

              PUERTO RICO

PORTUGUES AND BUCANA RIVERS, PR.......          45,000           43,000
RIO PUERTO NUEVO, PR..................          12,000           12,000

            SOUTH CAROLINA

FOLLY BEACH, SC\1\....................  ...............              35

             SOUTH DAKOTA

BIG SIOUX RIVER, SIOUX FALLS, SD......  ...............           4,000
CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER       ...............           4,000
 BRULE SIOUX, SD......................

               TENNESSEE

CENTER HILL DAM, TN (SEEPAGE CONTROL).          53,400           53,400
CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TENNESSEE RIVER, TN.          42,000           42,000

                 TEXAS

BRAYS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX..............           5,382            5,382
CENTRAL CITY, FORT WORTH, UPPER         ...............             500
 TRINITY RIVER, TX....................
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX.......  ...............           2,000
DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, TRINITY      ...............          13,000
 RIVER, TX............................
HOUSTON-GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS,          21,700           19,700
 TX...................................
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX\1\...........  ...............             500
JOHNSON CREEK, UPPER TRINITY BASIN,     ...............           2,000
 ARLINGTON, TX........................
RED RIVER BASIN CHLORIDE CONTROL, TX &  ...............           1,500
 OK...................................
SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, TX...  ...............          10,000
SIMS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX...............          23,465           21,465
TEXAS CITY CHANNEL, TX................  ...............           3,000

                 UTAH

RURAL UTAH, UT (EI)...................  ...............          12,000

                VERMONT

BURLINGTON HARBOR, VT.................  ...............             500
LAKE CHAMPLAIN WATERSHED INITIATE, VT.  ...............           2,000

               VIRGINIA

JAMES RIVER DEEPWATER TURNING BASIN,    ...............           1,763
 VA...................................
JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA & NC          14,000           14,000
 (REPLACEMENT)........................
LYNCHBURG CSO, VA.....................  ...............             300
NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS             ...............           1,000
 (DEEPENING), VA......................
RICHMOND CSO, VA......................  ...............             300
ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, HEADWATERS            1,075            1,075
 AREA, VA.............................
VIRGINIA BEACH (HURRICANE PROTECTION),  ...............           3,000
 VA...................................

              WASHINGTON

CHIEF JOSEPH GAS ABATEMENT, WA\1\.....  ...............           2,500
COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, OR &    ...............          92,000
 WA\1\................................
DUWAMISH AND GREEN RIVER BASIN, WA....  ...............           3,000
HOWARD HANSEN DAM, WA\1\..............  ...............          15,000
LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM                   1,500            1,500
 RESTORATION, OR & WA.................
LOWER MONUMENT LOCK & DAM, WA\1\......  ...............  ...............
LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE     ...............           1,500
 COMP, WA, OR, ID\1\..................
MOUNT ST. HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA.           1,410            4,410
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA (FISH PASSAGE)...           1,000            1,000
PUGET SOUND AND ADJACENT WATERS         ...............             621
 RESTORATION, WA......................
SHOALWATER BAY SHORELINE, WA..........  ...............           2,000

             WEST VIRGINIA

BLUESTONE LAKE, WV (DAM SAFETY                  12,000           12,000
 ASSURANCE)...........................
GREENBRIER RIVER BASIN, WV............  ...............           1,500
ISLAND CREEK BASIN IN AND AROUND        ...............             200
 LOGAN, WV............................
LEVISA AND TUG FORKS AND UPPER
 CUMBERLAND RIVER, WV, VA:
    Virgina...........................  ...............           8,000
    West Virginia.....................  ...............           8,500
LOWER MUD RIVER, MILTON, WV...........  ...............           1,050
MARMET LOCK, KANAWHA RIVER, WV........           9,000            9,000
ROBERT C. BYRD LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO               1,000            1,000
 RIVER, WV & OH.......................
STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV............             900              900

               WISCONSIN

MILWAUKEE HARBOR CDF EXPANSION, WI....  ...............           1,600
                                       ---------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL FOR PROJECTS...........       1,296,684        1,897,220

           NATIONAL PROGRAMS

ABANDONED MINE RESTORATION............  ...............           1,000
ACTIONS FOR CHANGE TO IMPROVE                    4,600   ...............
 CONSTRUCTION.........................
AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROGRAM.........           3,500            4,550
CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM:
    AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION               10,295           25,000
     (SECTION 206)....................
        Chattahoochee Fall Line         ...............  ...............
         Ecosystem, AL & GA...........
        Brownsville Branch, AR........  ...............  ...............
        St. Helena--Napa River          ...............  ...............
         Project, CA..................
        Sweetwater Reservoir Ecosystem  ...............  ...............
         Restoration, CA..............
        Upper York Creek Dam Removal,   ...............  ...............
         CA...........................
        Arkansas River Habitat          ...............  ...............
         Restoration Project, CO......
        Blue River, CO................  ...............  ...............
        Goose Creek, CO...............  ...............  ...............
        Lower Boulder Creek, CO.......  ...............  ...............
        North Fork Gunnison River, CO.  ...............  ...............
        Tamarisk Eradication, CO......  ...............  ...............
        Rose Bay, Voluisia Co, FL.....  ...............  ...............
        Jackson Creek, GA.............  ...............  ...............
        Mokuhinia/Mokuula Restoration,  ...............  ...............
         HI...........................
        Emiquon Preserve, IL..........  ...............  ...............
        Eugene Field, IL..............  ...............  ...............
        Hofmann Dam, IL...............  ...............  ...............
        Orland Park, IL...............  ...............  ...............
        Squaw Creek, (Round Lake        ...............  ...............
         Drain), IL...................
        Chariton River/Rathbun Lake,    ...............  ...............
         IA...........................
        Duck Creek, Davenport, IA.....  ...............  ...............
        Whitebreast Creek Watershed,    ...............  ...............
         IA...........................
        Storm Lake, IA................  ...............  ...............
        Ventura Marsh Habitat, Clear    ...............  ...............
         Lake, IA.....................
        Buras Marina, LA..............  ...............  ...............
        Lake Killarney, Louisiana       ...............  ...............
         State Penitentiary, LA.......
        Lake Verret, Assumption         ...............  ...............
         Parish, LA...................
        Mandeville Ecosystem            ...............  ...............
         Restoration, LA..............
        University Lakes, Baton Rouge,  ...............  ...............
         LA...........................
        Vermillion River Ecosystem      ...............  ...............
         Restoration, LA..............
        Zemurray Park Lake              ...............  ...............
         Restoration, Tangipahoa Paris
        Milford Pond Restoration,       ...............  ...............
         Milford, MA..................
        Deep Run/Tiber Hudson, Howard   ...............  ...............
         County, MD...................
        Dog Island Shoals, MD.........  ...............  ...............
        Greenbury Point, MD...........  ...............  ...............
        North Beach, MD...............  ...............  ...............
        Northwest Branch, Anacostia     ...............  ...............
         River, MD....................
        Pleasure Island, MD...........  ...............  ...............
        Urieville Lake, MD............  ...............  ...............
        Western Branch, Patuxent        ...............  ...............
         River, MD....................
        Wright's Creek, Dorchester      ...............  ...............
         Creek, MD....................
        Marion Aquatic Ecosystem        ...............  ...............
         Restoration, MI..............
        Painter Creek, MN.............  ...............  ...............
        Musconetcong River Dam          ...............  ...............
         Removals, NJ.................
        Pennsville, Salem County, NJ..  ...............  ...............
        Rancocas Creek Fish Passage,    ...............  ...............
         NJ...........................
        Kings Park, NY................  ...............  ...............
        Lower Hempstead Harbor, NY....  ...............  ...............
        Soundview Park, Bronx, NY.....  ...............  ...............
        Asheville, Buncombe County, NC  ...............  ...............
        Concord Streams Restoration,    ...............  ...............
         NC...........................
        Heron Haven, NE...............  ...............  ...............
        Wilson Bay Restoration, NC....  ...............  ...............
        Drayton Dam, ND...............  ...............  ...............
        Christine/Hickson Dams, ND....  ...............  ...............
        Incline and Third Creeks, NV..  ...............  ...............
        Blue Hole Lake State Park, NM.  ...............  ...............
        Bottomless Lakes State Park,    ...............  ...............
         NM...........................
        Janes-Wallace Memorial Dam,     ...............  ...............
         Santa Rosa, NM...............
        Olentangy 5th Avenue Dam, OH..  ...............  ...............
        Arrowhead Creek, OR...........  ...............  ...............
        Beaver Creek, OR..............  ...............  ...............
        Eugene Delta Ponds, OR........  ...............  ...............
        Camp Creek--Zumwalt Prairie,    ...............  ...............
         OR...........................
        Springfield Millrace, OR......  ...............  ...............
        Codorus Creek Watershed         ...............  ...............
         Restoration, PA..............
        Winneapaug Pond Restoration,    ...............  ...............
         RI...........................
        Spring Lake, San Marcos, TX...  ...............  ...............
        Stephenville, WWTP, TX........  ...............  ...............
        Tangier Island, Accomack        ...............  ...............
         County, VA...................
        Carpenter Creek, WA...........  ...............  ...............
    BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED          ...............           7,187
     MATERIAL (SECTION 204,...........
        Isle Aux Herbes, AL...........  ...............  ...............
        Blackhawk Bottoms, IA.........  ...............  ...............
        Atchafalaya River, Shell        ...............  ...............
         Island, St. Mary Parish......
        Barataria Bay Waterway, LA....  ...............  ...............
        Calc Rv, Mi 5-14 Ks, LA.......  ...............  ...............
        Shell Island Pass, LA.........  ...............  ...............
        Newburyport Harbor, MA........  ...............  ...............
        21st Avenue West Channel,       ...............  ...............
         Duluth, MN...................
        Wanchese Marsh Creation, NC...  ...............  ...............
        Maumee Bay Restoration, OH....  ...............  ...............
        Wynn Road CDF, OH.............  ...............  ...............
        Restoration of Cat Islands, WI  ...............  ...............
    EMERGENCY STREAMBANK AND SHORELINE           2,301           10,000
     PROTECTION (SEC..................
    FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION              2,617           43,123
     205).............................
        Wynne, AR.....................  ...............  ...............
        Cosgrove Creek, Calaveras       ...............  ...............
         County, CA...................
        Las Gallinas Creek/Santa        ...............  ...............
         Venetia Levee, CA............
        White Slough, CA..............  ...............  ...............
        Oak Creek, Florence, Colorado.  ...............  ...............
        Little Mill Creek, New Castle   ...............  ...............
         County, DE...................
        Pennsylvania Avenue             ...............  ...............
         Improvement Project, Bethany.
        Turkey Creek, Ben Hill County,  ...............  ...............
         GA...........................
        Keopu-Hienaloli Stream, HI....  ...............  ...............
        Kuliouou Stream, Oahu, HI.....  ...............  ...............
        Wailele Stream, Oahu, HI......  ...............  ...............
        Indian/Dry Creek Cedar Rapids,  ...............  ...............
         IA...........................
        Mad Creek, Muscatine, IA......  ...............  ...............
        Red Oak Creek, Red Oak, IA....  ...............  ...............
        Winnebago River, Mason City,    ...............  ...............
         IA...........................
        Crosscreek, Rossville, KS.....  ...............  ...............
        Concordia, KS.................  ...............  ...............
        Eureka Creek, Manhattan, KS...  ...............  ...............
        Hopkinsville Dry-Dam, KY......  ...............  ...............
        Bayou Choupique, St. Mary       ...............  ...............
         Parish, LA...................
        Bayou Queue de Tortue,          ...............  ...............
         Vermillion Parish, LA........
        Town of Carencro, Lafayette     ...............  ...............
         Parish, LA...................
        Elkton, MD....................  ...............  ...............
        North River, Peabody, MA......  ...............  ...............
        Salisbury RIver, Brockton, MA.  ...............  ...............
        Ada, MN.......................  ...............  ...............
        Montevideo, MN................  ...............  ...............
        Granite Falls, MN.............  ...............  ...............
        McKinney Bayou, Tunica County,  ...............  ...............
         MS...........................
        Blacksnake Creek, St. Joseph,   ...............  ...............
         MO...........................
        Livingston, MT................  ...............  ...............
        Little River Diversion,         ...............  ...............
         Dutchtown, MO................
        Platte River, Fremont, NE.....  ...............  ...............
        Platte River, Schuyler, NE....  ...............  ...............
        Randolph, NE (Middle Logan      ...............  ...............
         Creek).......................
        Jewett Brook, Laconia, NH.....  ...............            (100)
        Hatch, NM.....................  ...............  ...............
        Assunpink Creek, Hamilton       ...............  ...............
         Township, Mercer County, NJ..
        Jackson Brook, NJ.............  ...............  ...............
        Mill Brook, Highland Park, NJ.  ...............  ...............
        Pennsville, NJ................  ...............  ...............
        Poplar Brook, Deal and Ocean    ...............  ...............
         Township, NJ.................
        Upper Passaic River and         ...............  ...............
         Tributaries, Long Hill
         Township, NJ.................
        Port Jervis, NY...............  ...............  ...............
        Pigeon River Watershed, NC....  ...............  ...............
        Swannanoa River Watershed, NC.  ...............  ...............
        Wahpeton, ND..................  ...............  ...............
        Rio Descalabrado, PR..........  ...............  ...............
        Rio Guamani-Guaya, PR.........  ...............  ...............
        Blanchard River, Ottawa, OH...  ...............  ...............
        Duck Creek Flood Warning        ...............  ...............
         System, OH...................
        Findley, OH...................  ...............  ...............
        Independence, OH..............  ...............  ...............
        Philadelphia Shipyard Sea       ...............  ...............
         Wall, Philadelphia, PA.......
        Beaver Creek & Tribs, Bristol,  ...............  ...............
         TN...........................
        Farmers Branch, Tarrant         ...............  ...............
         County, TX...................
        Pecan Creek, Gainesville, TX..  ...............  ...............
        WV Statewide Flood Warning      ...............  ...............
         System, WV...................
    NAVIGATION PROGRAM (SECTION 107)..             559            8,000
        Savoonga Harbor, AK...........  ...............  ...............
        Kahoolawe Harbor, Kahoolawe,    ...............  ...............
         HI...........................
        North Kohala Navigation         ...............  ...............
         Improvements, HI.............
        Port Fourchon Extension,        ...............  ...............
         Lafourche Parish, LA.........
        Shortcut Canal, Terrebonne      ...............  ...............
         Parish, LA...................
        Bass Harbor, ME...............  ...............  ...............
        Round Pond, Bristol, ME.......  ...............  ...............
        St. Jerome's Creek, St. Mary    ...............  ...............
         County, MD...................
        Mackinac Isle, Harbor           ...............  ...............
         Breakwall, MI................
        Northwestern Michigan,          ...............  ...............
         Traverse City, MI............
        Ontonagon Channel Extension,    ...............  ...............
         MI...........................
        Grand Marais Harbor of Refuge,  ...............  ...............
         MN...........................
        McQuade Road Harbor of Refuge,  ...............  ...............
         Duluth, MN...................
        Hampton Harbor, NH............  ...............  ...............
        Ottawa River Navigation,        ...............  ...............
         Toledo, OH...................
        Delaware River, Fairless        ...............  ...............
         Turning Basin, PA............
        Charlestown Breachway and       ...............  ...............
         Inlet, RI....................
        Northwest Tennessee Harbor, TN  ...............  ...............
        Nassawadox Creek, VA..........  ...............  ...............
    MITIGATION OF SHORE DAMAGES         ...............          10,000
     (SECTION 111)\1\.................
        Mobile Pass, AL...............  ...............  ...............
        Camp Ellis, Saco, ME..........  ...............  ...............
        Vermillion, OH................  ...............  ...............
        Fairport Harbor, OH...........  ...............  ...............
        Mattituck Harbor, NY..........  ...............  ...............
        Tybee Island Channel Impacts,   ...............  ...............
         GA...........................
    PROJECT MODS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF              6,544           25,000
     THE ENVIRONMENT (SECTION 1135)...
        Lower Cache Restoration, AR...  ...............  ...............
        Millwood Lake, Grassy Lake, AR  ...............  ...............
        Rock Creek @ Boyle Park,        ...............  ...............
         Little Rock, AR..............
        Tujunga Wash Environmental      ...............  ...............
         Restoration, CA..............
        Lower Kingman Island, DC......  ...............  ...............
        Kanaha Pond, Maui, HI.........  ...............  ...............
        Kaunakakai Str, Molokai, HI...  ...............  ...............
        Rathbun Lake Habitat            ...............  ...............
         Restoration, IA..............
        Indian Ridge Marsh, Chicago,    ...............  ...............
         IL...........................
        Green River Dam, Mod, KY......  ...............  ...............
        Bayou Desiard, Monroe, LA.....  ...............  ...............
        Frazier/Whitehorse Oxbow Lake   ...............  ...............
         Weir, LA.....................
        Lake Fausse Pointe, Iberia      ...............  ...............
         Parish, LA...................
        Lake St. Joseph, Tensas         ...............  ...............
         Parish, LA...................
        Morganza Fore-Bay Restoration,  ...............  ...............
         LA...........................
        Sea Lamprey Barrier Program,    ...............  ...............
         MI...........................
        Lake Whittington Weir, MS & AR  ...............  ...............
        Sand Hill River, MN...........  ...............  ...............
        Duck Creek, MO................  ...............  ...............
        Bloomington State Park, MO....  ...............  ...............
        Blue Valley Wetlands, Jackson,  ...............  ...............
         MO...........................
        Prison Farm, ND...............  ...............  ...............
        Assunpink Creek, Trenton, NJ..  ...............  ...............
        Lincoln Park West, Ecosystem    ...............  ...............
         Restoration Study,...........
        Pine Mount Creek, NJ..........  ...............  ...............
        Pond Creek Salt Marsh           ...............  ...............
         Restoration, Cape May County,
         NJ...........................
        Las Cruces Dam Environmental    ...............  ...............
         Restoration, Dona Ana County,
         NM...........................
        Pueblo of Santa Ana Aquatic     ...............  ...............
         Restoration, NM..............
        Route 66 Environmental          ...............  ...............
         Restoration, Albuquerque, NM.
        Spring Creek, NY..............  ...............  ...............
        Belhaven Harbor, NC...........  ...............  ...............
        Tappan Lake, OH...............  ...............  ...............
        Lower Columbia Slough, OR.....  ...............  ...............
        Eagleland Ecosystem, TX.......  ...............  ...............
        Lake Champlain Lamprey          ...............  ...............
         Barriers, VT.................
        Village of Oyster, Northampton  ...............  ...............
         County, VA...................
        Braided Reach, WA.............  ...............  ...............
        Shorty's Island, WA...........  ...............  ...............
    SHORE PROTECTION (SECTION 103)....  ...............           7,500
        Athol Springs, Lake Erie, NY..  ...............  ...............
        Lasalle Park, Buffalo, NY.....  ...............  ...............
        Old Lakeshore Road, NY........  ...............  ...............
        Lake Erie At Painesville, OH..  ...............  ...............
        Philadelphia Shipyard, PA.....  ...............  ...............
        Ft. San Geronimo, PR..........  ...............  ...............
        Veteren's Drive Shoreline, St.  ...............  ...............
         Thomas, VI...................
        Chesapeake Bay Shoreline,       ...............  ...............
         Hampton, VA..................
        Lincoln Park Beach Seattle, WA  ...............  ...............
    SNAGGING AND CLEARING (SECTION      ...............             500
     208).............................
        Muscatatuck River Log Jam,      ...............  ...............
         Scott County, IN.............
        Oran, MO......................  ...............  ...............
        Blackwell Lake, Blackwell, OK.  ...............  ...............
DAM SAFETY AND SEEPAGE/STABILITY                48,600           48,650
 CORRECTION PROGRAM...................
    Dam Safety Assurance Studies:
        Isabella Dam, CA..............  ...............  ...............
        Martis Creek Dam, CA & NV.....  ...............  ...............
        Cherry Creek Dam, CO..........  ...............  ...............
        Dworshak Dam, ID..............  ...............  ...............
        Mississippi Lock and Dam 25,    ...............  ...............
         MO...........................
        John Day Lock and Dam, OR & WA  ...............  ...............
    Seepage/Stability Correction Major
     Rehabilitation Study:
        Hidden Dam, CA................  ...............  ...............
        Whittier Narrows Dam, CA......  ...............  ...............
        Hop Brook Dam, CT.............  ...............  ...............
        Mansfield Hollow Dam, CT......  ...............  ...............
        Lake Shelbyville Dam, IL......  ...............  ...............
        Green River Lake Dam, KY......  ...............  ...............
        J. Edward Roush Dam, KY.......  ...............  ...............
        Nolin Lake dam, KY............  ...............  ...............
        Rough River Lake Dam, KY......  ...............  ...............
        Salamonie Lake Dam, KY........  ...............  ...............
        Beach City Dam, OH............  ...............  ...............
        Bolivar Dam, OH...............  ...............  ...............
        Mohawk Dam, OH................  ...............  ...............
        Zoar Levee (Dover Dam), OH....  ...............  ...............
        Keystone lake Dam, OK.........  ...............  ...............
        East Branch Dam, Clarion        ...............  ...............
         River, PA....................
        Montgomery Locks and Dam, PA..  ...............  ...............
        Addicks Dam, Buffalo Bayou, TX  ...............  ...............
        Lewisville Dam, TX............  ...............  ...............
        Ball Mountain Dam, VT.........  ...............  ...............
DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES    ...............           8,965
 PROGRAM (DMDF).......................
    Savannah Harbor, GA...............  ...............  ...............
    Rogue River, MI...................  ...............  ...............
    Charleston Harbor, SC.............  ...............  ...............
    Green Bay Harbor, WI..............  ...............  ...............
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION................          21,000           21,000
ESTUARY RESTORATION PROGRAM (PUBLIC              5,000            1,000
 LAW 106-457).........................
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--BOARD                 50               50
 EXPENSE..............................
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--CORPS                250              250
 EXPENSE..............................
SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT   ...............             875
 & DEMONSTRATION......................
                                       ---------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL FOR NATIONAL PROGRAMS..         105,316          222,650
SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE..................  ...............        -115,370
                                       ---------------------------------
      TOTAL...........................       1,402,000        2,004,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ITEMS REQUESTED BY THE ADMINISTRATION IN OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE.

    Tuscaloosa, Alabama.--The Committee recommends $7,500,000 
for the relocation project at Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
    Akutan Harbor, Alaska.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $3,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
    Alaska Coastal Erosion, Alaska.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $4,500,000 for Alaska Coastal Erosion. 
The following communities are eligible recipients of these 
funds: Kivalina, Newtok, Shishmaref, Koyukuk, Barrow, Kaktovik, 
Point Hope, Unalakleet, and Bethel.
    Nogales Wash, Arizona.--The Committee recommends $3,000,000 
for continuation of this flood control project.
    Red River Below Denison Dam, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma 
and Texas.--The Committee recommends $2,500,000 to continue 
levee rehabilitation work in Arkansas and Louisiana to protect 
the 1.7 million acre flood plain from crop damage; loss of 
livestock; damage to levees, railroads, highways, industries, 
and other river and urban developments.
    Red River Emergency Bank Protection, Arkansas and 
Louisiana.--The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for protection 
of critical infrastructure and land along the Red River below 
Index, Arkansas. The project plan provides for revetment, 
dikes, or cutoffs that can be accomplished in advance of 
developing the design for the entire project.
    American River Watershed (Folsom Dam Miniraise), 
California.--The Committee recommends $2,000,000. Within the 
funds recommended, $1,000,000 is for the replacement bridge.
    Mid Valley Area Levee Reconstruction, California.---The 
Committee recommendation includes $1,500,000 reconstruction of 
this flood control project. The project includes levee 
reconstruction through installing landside berms with toe 
drains, ditch relocation, embankment modification, slurry cut-
off walls, and developing land for fish and wildlife 
mitigation.
    Oakland Harbor, California.--The Committee recommends 
$24,000,000 to continue construction of this project. The 
reduction made to this project should not be viewed as any 
diminution of support for this project, rather an attempt to 
balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide program among the 
various missions of the Corps.
    Santa Ana River, California.--The Committee recommends 
$14,000,000 to continue construction of this flood control 
project.
    West Sacramento, California.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $2,000,000 for a general reevaluation of the flood 
control project and other project needs.
    Delaware Coast Protection, Delaware.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $350,000 to reimburse the state for the 
Federal share of the annual operation and maintenance of the 
sand bypass facilities.
    Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration, 
Florida.--The Committee has chosen to display the various, 
separately authorized components of the project in the table in 
addition to a single line item as was proposed in the budget. 
The Committee believes that it is prudent to maintain 
visibility of the various project elements in the budget 
process. The reduction made under this heading should not be 
viewed as any diminution of support for this project, rather an 
attempt to balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide 
program among the various missions of the Corps.
    The Committee has provided no funding for the Modified 
Waters Delivery Plan as proposed in the budget. The Committee 
has chosen to fund this project in the Department of the 
Interior and related agencies bill. The Committee directs the 
administration to include the Modified Waters Delivery Plan 
funding in the Interior budget in future budget submissions.
    Central and South Florida, Florida.--Within the funds 
recommended, the Corps shall continue work on the Upper St. 
Johns River project.
    Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements, Florida.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $2,200,000 for continued 
implementation of this project. The Committee urges the 
administration to budget for this project due to the 
interrelationship of this work to the Everglades Restoration 
project, Biscayne Bay and southern Florida's nearshore waters.
    Jacksonville Harbor, Florida.--The Committee has 
recommended $3,500,000 to continue work on the channel 
deepening project as well as for a second general reevaluation 
report.
    Tampa Harbor, Florida.--$500,000 is provided for 
preconstruction engineering and design of navigation 
improvements and channel deepening.
    Atlanta, Georgia.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$2,000,000 to continue this project.
    Rural Idaho Environmental Infrastructure, Idaho.--The 
Committee recommends $4,000,000 for this project. Within the 
funds provided the Corps should give consideration to projects 
at Aamon (Eastern Idaho Regional Project), Bellevue, Buhl, 
Burley, Greenleaf, Hazelton, Lava Hot Springs, Pocatello, 
Rexburg, Rigby, Rupert, Sandpoint, Shelley (Eastern Idaho 
Regional Project), Soda Springs, St. Anthony, Twin Falls (Auger 
Hills), and Wendell. Other communities that meet the program 
criteria should be considered as funding allows.
    Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Illinois.--The Committee 
has recommended $6,250,000 for construction on aquatic nuisance 
species Barriers I and II.
    McCook and Thornton Reservoirs, Illinois.--The Committee 
recommends $34,000,000 for continued construction of this 
project.
    Olmsted Locks and Dam, Ohio River, Illinois and Kentucky.--
The Committee recommends $114,000,000 to continue construction 
of this project. None of the funds provided for the Olmsted 
Locks and Dam Project or any other construction funds are to be 
used to reimburse the Claims and Judgment Fund.
    Indiana Harbor (Confined Disposal Facility), Indiana.--The 
Committee has retained funding for this project in the 
Construction, General account rather than moving it to the 
Operations and Maintenance account as proposed in the budget.
    Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers, Iowa.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $3,000,000 to complete preconstruction 
engineering and design and initiate construction of this flood 
control project. The plan includes reconstructing 13,600 feet 
of levees and associated facilities to provide improved flood 
protection to the Birdland Park and Central Place neighborhoods 
and modifications to 19 closure structures in the existing 
downtown Des Moines Federal levee system.
    Missouri Fish and Wildlife Recovery, Iowa, Kansas, 
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota.--
The Committee recommends $70,000,000 for this project. Within 
the recommended funds, $15,000,000 is to be used for 
modifications to the Intake Dam to provide additional habitat 
for the pallid sturgeon. To ensure that independent science 
guides Missouri River Recovery and its applications of adaptive 
Management and to ensure that the success of the recovery 
efforts are adequately measured and money wisely spent, the 
Committee directs that funds provided through Missouri River 
Recovery to the U.S. Geological Survey for science and 
monitoring should not be reduced below fiscal year 2007 levels.
    Turkey Creek, Kansas and Missouri.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $10,000,000 to continue construction of 
this project.
    Kentucky Lock and Dam, Tennessee River, Kentucky.--The 
Committee recommends $22,330,000 for continuation of the 
highway and railroad bridges superstructure contract. Funding 
deficits in the Inland Waterway Trust Fund prohibit the 
Committee from providing additional funds for the upstream lock 
excavation contract. The Committee recognizes that this is a 
critical path contract for the overall schedule. However, until 
the revenue stream for the Inland Waterway Trust Fund is 
enhanced, the Committee actions will be limited by available 
Trust Fund revenues.
    Markland Locks and Dam, Kentucky and Illinois.--The 
Committee has provided $10,600,000 for construction on this 
major rehabilitation requested by the administration. The 
Committee has provided these funds here rather than in O&M; as 
proposed in the budget request.
    J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Louisiana.--The Committee has 
recommended $8,500,000 for navigation channel refinement 
features, land purchases and development for mitigation of 
project impacts, and construction of project recreation and 
appurtenant features.
    Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana.--The Committee has 
recommended $2,500,000 to continue efforts to provide 100-year 
flood protection for this project. Surveys show the levee grade 
is deficient by 12-18 inches.
    Louisiana Hurricane Protection System.--It is the 
Committee's understanding that the Corps has sufficient legal 
authority to afford credit for the lands, easements, rights-of-
way, relocations, and disposal areas provided by the non-
Federal sponsor for the Lake Ponchartrain and Vicinity, West 
Bank and Vicinity, and Southeast Louisiana projects that the 
Corps determines are necessary for such projects.
    Chesapeake Bay Environmental Program, Maryland, 
Pennsylvania and Virginia.--The Committee has recommended 
$2,500,000 for continuation of this project. Within the funds 
recommended, $328,000 is included to complete the environmental 
studies concerning non-native oysters.
    Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery, Maryland and Virginia.--The 
Committee recommends $2,000,000 to continue oyster recovery 
efforts.
    Fort Peck Dam and Lake, Montana.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $1,500,000 for continuation of the 
disposition of Fort Peck cabins.
    Rural Montana, Montana.--The Committee recommends 
$5,000,000 for this project. Within the funds provided the 
Corps should give consideration to the following projects: 
County Water District of Billings Heights, Phase II Upgrade; 
Seeley Lake Water System Upgrade; Gildford Wastewater System 
Improvements; Daly Ditches Water; City of Shelby, Wastewater 
System Improvements; Muddy Cluster Water Line; Manhattan Water 
Project; Ten Mile Estates/Pleasant Valley Wastewater 
Improvements; Town of Stevensville, Water Improvement Project; 
Eureka Water Expansion; City of Troy, Water Project Phase II; 
Fort Belknap Water Treatment Plant; Crow Agency Wastewater 
Collection System Improvement Project; Columbia Falls 
Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements; City of Hamilton, 
Wastewater Facility Critical Upgrades; Bigfork County Water and 
Sewer District Wastewater Treatment Facilities Improvements; 
Bozeman Water Reclamation Facility Reconstruction; City of 
Helena, Missouri River Water Treatment Plant Reconstruction; 
City of Butte, Big Hole Drinking Water Supply Diversion Dam 
Replacement; City of Billings, Water Treatment Plant 
Improvements; Greater Woods Bay Wastewater Collection System; 
Homestead Acres Water and Sewer Well Acquisition; Manhattan 
Water improvements; Great Falls Upper/Lower River Road Water 
and Sewer District Improvements; Judith Gap Wastewater 
Improvements; Loma County Water Improvement Project; and Carter 
Water Improvement Project, Phase II.
    Sand Creek, Nebraska.--The Committee recommends $2,400,000 
to complete construction of this project.
    Rural Nevada, Nevada.--The Committee recommendation 
provides $18,000,000 for this project. Within the funds 
provided the Corps should give consideration to projects at 
North Lemmon Valley; Spanish Springs Valley Phase II; Huffaker 
Hills Water Conservation; Lawton-Verdi; Boulder City; Lyon 
County; Gerlach; Searchlight; Incline Village; Esmeralda 
County; Cold Springs; Fallon; Goldfield; Churchill County; West 
Wendover; Yearington; Virgin Valley Water District; Lovelock; 
Truckee Meadows Water Authority; McGill-Ruth Consolidated Sewer 
and Water District; Carlin; Moapa; Indian Springs; Eldorado 
Valley; Ely and Carson City. Other communities that meet the 
program criteria should be considered as funding allows.
    Raritan River Basin, Green Brook Sub-basin, New Jersey.--
The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to continue construction 
of this project. The Committee notes that this area has been 
subject to frequent flooding with the latest flood occurring in 
2007. The Committee urges the Corps to utilize available funds 
to expedite completion of this project.
    Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Harbor, New Jersey.--The 
Committee recommends $11,700,000 for this shore protection 
project. Funds should be utilized for continuation of the beach 
fill project.
    Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey.--The Committee 
recommends $2,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
    Acequias Irrigation System, New Mexico.--The Committee 
recommends $2,400,000 to continue restoration of these historic 
irrigation distribution systems.
    Middle Rio Grande Restoration, New Mexico.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $24,016,000 to continue environmental 
restoration efforts along the Rio Grande River within 
Bernalillo County.
    Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota.--The original health care 
facility for the Three Affiliated Tribes was permanently 
inundated due to the impoundment of Lake Sakakawea. A 
replacement healthcare facility was promised but never 
constructed. The Committee recommendation includes $17,048,000 
for construction of the replacement health care facility. The 
Corps should work closely with the Indian Health Service and 
the Three Affiliated Tribes on the design and construction of 
this facility. The Committee suggests that the Corps utilize 
the expertise in their military programs office for this 
project.
    North Dakota [EI], North Dakota.--The Committee has 
recommended $10,000,000 for this program. $1,600,000 is for 
work related to the replacement of the Devils Lake Water supply 
pipeline and $8,400,000 is for the Parshall water project.
    Locks and Dams 2, 3, and 4, Monongahela River, 
Pennsylvania.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$19,050,000 to continue construction of this project. The 
reduction made to this project is a result of a continuing 
contract that the Corps chose not to award in fiscal year 2008 
due to insufficient funds within the Inland Waterway Trust 
Fund. Not awarding the contract in fiscal year 2008, obviated 
the need for follow-on funding in fiscal year 2009 thus 
lowering the amount needed for this project in fiscal year 
2009.
    Presque Isle, Pennsylvania.--The Committee recommends 
$1,000,000 to continue this project.
    Big Sioux River, South Dakota.--The Committee recommends 
$4,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
    Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux, South 
Dakota.--The Committee notes that title IV of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1999, Public Law 106-53 as 
amended, authorizes funding to pay administrative expenses, 
implementation of terrestrial wildlife restoration plans, 
activities associated with land transferred or to be 
transferred, and annual expenses for operating recreational 
areas. The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for this effort. 
Within the funds recommended, the Committee directs that not 
more than $1,000,000 shall be provided for administrative 
expenses, and that the Corps is to distribute the remaining 
funds as directed by title IV to the State of South Dakota, the 
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe.
    Chickamauga Lock, Tennessee.--The Committee recommends 
$42,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
    Central City, Fort Worth, Upper Trinity River Basin, 
Texas.--The Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for the 
Central City, Fort Worth, Texas, project.
    Red River Basin Chloride Control, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas 
and Louisiana.--The Committee recommends $1,500,000 to continue 
construction.
    San Antonio Channel Improvement, Texas.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $10,000,000 to continue this flood 
control project.
    Sims Bayou, Houston, Texas.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $21,465,000 for this project. The reduction made to 
this project should not be viewed as any diminution of support 
for this project, rather an attempt to balance out the Corps of 
Engineers nationwide program among the various missions of the 
Corps.
    Rural Utah, [EI], Utah.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $12,000,000 to continue construction of eligible 
projects.
    Burlington Harbor, Vermont.--The Committee recommends 
$500,000 to continue work on removal of oil bollards in the 
harbor.
    Lake Champlain Watershed Initiative.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $2,000,000 for continuation of this 
project.
    Columbia River Fish Mitigation, Washington, Oregon, and 
Idaho.--The Committee has chosen not to follow the budget 
proposal to include this work within the various O&M; items in 
the system. The Committee believes that it is prudent to 
maintain visibility of the costs of environmental compliance 
activities for this project and have included funding in this 
account in this line item. $92,000,000 is recommended for this 
project.
    Lower Monumental Lock and Dam, Washington and Oregon.--The 
Committee recommends no funding for this new start recommended 
by the administration in the O&M; account. The Committee 
believes it to be imprudent to initiate the major 
rehabilitation report that would be cost shared in the Inland 
Waterway Trust Fund when construction work has to be curtailed 
due to the funding shortfalls in the Inland Harbor Trust Fund. 
The Committee believes this project should not be initiated 
until the revenues have been enhanced for the Inland Waterway 
Trust Fund.
    Mud Mountain, Washington.--The Corps has recommended 
$1,000,000 for fish passage at this project.
    Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Cumberland 
River, West Virginia, Kentucky and Virginia.--The Committee 
recommends $16,500,000 for the continuation of the project. 
Within the funds recommended, the Committee recommendation 
includes $8,000,000 for the Buchanan County, Dickenson County, 
and Grundy, Virginia elements. Further, the recommendation 
includes $8,500,000 for Kermit, Lower Mingo County, McDowell 
County, Upper Mingo and Wayne County, West Virginia.
    Aquatic Plant Control Program.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $4,550,000 for this program. Funds 
above the budget request are included for cost-shared programs 
for Lake Gaston, North Carolina; Lake Champlain, Vermont; and 
Lake Chautauqua, New York.
    Actions for Change to Improve Construction.--The Committee 
did not recommend funding for this item. The Committee believes 
that the activities proposed in the budget request for this 
line item should be incorporated into the various funded 
construction activities that the Corps has underway.
    Dredged Material Disposal Facilities Program.--The 
Committee has retained this program in the Construction, 
General account rather than the Operations and Maintenance 
account as proposed by the budget.
    Shore Line Erosion Control Development and Demonstration 
Program.--The Committee has recommended $875,000 to be used 
along with prior year funds for an innovative approach to storm 
damage reduction at Sacred Falls Beach Park, Hawaii, by 
restoring and maintaining a pocket beach with an innovative 
sediment retaining structure.
    Ability to Pay.--Section 103(m) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 Public Law 99-662, as amended, requires 
that all project cooperation agreements for flood damage 
reduction projects, to which non-Federal cost sharing applies, 
will be subject to the ability of non-Federal sponsors to pay 
their shares. Congress included this section in the landmark 
1986 act to ensure that as many communities as possible would 
qualify for Federal flood damage reduction projects, based more 
on needs and less on financial capabilities. The Secretary 
published eligibility criteria in 33 CFR 241, which requires a 
non-Federal sponsor to meet an ability-to-pay test. However, 
the Committee believes that the Secretary's test is too 
restrictive and operates to exclude most communities from 
qualifying for relief under the ability-to-pay provision. For 
example, 33 CFR 241.4(f) specifies that the test should be 
structured so that reductions in the level of cost sharing will 
be granted in ``only a limited number of cases of severe 
economic hardship,'' and should depend not only on the economic 
circumstances within a project area, but also on the conditions 
of the State in which the project area is located.

                     CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM

    When Congress authorized the initial Continuing Authorities 
in the 1940s and 1950s, they were envisioned to provide a small 
pool of money available to the Corps of Engineers to solve very 
small localized problems without being encumbered by the longer 
study and project authorization process. As more programs were 
added to the Continuing Authorities Program [CAP] they became 
increasingly popular with congressional Members and the public. 
More and more congressionally directed projects began to appear 
in the annual appropriations bills. At first these 
congressionally directed projects were added to the base 
program. As more and more of these congressionally directed 
projects came into the program it became difficult for these 
congressionally directed projects to be added to the base, and 
as such, the base program began to shrink. Congressionally 
directed projects now dominate all sections of the CAP Program. 
Congressionally directed projects have proliferated to such an 
extent that several of the sections are over-subscribed.
    The table below shows the Federal obligations, the 
allocations through fiscal year 2008, the balance to complete, 
and the annual statutory limit for each section of the program. 
With roughly a $1,000,000,000 backlog and appropriations 
averaging $120,000,000, depending on the section of the program 
it could be from two to ten years before all of the current 
projects in the program are completed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Allocations     Planned fiscal
                          CAP section                                Federal       through fiscal       year 2008        Balance to      Statutory limit
                                                                   obligation         year 2008        allocations        complete
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14............................................................       $69,548,012       $38,328,057        $9,707,357       $21,512,598           $15,000
103...........................................................        48,386,819        15,522,875         4,451,555        28,322,389            30,000
107...........................................................       118,598,140        38,181,184         7,232,400        73,184,556            35,000
111...........................................................        50,283,000         3,574,645         1,919,000        44,789,355             (\1\)
204...........................................................        35,317,018         7,398,318         1,373,000        26,545,700            15,000
205...........................................................       548,772,450       162,448,027        42,370,804       343,953,619            55,000
206...........................................................       457,038,102       120,987,115        29,149,778       306,901,210            50,000
208...........................................................         1,349,900           713,899  ................           636,001             7,500
1135..........................................................       267,193,752       117,611,141        29,174,000       120,408,611            40,000
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals..................................................     1,596,487,193       504,765,261       125,467,894       966,254,038  ................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Not Applicable

    The budget justifications for the CAP program do not 
provide much useful information as to how the administration 
developed its program for fiscal year 2009. There is a dollar 
value associated with each section and a listing of projects in 
priority order that corresponds to the amount. However, the 
Committee has no way of knowing whether the amount shown is 
adequate. The Corps is directed to provide more information to 
justify the amount shown on the justification sheets for fiscal 
year 2010.
    Starting in fiscal year 2008 the Committee no longer 
provided any congressional earmarks for the section 14, 
Emergency Bank Stabilization authority. The Committee has not 
provided either the administration's earmark requests for this 
section or requests by Members for fiscal year 2009. By 
definition these are projects that are estimated to fail within 
9-12 months. As an emergency situation the Chief of Engineers 
should have the responsibility for determining how these funds 
are expended in the most efficient and effective manner. Budget 
justifications for this section should display the anticipated 
projects and associated costs to be undertaken in the budget 
year as well as the anticipated resources necessary to address 
emergencies that arise in the budget year.
    CAP projects and studies are listed in the Construction, 
General table immediately preceding this section. This listing 
includes the priority projects listed in the President's budget 
request as well as those that were requested by Members. With 
one exception, the Committee has not provided dollar amounts 
for the named projects in the report. This lack of specificity 
in project amounts is intended to give the Chief of Engineers 
flexibility within the various sections of the CAP program in 
order to address the backlog. The Committee has repeated the 
guidance below from the fiscal year 2008 statement of the 
managers that accompanied Public Law 110-161 detailing how the 
Corps should prioritize work in the CAP program.
    Priorities for Design and Implementation [D&I;] Phase:
    1. D&I; work for continuing projects that have executed 
PCAs.
    2. D&I; funding for projects approved by Corps Headquarters 
to execute a PCA.
    3. D&I; work which does not require executed agreements (for 
example continuing or pre-PCA design) for ongoing projects.
    4. D&I; funding for projects with approved Feasibility 
Reports moving into D&I.;
    Priorities for Feasibility Phase:
    1. Feasibility phase funding for projects with executed 
FCSAs.
    2. Feasibility phase funding for projects approved by Corps 
Headquarters to execute a FCSA.
    3. Feasibility phase work which does not require a FCSA for 
ongoing projects.
    4. Feasibility phase funding for initiations or restarts.
    Within the last-funded priority level within the D&I; and 
Feasibility phases, if the projects qualifying for funding 
exceed the available funding, funds shall be allocated based on 
project outputs and the non-Federal sponsor's ability to meet 
local obligations.
    Remaining funds, if any, may be allocated to additional 
projects in accordance with the aforementioned priorities, 
except that remaining funds for section 14 projects shall be 
allocated to the most urgently needed projects.
    The Committee is concerned that if the Corps adhered 
strictly to the priorities above, that all funding would be 
exhausted for construction. Therefore, in order to provide a 
mix of studies, design and construction within each CAP section 
the Committee directs that funding be generally divided 80/20 
between the D&I; phase and the Feasibility phase within each 
authority.
    The Chief of Engineers should provide a report to the House 
and Senate Appropriations Committees within 30 days of 
enactment of this bill detailing how funds will be distributed 
to the individual items in the various CAP sections for the 
fiscal year. The Chief should also provide an annual report at 
the end of each fiscal year detailing the progress made on the 
backlog of projects. The report should include the completions 
and terminations as well as progress of ongoing work.
    Even though the Committee is providing a listing of 
projects that are of interest, the Corps should develop the 
program based on all of the projects in each section whether 
named in this report or not. Priorities should be based on the 
factors outlined above. The Corps is directed not to initiate 
any new continuing authorities projects in sections 205, 206 or 
section 1135 without explicit congressional direction. New 
projects may be initiated in the remaining sections after an 
assessment is made that such projects can be funded over time 
based on historical averages of the appropriation for that 
section and approval by the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriation.

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

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $387,402,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     240,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     365,000,000

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

                    MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Fiscal year     Fiscal year
              Project title                 2009 budget        2009
                                              request     recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             IINVESTIGATIONS

BAYOU METO BASIN, AR....................  ..............              43
SOUTHEAST ARKANSAS, AR..................  ..............             400
ALEXANDRIA TO THE GULF, LA..............             790             790
MORGANZA TO THE GULF, LA................  ..............           6,000
SPRING BAYOU, LA........................  ..............             300
COLDWATER RIVER BASIN BELOW ARKABUTLA                125             130
 LAKE, MS...............................
QUIVER RIVER, MS........................  ..............             250
MEMPHIS METRO AREA, STORM WATER MGMT                  34              34
 STUDY, TN..............................
COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA......             400           1,430

              CONSTRUCTION

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS,  ..............          50,200
 MO & TN................................
CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, DIKES, AR, IL, KY,           12,134  ..............
 LA, MS, MO & TN........................
CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, REVETMENT                    33,089  ..............
 OPERATIONS, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN
GRAND PRAIRIE REGION, AR................  ..............           9,000
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY,             20,000          63,823
 LA, MS, MO & TN........................
ST. FRANCIS RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, AR &   ..............           5,700
 MO.....................................
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA..           2,025           2,025
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA...................           6,300          15,500
MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA............           2,259           3,933
YAZOO BASIN--BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS....  ..............           2,275
YAZOO BASIN--DELTA HEADWATERS PROJECT,    ..............          18,000
 MS.....................................
YAZOO BASIN--MAIN STEM, MS..............  ..............              25
YAZOO BASIN--REFORMULATION UNIT, MS.....  ..............           2,800
YAZOO BASIN--UPPER YAZOO PROJECTS, MS...  ..............          14,000
YAZOO BASIN, BACKWATER LESS ROCKY BAYOU.  ..............              50
YAZOO BASIN--YAZOO BACKWATER, MS........  ..............           5,000
ST. JOHNS BAYOU AND NEW MADRID FLOODWAY,  ..............             200
 MO.....................................

        OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS,          65,211          70,000
 MO & TN................................
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR......             128             128
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR.......             249             249
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, AR....             256             256
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, AR....             161             161
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY,             15,873          16,368
 LA, MS, MO & TN........................
ST. FRANCIS BASIN, AR & MO..............           4,445           8,200
TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS,             1,880           1,880
 AR & LA................................
WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR...............           1,039           1,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL.......             135             135
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY.......              93              93
HICKMAN/MAGNOLIA BLUFF, KY..............  ..............              60
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA..           2,117           2,117
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA...................           8,619           8,619
BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA.....             162             162
BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA......              42              42
BONNET CARRE, LA........................           2,346           2,346
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA.......           1,727           1,927
LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, LA..              53              53
MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA............             578             578
OLD RIVER, LA...........................          13,882          13,882
TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA...           2,501           2,501
GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS...................             436             436
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS.......             101             101
VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS....................             424             424
YAZOO BASIN, ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS.........           6,228           6,673
YAZOO BASIN, BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS....             171           1,500
YAZOO BASIN, ENID LAKE, MS..............           6,388           7,417
YAZOO BASIN, GREENWOOD, MS..............           1,650           1,650
YAZOO BASIN, GRENADA LAKE, MS...........           6,201           7,166
YAZOO BASIN, MAIN STEM, MS..............           1,128           2,237
YAZOO BASIN, SARDIS LAKE, MS............           6,971           8,916
YAZOO BASIN, TRIBUTARIES, MS............             694             925
YAZOO BASIN, WILL M WHITTINGTON AUX                  272             285
 CHAN, MS...............................
YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS...             393             442
YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO CITY, MS.............             634             534
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO.......             185             185
WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO.....................           4,567           4,567
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN.......              81              81
MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, TN.......           3,283           3,283
MAPPING.................................           1,488           1,488
ANTICIPATED REDUCTION FOR SAVINGS AND     ..............        (15,975)
 SLIPPAGE...............................
ADJUSTMENTS.............................              52  ..............
                                         -------------------------------
      TOTAL.............................         240,000         365,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Investigations

    Morganza to the Gulf, Louisiana.--The Committee has 
recommended $6,000,000 to continue Preconstruction Engineering 
and Design for this project. The Committee has included 
legislative language which allows the local interest to 
construct the Houma Navigation Canal Lock with non-Federal 
funds. This shall not be considered initiation of the Federal 
project. The Committee is aware that substantial environmental 
analysis has been conducted on the Houma Navigation Canal Lock 
as well as the other portions of the Morganza alignment. 
Furthermore, the Committee is aware of significant engineering 
work that is underway using both Federal and non-Federal 
funding. Accordingly, the Committee urges the Corps to resolve 
any permitting issues that may develop as a result of non-
Federal spending, as expeditiously as possible. Finally, the 
Committee remains sensitive to the critical need for hurricane 
and flood protection in the Terrebonne and Lafourche Parish 
area of Louisiana, and is providing this flexibility to allow 
the local sponsors to move forward on components while further 
reviews are taking place on the larger project.
    Quiver River, Mississippi.--The Committee has recommended 
$250,000 to initiate studies to identify options for improving 
water quality while addressing other needs
    Collection and Study of Basic Data.--The Committee 
recommends an additional $1,000,000 for Lidar mapping in the 
Yazoo River Basin.

Construction

    Grand Prairie, Arkansas.--The Committee has recommended 
$9,000,000 for continued construction of the project.
    Mississippi River Levees, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, 
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee.--Additional 
funds above the budget request could be used for the following 
activities: relief wells (parcel 1) at Delta, Mississippi; 
relief wells at Wilson, Arkansas; relief wells at Barfield, 
Arkansas; relief wells at Tunica, Mississippi; relief wells 
(parcel 2) at Delta, Mississippi; engineering and design work 
for levee construction work at three sites in Missouri; 
engineering and design work for levee construction work at two 
sites in Arkansas; engineering and design for construction work 
near Cairo, Illinois; acquisition of mitigation lands; to 
continue construction on the MRL features of the St. Johns 
Bayou-New Madrid Floodway; fund Magna Vista-Brunswick, 
Mississippi, Item 468-L; Bayou Vidal-Elkridge, Louisiana, Item 
419-R; Bayou Vidal-Elkridge, Louisiana, Item 416-R; Magna 
Vista-Brunswick, Mississippi, Item 465-L; advance completion of 
levee enlargement; concrete slope paving contract; slope 
stability contract; and complete the LMRMRIS.
    Yazoo Basin, Backwater Pumping Plant, Mississippi.--The 
Committee has recommended $5,000,000 to fully fund pump and 
motor contracts and initiate purchase of conservation 
easements. Funds are also provided for the center associated 
with the Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge.
    Yazoo Basin, Big Sunflower Basin, Mississippi.--The 
Committee recognizes the need for control of bank erosion along 
the Big Sunflower River and has recommended $2,275,000 for the 
continued construction of the Yazoo Basin, Big Sunflower River 
Project. $1,500,000 is recommended to continue bank 
stabilization erosion repairs at selected sites in the 
Sunflower Basin.
    Yazoo Basin, Delta Headwaters Project, Mississippi.--The 
Committee has recommended $18,000,000 to continue construction 
of this erosion protection projects in the Yazoo Basin.
    Yazoo Basin, Upper Yazoo Project, Mississippi.--The 
Committee has recommended $14,000,000 to continue construction 
of this flood control project. The Committee regrets that 
budgetary constraints do not allow funding at a more optimal 
level. Additional non-defense discretionary budgetary resources 
will be needed in future years if the project is to proceed at 
or near the Corps' schedule.

Maintenance

    Hickman/Magnolia Bluff, Kentucky.--The Committee recommends 
$60,000 to prepare plans and specifications and to repair 
damage to the maintenance access road and a concrete-lined 
drainage ditch caused by a September 2006 flood.
    Mississippi River Levees, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, 
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee.--Funds provided 
above the budget request are to provide gravel surfacing to 
selected locations along roads on top of levees in Arkansas, 
Mississippi, and Louisiana to ensure all weather access for 
flood fights and for other backlog maintenance.
    Mississippi Lakes.--The Committee has recommended 
additional funding to address the maintenance backlog at 
Arkabutla, Sardis, Enid and Grenada Lakes in Mississippi.

                   OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL

Appropriations, 2008....................................  $2,243,637,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................   2,475,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,220,000,000

    This appropriation funds operation, maintenance, and 
related activities at the water resources projects that the 
Corps operates and maintains. Work to be accomplished consists 
of dredging, repair, and operation of structures and other 
facilities, as authorized in the various River and Harbor, 
Flood Control, and Water Resources Development Acts. Related 
activities include aquatic plant control, monitoring of 
completed projects where appropriate, removal of sunken 
vessels, and the collection of domestic waterborne commerce 
statistics.
    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. In order to cope with the current fiscal situation, 
the Corps has had to defer or delay scheduled maintenance 
activities.
    The O&M; budget request appears to have been increased by 
nearly $231,363,000 above the fiscal year 2008 enacted amount. 
However this is very misleading. Shifting of projects from the 
CG account to the O&M; account totals $264,775,000. Once these 
projects are shifted back to CG, that leaves a decrease of 
$33,412,000 when compared to fiscal year 2008. The Committee 
notes that the Corps maintenance backlog is more than 
$1,000,000,000 and increases by about $100,000,000 annually as 
the inventory of projects ages.
    The Committee has chosen to display the budget request as 
the discrete projects that are the tradition as opposed to the 
regional budget proposed by the administration. Also the 
Committee has chosen to migrate the projects that the 
administration proposed in O&M; back to their traditional 
location in the CG account. This makes the actual budget 
request for O&M; $2,210,225,000 rather than $2,475,000,000 as 
presented in the budget. A list of these migrated projects is 
displayed under the CG heading earlier in this report.
    Maintenance of our aging water infrastructure inventory 
gets more expensive every year, however, it is consistently 
underfunded. If this trend continues, the Corps will not be 
able to maintain expected levels of service at all of its 
projects. The Committee has maintained its tradition of 
supporting what the budget request terms as ``low use harbors 
and waterways''. The Committee recognizes the importance of 
these facilities and will continue to provide funding for them. 
Unfortunately due to budget constraints the Committee was not 
able to provide nearly enough funding as is needed for our 
aging infrastructure.

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

                ALABAMA

ALABAMA--COOSA COMPREHENSIVE WATER                 375              375
 STUDY, AL............................
ALABAMA RIVER LAKES, AL...............          15,672           15,672
BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL          22,191           22,191
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL........           5,230            5,230
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AL.....              60               60
MOBILE HARBOR, AL.....................          21,562           21,562
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AL.........             100              100
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AL...              94               94
TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY WILDLIFE            2,350            2,350
 MITIGATION, AL.......................
TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL & MS.          22,009           22,009
WALTER F GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL & GA.           8,417            8,417
WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, AL.             120              120

                ALASKA

ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK..................          17,601           17,601
CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK.................           2,225            2,225
DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK.................             840              840
HOMER HARBOR, AK......................             620              620
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK.....           1,058            1,058
LOWELL CREEK TUNNEL, AK...............  ...............             500
NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK..................             350              350
NOME HARBOR, AK.......................             780              780
PETERSBERG NORTH HARBOR PROJECT, AK...  ...............             500
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK.........             550              550

                ARIZONA

ALAMO LAKE, AZ........................           1,585            1,585
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ.....              98               98
PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ..................           1,206            1,206
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AZ...              39               39
WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ.................             171              171

               ARKANSAS

BEAVER LAKE, AR.......................           5,270            5,270
BLAKELY MT DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR.....           8,384            8,384
BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR................           1,427            1,427
BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR..................           7,367            7,367
DARDANELLE LOCK AND DAM, AR...........           8,491            8,491
DEGRAY LAKE, AR.......................           6,317            6,317
DEQUEEN LAKE, AR......................           1,286            1,286
DIERKS LAKE, AR.......................           1,354            1,354
GILLHAM LAKE, AR......................           1,156            1,156
GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR.................           6,861            6,861
HELENA HARBOR, AR.....................              90              400
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR.....             508              508
MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER                   28,395           28,395
 NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR................
MILLWOOD LAKE, AR.....................           2,074            2,074
NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR.........           4,591            4,591
NIMROD LAKE, AR.......................           1,609            1,609
NORFORK LAKE, AR......................           3,920            3,920
OSCEOLA HARBOR, AR....................              14              500
OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR & LA....           8,509            8,509
OZARK-JETA TAYLOR LOCK AND DAM, AR....           5,287            5,287
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AR.........               8                8
WHITE RIVER, AR.......................              52               52
YELLOW BEND PORT, AR..................               3              160

              CALIFORNIA

BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA..................           1,954            1,954
BUCHANAN DAM, HV EASTMAN LAKE, CA.....           1,820            1,820
CHANNEL ISLANDS HARBOR, CA............           5,360            5,360
COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, CA.           3,384            3,384
DANA POINT HARBOR, CA.................  ...............             700
DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND                5,067            5,067
 CHANNEL, CA..........................
FARMINGTON DAM, CA....................             443              443
HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA..........           1,786            1,786
HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA...........           5,144            5,144
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA.....           3,822            3,822
ISABELLA LAKE, CA.....................           1,404            1,404
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA..           3,996            3,996
MARINA DEL REY, CA....................           2,499            2,499
MARTIS CREEK LAKE, CA & NV............             737              737
MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA.............             239              239
MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA..................             285              285
MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA..................           1,630            1,630
NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA....................           2,115            2,115
NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL,            1,730            1,730
 CA...................................
NOYO HARBOR, CA.......................  ...............             750
OAKLAND HARBOR, CA....................           7,445            7,445
OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA..................           1,620            1,620
PINE FLAT LAKE, CA....................           2,854            2,854
PINOLE SHOAL MANAGEMENT STUDY, CA.....  ...............             500
PORT HUENEME, CA......................           4,029            4,029
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA.........           2,422            2,422
RICHMOND HARBOR, CA...................           6,950            6,950
SACRAMENTO RIVER (30-FOOT PROJECT), CA           5,582            5,582
SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES                 1,566            1,566
 (DEBRIS CONTROL), CA.................
SACRAMENTO RIVER SHALLOW DRAFT                     175              175
 CHANNEL, CA..........................
SAN FRANCISCO BAY, DELTA MODEL                   1,106            1,106
 STRUCTURE, CA........................
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY, CA                 2,805            2,805
 (DRIFT REMOVAL)......................
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA..............           2,514            2,514
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, PORT OF STOCKTON,             5,411            5,411
 CA...................................
SAN PABLO BAY AND MARE ISLAND STRAIT,            1,140            1,140
 CA...................................
SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA.............           3,148            3,148
SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA..............           2,090            2,090
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CA...           1,639            1,639
SUCCESS LAKE, CA......................           1,791            1,791
SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA................           2,982            2,982
TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA.........           1,912            1,912
VENTURA HARBOR, CA....................           3,095            3,095
YUBA RIVER, CA........................             129              129

               COLORADO

BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO...................             332              332
CHATFIELD LAKE, CO....................           1,176            1,509
CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO.................             870            1,203
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO.....             457              457
JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO.............           2,418            2,418
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CO...             720              720
TRINIDAD LAKE, CO.....................             956            1,290

              CONNECTICUT

BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT...................             416              416
BRIDGEPORT HARBOR DREDGING, CT........  ...............           2,000
COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT..............             547              547
HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT................             338              338
HOP BROOK LAKE, CT....................             919              919
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CT.....             316              316
LONG ISLAND SOUND DMMP, CT............           1,000            1,000
MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT.............             493              493
NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT.............             385              385
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CT.........           1,100            1,100
STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT........             374              374
THOMASTON DAM, CT.....................             615              615
WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT................             568              568

               DELAWARE

DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, ROOSEVELT                  350   ...............
 INLET TO LEWES\1\....................
HARBOR OF REFUGE, LEWES, DE...........  ...............             500
INDIAN RIVER INLET AND BAY, SUSSEX      ...............             500
 COUNTY, DE...........................
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE R TO            14,065           14,065
 CHESAPEAKE BAY, DE...................
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, REHOBOTH BAY TO              40               40
 DELAWARE BAY, DE.....................
MISPILLION RIVER, DE..................              30              500
MURDERKILL RIVER, DE..................              30               30
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DE.........             147              147
WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE.................           2,750            3,750

         DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DC.....              62               62
POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVERS, DC                   805              805
 (DRIFT REMOVAL)......................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DC.........              28               28
WASHINGTON HARBOR, DC.................              25               25

                FLORIDA

CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL..................           4,404            4,404
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL......          13,234           13,234
ESCAMBIA AND CONECUH RIVERS, FL.......              25               25
EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM             400              400
 RESTORATION, FL......................
FERNANDINA HARBOR, FL.................           2,025            2,025
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL.....             300              300
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, CALOOSAHATCHEE   ...............           1,000
 R TO ANCLOTE R,......................
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, JACKSONVILLE TO             325            2,500
 MIAMI, FL............................
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL...............           6,000            6,000
JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE                  9,165            9,165
 SEMINOLE, FL, AL & GA................
MANATEE HARBOR, FL....................           2,675            2,675
MIAMI RIVER, FL.......................          10,820           10,820
OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL...............           4,530            4,530
PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL.................           2,385            2,385
PANAMA CITY HARBOR, FL................              55               55
PENSACOLA HARBOR, FL..................              67               67
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL.........           1,265            1,265
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL.........           4,420            4,420
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, FL...              30               30
SOUTH FLORIDA EVERGLADES ECOSYSTEM                 357              357
 RESTORATION, FL......................
TAMPA HARBOR, FL......................           4,550            4,550
WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, FL.             405              405

                GEORGIA

ALLATOONA LAKE, GA....................           6,016            6,016
APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT            3,418            3,418
 RIVERS, GA, AL &.....................
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GA....             257            1,000
BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA..................           5,545            5,545
BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GA.           7,946            7,946
CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA..............           7,703            7,703
HARTWELL LAKE, GA & SC................          12,188           12,188
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL               63               63
 PROJECTS, GA.........................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA.....             142              142
J. STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA & SC.......          11,066           11,066
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, GA.........             162              162
RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA &             8,386            8,386
 SC...................................
SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA\1\................          19,170           13,895
SAVANNAH RIVER BELOW AUGUSTA, GA......             183              183
WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA & AL......           7,446            7,446

                HAWAII

BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI..............             200              548
HALEIWA HARBOR, OAHU, HI..............  ...............           1,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI.....             659              659
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI.........             537              537
WAIANAE HARBOR, HI....................  ...............           1,000

                 IDAHO

ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID..................           1,539            1,539
DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID........           2,404            2,404
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID.....             354              334
LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID...................           1,801            1,801
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ID...             469              469

               ILLINOIS

CHICAGO HARBOR, IL....................           2,015            2,015
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL.....              44   ...............
CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL & IN.....           4,780            4,780
CARLYLE LAKE, IL......................           4,155            4,155
CHICAGO RIVER, IL.....................             475              475
FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL.............             203              203
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVR PORTION), IL &           38,121           36,287
 IN...................................
    GRAFTON, IL TO LAGRANGE LOCK & DAM          (1,834)  ...............
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVS PORTION), IL &   ...............           1,834
 IN...................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL               65               65
 PROJECTS, IL.........................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL.....           2,298            2,342
KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL........           1,903            1,903
LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL...........             860              860
LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL..................           4,761            4,761
LOCK AND DAM 27, MISSISSIPPI RVR, IL             2,598   ...............
 (MAJOR REHAB)\1\.....................
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND                    63,207           63,207
 MINNEAPOLIS (MVR PORTION)............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL.........             111              111
REND LAKE, IL.........................           4,570            4,570
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                  565              565
 WATERS, IL...........................
WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL...................           1,099            1,099
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND                    20,004           20,004
 MINNEAPOLIS (MVS PORTION)............

                INDIANA

BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN...................           1,649            1,649
BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN.............             160              160
CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN..................           2,053            2,053
CECIL M HARDEN LAKE, IN...............           1,226            1,226
INDIANA HARBOR, CONFINED DISPOSAL                8,385   ...............
 FACILITY, IN\1\......................
INDIANA HARBOR, IN....................           3,138            3,138
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN.....             635              635
J. EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN..............           2,842            2,842
MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN.................           1,051            1,051
MONROE LAKE, IN.......................           1,326            1,326
PATOKA LAKE, IN.......................           1,150            1,150
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN.........             185              185
ROUSH RIVER MAJOR REHAB PROJECT, IN...             300              300
SALAMONIE LAKE, IN....................           1,226            1,226
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                   91               91
 WATERS, IN...........................

                 IOWA

CORALVILLE LAKE, IA...................           2,887            2,887
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA.....             466   ...............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA.....             717            1,183
LOCK AND DAM 11, MISSISSIPPI RVR, IA             2,750         
 (MAJOR REHAB)\1\.....................
MISSOURI RIVER--KENSLERS BEND, NE TO               166              166
 SIOUX CITY, IA.......................
MISSOURI RIVER--RULO TO MOUTH, IA, KS,           5,106            5,106
 MO & NE..............................
MISSOURI RIVER--SIOUX CITY TO THE                2,560            2,560
 MOUTH, IA, KS, MO & NE...............
MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE                85,000   ...............
 RECOVERY, IA, KS, MO\1\..............
RATHBUN LAKE, IA......................           2,214            2,277
RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA....           3,278            3,278
SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA..................           3,908            3,908

                KANSAS

CLINTON LAKE, KS......................           1,975            2,042
COUNCIL GRAVE LAKE, KS................           1,328            1,328
EL DORADO LAKE, KS....................             569              569
ELK CITY LAKE, KS.....................             734              734
FALL RIVER LAKE, KS...................           1,284            1,284
HILLSDALE LAKE, KS....................             722              764
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KS.....             177              177
JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS....           1,042            1,042
KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS....................           1,330            1,418
MARION LAKE, KS.......................           1,504            1,504
MELVERN LAKE, KS......................           2,035            2,111
MILFORD LAKE, KS......................           2,076            2,133
PEARSON-SKUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS.....           1,048            1,048
PERRY LAKE, KS........................           2,452            2,516
POMONA LAKE, KS.......................           1,914            1,969
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, KS...              30               30
TORONTO LAKE, KS......................             535              535
TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS.................           2,060            2,135
WILSON LAKE, KS.......................           1,577            1,977

               KENTUCKY

BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY & TN.          10,255           10,255
BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY.................           3,969            5,969
BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY..................           1,250            1,250
BUCKHORN LAKE, KY.....................           2,433            2,433
CARR CREEK LAKE, KY...................           1,797            1,797
CAVE RUN LAKE, KY.....................           1,098            1,098
DEWEY LAKE, KY........................           1,768            1,768
ELVIS STAHR (HICKMAN) HARBOR, KY......              25               25
FISHTRAP LAKE, KY.....................           1,830            1,830
GRAYSON LAKE, KY......................           1,445            1,445
GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY...........           2,698            3,698
GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY..................           4,942            4,942
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY.....             554              554
KENTUCKY RIVER, KY....................              10               10
LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY.................           1,748            1,748
MARKLAND LOCKS AND DAM, KY & IN (MAJOR          10,600   ...............
 REHAB) \1\...........................
MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY.................           1,062            1,062
MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KY             102              102
NOLIN LAKE, KY........................           3,337            3,337
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, IN           39,419           39,419
 & OH.................................
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, IL,            4,485            4,485
 IN & OH..............................
PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY..................             954              954
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, KY.........               7                7
ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY..................           2,832            2,832
TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY.................           1,312            1,312
WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY...           7,834            7,834
YATESVILLE LAKE, KY...................           1,180            1,180

               LOUISIANA

ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE,              8,993            8,993
 BOEUF AND BLACK, L...................
BARATARIA BAY WATERWAY, LA............             926              926
BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA............             809              809
BAYOU LACOMBE, LA.....................  ...............             450
BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP                 724              724
 WATERWAY, LA.........................
BAYOU PIERRE, LA......................              18               18
BAYOU SEGNETTE WATERWAY, LA...........             321              321
BAYOU TECHE AND VERMILION RIVER, LA...              14               14
BAYOU TECHE, LA.......................             209              209
CADDO LAKE, LA........................             181              181
CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA..........          14,968           14,968
FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA..................           1,848            1,848
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA........          17,769           17,769
HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA............             662            1,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA.....           1,814            1,814
J. BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA......          10,555           10,555
LAKE PROVIDENCE HARBOR, LA............              17              440
MADISON PARISH PORT, LA...............               5               85
MERMENTAU RIVER, LA...................           1,969            1,969
MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT VENICE,             3,136            3,136
 LA...................................
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE           55,325           55,325
 GULF OF MEXICO,......................
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA.........           1,500            1,500
TANGIPAHOA RIVER, LA..................  ...............             321
TCHEFUNCTE RIVER & BOGUE FALIA, LA....  ...............             400
WALLACE LAKE, LA......................             200              200
WATERWAY FROM EMPIRE TO THE GULF, LA..              32              500
WATERWAY FROM INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY TO             239              500
 BAYOU DULAC, LA......................

                 MAINE

DISPOSAL AREA MONITORING, ME..........           1,200            1,200
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ME.....              29               29
NARRAGUAGUS RIVER, ME.................  ...............             600
PORTLAND HARBOR, ME...................             100              100
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME.........             750              750
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                   17               17
 WATERS, ME...........................

               MARYLAND

ASSATEAGUE, MD\1\.....................             500   ...............
BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50-              16,193           16,193
 FOOT), MD............................
BALTIMORE HARBOR, MD (DRIFT REMOVAL)..             338              338
CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV.......              98               98
HERRING BAY AND ROCKHOLD CREEK, MD....  ...............             500
HONGA RIVER AND TAR BAY, MD...........  ...............             500
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD.....              89               89
JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD & WV.......           1,713            1,713
OCEAN CITY HARBOR AND INLET AND                    450              450
 SINEPUXENT BAY, MD...................
PARISH CREEK, MD......................  ...............             500
POPLAR ISLAND, MD\1\..................           9,185   ...............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD.........             376              376
RHODES POINT TO TYLERTON, MD..........  ...............             500
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MD...              64               64
TWITCH COVE AND BIG THOROFARE RIVER,               135              135
 MD...................................
WICOMICO RIVER, MD....................           1,400            1,400

             MASSACHUSETTS

BARRE FALLS DAM, MA...................             580              580
BIRCH HILL DAM, MA....................             574              574
BOSTON HARBOR, MA.....................           6,000            6,000
BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA..................             515              515
CAPE COD CANAL, MA....................          11,546           11,546
CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY STORAGE               291              291
 AREA, MA.............................
CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA.................             232              232
EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA...............             398              398
HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA................             503              503
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA.....             381              381
KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA...................             526              526
LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA..................             489              489
NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET                 272              372
 HURRICANE BARRIER,...................
NEW BEDFORD AND FAIRHAVEN HARBOR, MA..  ...............             250
NEWBURYPORT HARBOR, MA................  ...............             400
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA.........           1,200            1,200
TULLY LAKE, MA........................             543              543
WEST HILL DAM, MA.....................             674              674
WESTVILLE LAKE, MA....................             497              497

               MICHIGAN

ALPENA HARBOR, MI.....................  ...............  ...............
ARCADIA HARBOR, MI....................  ...............  ...............
AU SABLE, MI..........................  ...............  ...............
BAY PORT HARBOR, MI...................  ...............  ...............
BIG BAY HARBOR, MI....................  ...............  ...............
BLACK RIVER (GOGEBIC), MI.............  ...............  ...............
CASEVILLE HARBOR, MI..................  ...............  ...............
CHANNELS IN LAKE ST. CLAIR, MI........             156              156
CHARLEVOIX HARBOR, MI.................             197              197
CLINTON RIVER, MI.....................  ...............  ...............
DETROIT RIVER, MI.....................           5,327            5,327
FRANKFORT HARBOR, MI..................  ...............  ...............
GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI................           1,312            1,312
GRAND MARAIS HARBOR, MI...............  ...............  ...............
GRAND TRAVERSE BAY HARBOR, MI.........  ...............  ...............
GRAYS REEF PASSAGE, MI................             180              180
HOLLAND HARBOR, MI....................             588              588
INLAND ROUTE, MI......................  ...............  ...............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI.....             230              230
KEWEENAW WATERWAY, MI.................              86               86
LAC LA BELLE HARBOR, MI...............  ...............  ...............
LELAND HARBOR, MI.....................  ...............  ...............
LES CHENEAUX ISLAND CHANNELS, MI......  ...............  ...............
LEXINGTON HARBOR, MI..................  ...............  ...............
LITTLE LAKE HARBOR, MI................  ...............  ...............
LUDINGTON HARBOR, MI..................             442              442
MANISTEE HARBOR, MI...................  ...............  ...............
MANISTIQUE HARBOR, MI.................  ...............  ...............
MARQUETTE HARBOR, MI..................  ...............  ...............
MENOMINEE HARBOR, MI..................  ...............  ...............
MICHIGAN HARBOR DREDGING, MI..........  ...............           5,000
MONROE HARBOR, MI.....................           1,018            1,018
MUSKEGON HARBOR, MI...................             350              350
NEW BUFFALO HARBOR, MI................  ...............  ...............
ONTONAGON HARBOR, MI..................             655              655
PENTWATER HARBOR, MI..................  ...............  ...............
PETOSKEY HARBOR, MI...................  ...............  ...............
POINT LOOKOUT HARBOR, MI..............  ...............  ...............
PORT AUSTIN HARBOR, MI................  ...............  ...............
PORT SANILAC HARBOR, MI...............  ...............  ...............
PORTAGE HARBOR, MI....................  ...............  ...............
PRESQUE ISLE HARBOR, MI...............             312              312
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI.........             276              276
ROUGE RIVER, MI\1\....................           1,321            1,161
SAGINAW RIVER, MI.....................           3,798            3,798
SAUGATUCK HARBOR, MI..................  ...............  ...............
SEBEWAING RIVER, MI...................              75               75
SOUTH HAVEN HARBOR, MI................  ...............  ...............
ST. CLAIR RIVER, MI...................           1,791            1,791
ST. JOSEPH HARBOR, MI.................             595              595
ST. MARYS RIVER, MI...................          18,836           18,836
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                2,444            2,444
 WATERS, MI...........................
WHITE LAKE HARBOR, MI.................  ...............  ...............

               MINNESOTA

BIGSTONE LAKE--WHETSTONE RIVER, MN &               172              172
 SD...................................
DULUTH-SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN & WI.......           4,929            4,929
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN.....             623              623
LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA RIVER,              431              431
 MN...................................
MINNESOTA RIVER, MN...................             200              200
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND                    44,904           44,904
 MINNEAPOLIS (MVP PORTION)............
ORWELL LAKE, MN.......................             256              256
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN.........              95               95
RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN................              84               84
RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF                      3,170            3,170
 MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN................
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                  323              323
 WATERS, MN...........................
TWO HARBORS, MN.......................             300              300

              MISSISSIPPI

CLAIRBORNE COUNTY PORT, MS............               1               60
EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS........             135              135
GULFPORT HARBOR, MS...................           3,715           10,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS.....             223              223
MOUTH OF YAZOO RIVER, MS..............              30              160
OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS....................           1,517            1,900
PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS.................           4,130            8,000
PEARL RIVER, MS & LA..................             193              193
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MS.........              82               82
ROSEDALE HARBOR, MS...................              11               11
WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, MS.              30               30
YAZOO RIVER, MS.......................              26               26

               MISSOURI

CARUTHERSVILLE HARBOR, MO.............              10              500
CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN               6,449            6,449
 LAKE, MO.............................
CLEARWATER LAKE, MO...................           2,825            2,825
HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO..           8,528            8,863
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO.....           1,688            1,688
LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO...........             885              935
LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO..................           1,057            1,100
MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS          25,359           25,359
 (REG WORKS), MO......................
NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO.................             152              400
NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO (MILE 889)......  ...............             300
POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO...............           2,056            2,108
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MO.........              14               14
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MO...             327              327
SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO...................           1,162            1,203
SOUTHEAST MISSOURI PORT, MISSISSIPPI                 8                8
 RIVER, MO............................
STOCKTON LAKE, MO.....................           3,320            3,828
TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO & AR..............           6,667            6,667
UNION LAKE, MO........................              10               10

                MONTANA

FT. PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT.............           4,170            4,444
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MT.....              54               54
LIBBY DAM, MT.........................           1,712            1,712
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MT...              88               88

               NEBRASKA

GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK                5,935            6,518
 LAKE, NE & SD........................
HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE................           1,721            1,786
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NE.....             508              508
PAPILLION CREEK, NE...................             531              531
SALT CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, NE........             702              702

                NEVADA

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV.....             127              127
PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV....             204              204

             NEW HAMPSHIRE

BLACKWATER DAM, NH....................             567              567
EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH.............             514              514
FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH................             619              619
HOPKINTON-EVERETT LAKES, NH...........           1,081            1,081
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NH.....              37               37
OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH..................             598              598
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NH.........             300              300
SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH...............             596              596

              NEW JERSEY

ABSECON INLET, NJ.....................  ...............             265
BARNEGAT INLET, NJ....................             225              225
CAPE MAY INLET TO LOWER TOWNSHIP,                2,500   ...............
 NJ\1\................................
COLD SPRING INLET, NJ.................             243              243
DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ..........              15               15
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE             18,778           18,778
 SEA, NJ, PA & DE.....................
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO                750              750
 TRENTON, NJ..........................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NJ.....             253              253
LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAY                   150   ...............
 POINT, NJ\1\.........................
MANASQUAN RIVER, NJ...................             160              160
NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NJ..             250              250
NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC                 300              300
 RIVERS, NJ...........................
PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD WARNING SYSTEM, NJ             254              254
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NJ.........           1,363            1,363
RARITAN AND SANDY HOOKS BAYS,                       40               40
 LEONARDO, NJ.........................
RARITAN RIVER TO ARTHUR KILL CUT-OFF,              200              200
 NJ...................................
RARITAN RIVER, NJ.....................             220              220
SALEM RIVER, NJ.......................              70               70
SHARK RIVER, NJ.......................             775              775
SHOAL HARBOR AND COMPTON CREEK, NJ....             300              300
SHREWSBURY RIVER, MAIN CHANNEL, NJ....             120              120

              NEW MEXICO

ABIQUIU DAM, NM.......................           2,220            2,220
COCHITI LAKE, NM......................           2,392            2,392
CONCHAS LAKE, NM......................           1,121            1,121
GALISTEO DAM, NM......................             423              423
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM.....             811              811
JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM..................             684              684
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE ENDANGERED SPECIES    ...............             200
 COLLABORATIVE PRO....................
RIO GRANDE BOSQUE REHABILITATION, NM..  ...............           4,000
SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM...........             940              940
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NM...             502              502
TWO RIVERS DAM, NM....................             452              452
UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS                1,201            1,201
 MODEL STUDY, NM......................

               NEW YORK

ALMOND LAKE, NY.......................             424              424
ARKPORT DAM, NY.......................             225              225
BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA                 1,235            1,235
 HARBOR, NY...........................
BRONX RIVER, NY.......................             250              250
BUFFALO HARBOR, NY....................              50               50
BUTTERMILK CHANNEL, NY................             220              220
EAST RIVER, NY........................             500              500
EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY...............           4,220            4,220
EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY..................             473              473
EASTCHESTER CREEK, NY.................             180              180
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET,                  500   ...............
 NY\1\................................
FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY............             380              380
GREAT SOUTH BAY, NY...................              80               80
HUDSON RIVER CHANNEL, NY..............             500              500
HUDSON RIVER, NY (MAINT)..............           1,125            1,125
HUDSON RIVER, NY (O&C;)................           1,525            1,525
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY.....           1,031            1,031
JAMAICA BAY, NY.......................             250              250
JONES INLET, NY.......................             350              350
LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR, NY...............             700              700
LITTLE SODUS BAY HARBOR, NY...........              10               10
LONG ISLAND INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NY.             200              200
MATTITUCK HARBOR, NY..................              20               20
MORICHES INLET, NY....................           2,050            2,050
MOUNT MORRIS DAM, NY..................           4,839            4,839
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS, NY..           6,750            6,750
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY...................           4,000            4,000
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY & NJ (DRIFT                  6,300            6,300
 REMOVAL).............................
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY (PREVENTION OF                 950              950
 OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSIT..................
NEWTOWN CREEK, NY.....................             220              220
PORTCHESTER HARBOR, NY................             150              150
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY.........           1,830            1,830
ROCHESTER HARBOR, NY..................           1,605            1,605
SHINNECOCK INLET, NY..................             200              200
SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL                    839              839
 PROJECTS, NY.........................
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                  551              551
 WATERS, NY...........................
WESTCHESTER CREEK, NY.................             250              250
WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY................             553              553

            NORTH CAROLINA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NC....             900            2,000
B. EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC....           1,633            1,633
BOGUE INLET, NC.......................  ...............             400
CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC..             718              718
CAROLINA BEACH INLET, NC..............  ...............             600
FALLS LAKE, NC........................           1,683            1,683
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC.....             250              250
LOCKWOODS FOLLY RIVER, NC.............  ...............             200
MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC...........           4,100            4,100
MASONBORO INLET AND CONNECTING                     365              365
 CHANNELS, NC.........................
MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC..............           5,000            5,000
NEW RIVER INLET, NC...................             800              800
NEW TOPSAIL INLET, NC.................  ...............             400
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC.........             675              675
ROLLINSON CHANNEL, NC.................             150              300
SILVER LAKE HARBOR, NC................             400              400
W KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC....           2,977            2,977
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC.................          13,000           13,000

             NORTH DAKOTA

BOWMAN-HALEY LAKE, ND.................             153              153
GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND......           9,435           11,789
HOMME LAKE, ND........................             151              293
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND.....             360              360
LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND...           1,017            1,742
PIPESTEM LAKE, ND.....................             572              572
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ND...             119              119
SOURIS RIVER, ND......................             280              280
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                   24               24
 WATER, ND............................

                 OHIO

ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH...................           1,439            1,439
ASHTABULA HARBOR, OH..................           1,850            1,850
BERLIN LAKE, OH.......................           4,867            4,867
CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH.................           2,149            2,149
CLARENCE J BROWN DAM, OH..............           2,520            2,520
CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH..................           6,710            6,710
CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH...................             350              350
DEER CREEK LAKE, OH...................           1,359            1,359
DELAWARE LAKE, OH.....................           1,445            1,445
DILLON LAKE, OH.......................           1,454            1,454
FAIRPORT HARBOR, OH...................           2,026            2,026
HURON HARBOR, OH......................           1,530            1,530
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH.....             452              452
LORAIN HARBOR, OH.....................           2,423            2,423
MASSILLON LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH              24               24
MICHAEL J KIRWAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, OH           2,023            2,023
MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH...............           1,383            1,383
MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH.............           8,275            8,275
NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, OH..             593              593
OHIO--MISSISSIPPI FLOOD CONTROL, OH...           1,089            1,089
PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH..................           1,307            1,307
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH.........             295              295
ROSEVILLE LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH              35               35
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                  223              223
 WATERS, OH...........................
TOLEDO HARBOR, OH.....................           4,701            4,701
TOM JENKINS DAM, OH...................             791              791
WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH......             865              865
WILLIAM H. HARSHA LAKE, OH............           1,837            1,837

               OKLAHOMA

ARCADIA LAKE, OK......................             472              472
BIRCH LAKE, OK........................             648              648
BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK...................           1,903            1,903
CANTON LAKE, OK.......................           1,707            1,707
COPAN LAKE, OK........................             937              937
EUFAULA LAKE, OK......................           5,348            5,348
FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK..................          10,218           10,218
FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK..................             742              742
GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK............             256              256
HEYBURN LAKE, OK......................             555              555
HUGO LAKE, OK.........................           1,493            1,493
HULAH LAKE, OK........................             476              476
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OK.....             177              177
KAW LAKE, OK..........................           2,574            2,574
KEYSTONE LAKE, OK.....................           6,073            6,073
MCCLELLAN--KERR ARKANSAS RIVER                   5,819            5,819
 NAVIGATION SYSTEM, OK................
OOLOGAH LAKE, OK......................           1,923            1,923
OPTIMA LAKE, OK.......................             164              164
PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE                   119              119
 CHEROKEES, OK........................
PINE CREEK LAKE, OK...................           1,099            1,099
ROBERT S KERR LOCK AND DAM AND                   6,599            6,599
 RESERVOIR, OK........................
SARDIS LAKE, OK.......................             912              912
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OK...             520              520
SKIATOOK LAKE, OK.....................           1,318            1,318
TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK..............           3,794            3,794
WAURIKA LAKE, OK......................           1,093            1,093
WEBBERS FALLS LOCK AND DAM, OK........           4,695            4,695
WISTER LAKE, OK.......................             678              678

                OREGON

APPLEGATE LAKE, OR....................             904              904
BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR...................             427              427
BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA......          11,701            9,691
CHETCO RIVER, OR......................             574              574
COLUMBIA & LWR WILLAMETTE R BLW                 24,973           18,052
 VANCOUVER, WA & PORTLA...............
COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR & WA..          15,125           15,125
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA               640              640
 AND THE DALLES, OR...................
COOS BAY, OR..........................           4,769            4,769
COQUILLE RIVER, OR....................             307              307
COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR................             991              991
COUGAR LAKE, OR.......................           1,549            5,380
DEPOE BAY, OR.........................               3              124
DETROIT LAKE, OR......................           2,064            2,564
DORENA LAKE, OR.......................             831              831
FALL CREEK LAKE, OR...................             918            1,418
FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR...................           1,433            1,433
GREEN PETER-FOSTER LAKES, OR..........           1,823            2,323
HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR..................             792            1,292
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL               33               33
 PROJECTS, OR.........................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR.....             413              413
JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA........           7,049            7,049
LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR................           2,261            2,761
LOST CREEK LAKE, OR...................           3,560            3,560
MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA..........           5,183            5,183
PORT ORFORD, OR.......................               7                7
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR.........             220              220
ROGUE RIVER AT GOLD BEACH, OR.........             587              587
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OR...              82               82
SIUSLAW RIVER, OR.....................             583              583
SKIPANON CHANNEL, OR..................               5                5
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY               10,400           10,400
 WATERS, WA...........................
TILLAMOOK BAY AND BAR, OR.............              35            2,200
UMPQUA RIVER, OR......................             635              635
WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS,              210              210
 OR...................................
WILLAMETTE RIVER BANK PROTECTION, OR..              62               62
WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE CONTROL,            3,331   ...............
 OR\1\................................
WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR.................             610              610
YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR............           1,482            1,482
YAQUINA RIVER, OR.....................  ...............             300

             PENNSYLVANIA

ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA...................           6,578            6,578
ALVIN R BUSH DAM, PA..................             591              591
AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA.............             215              215
BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA...................           1,311            1,311
BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA...................           2,736            2,736
CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA..............           1,734            1,734
COWANESQUE LAKE, PA...................           1,847            1,847
CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA................           2,530            2,530
CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA.................             625              625
EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA....           2,179            2,179
FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA..........             633              633
FRANCIS E WALTER DAM, PA..............             774              774
GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND                       228              228
 RESERVOIR, PA........................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA.....             592              592
JOHNSTOWN, PA.........................           2,255            2,255
KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PA           2,493            2,493
LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA...................           2,880            2,880
MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA...............           1,823            1,823
MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA.................          12,392           12,392
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, PA, OH & WV          24,796           24,796
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, PA, OH &             509              509
 WV...................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA.........              70               70
PROMPTON LAKE, PA.....................             505              505
PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA......................              20               20
RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA.....................           3,312            3,312
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, PA...              46               46
SCHUYLKILL RIVER, PA..................           2,000            3,000
SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA...............           2,366            2,366
STILLWATER LAKE, PA...................             331              331
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                   93               93
 WATERS, PA...........................
TIOGA-HAMMOND LAKES, PA...............           2,213            2,213
TIONESTA LAKE, PA.....................           3,115            3,115
UNION CITY LAKE, PA...................           1,017            1,017
WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA...............           1,033            1,033
YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA..............             471              471
YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA & MD......           2,908            2,908

              PUERTO RICO

ARECIBO HARBOR, PR....................             100              100

             RHODE ISLAND

GREAT SALT POND, BLOCK ISLAND, RI (new  ...............             250
 Harbor)..............................
BLOCK ISLAND HARBOR, RI...............             360              500
FOX POINT HURRICANE BARRIER, RI.......  ...............             500
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, RI.....              43               43
POINT JUDITH HARBOR OF REUGE, RI......           1,250            1,250
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, RI.........             400              400
PROVIDENCE HARBOR SHIPPING CHANNEL, RI  ...............             300
WOONSOCKET, RI........................  ...............             300

            SOUTH CAROLINA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC....             724            1,500
CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC\1\..............          12,527            9,947
COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC...           4,685            4,685
FOLLY RIVER, SC\1\....................              35   ...............
GEORGETOWN HARBOR, SC.................             690              690
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC.....              65               65
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC.........             624              624

             SOUTH DAKOTA

BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD.........           6,799            6,799
CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER       ...............           3,000
 BRULE SIOUX, SD......................
COLD BROOK LAKE, SD...................             303              303
COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD...........             223              223
FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS CASE,             7,328            7,328
 SD...................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SD.....              49               49
LAKE TRAVERSE, SD & MN................             403              403
OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD & ND..........           8,977            9,277
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, SD...              52               52

               TENNESSEE

CENTER HILL LAKE, TN..................           7,021            7,021
CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN.............           6,829            6,829
CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TENNESSEE RIVER, TN.           1,200            1,200
CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN....           6,386            6,386
DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN..................           6,262            6,262
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN.....              85               85
J. PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN.           4,602            4,602
OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN..........           9,845            9,845
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TN.........               9                9
TENNESSEE RIVER, TN...................          20,219           20,219
WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN.................             107              107

                 TEXAS

AQUILLA LAKE, TX......................           1,354            1,354
ARKANSAS--RED RIVER BASINS CHLORIDE              1,415            1,415
 CONTROL--AREA VI.....................
BARBOUR TERMINAL CHANNEL, TX..........           1,417            1,417
BARDWELL LAKE, TX.....................           2,162            2,162
BAYPORT SHIP CHANNEL, TX..............           3,122            3,122
BELTON LAKE, TX.......................           3,567            3,567
BENBROOK LAKE, TX.....................           2,302            2,302
BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TX..............           3,259            3,259
BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX.....           1,723            1,723
CANYON LAKE, TX.......................           3,686            3,686
CHANNEL TO PORT BOLIVAR, TX...........             348              348
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX.......           3,398            3,398
DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX..........           6,393            6,393
ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL                      38               38
 PROJECT, TX..........................
FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O' THE                 4,179            4,179
 PINES, TX............................
FREEPORT HARBOR, TX...................           7,020            7,020
GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX......           6,022            6,022
GIWW, CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX.........           2,706            2,706
GIWW, CHOCOLATE BAYOU, TX.............           2,926            2,926
GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX..............           2,225            2,225
GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX....................           2,900            2,900
GREENS BAYOU, TX......................             850              850
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX........          31,874           31,874
HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX..................           1,479            1,479
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX..............          15,354           14,854
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX.....           1,936            1,936
JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX..................           2,001            2,001
JOE POOL LAKE, TX.....................           1,771            1,771
LAKE KEMP, TX.........................             214              214
LAVON LAKE, TX........................           3,065            3,065
LEWISVILLE DAM, TX....................           4,110            4,110
MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX............           6,173            6,173
NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX................           3,542            3,542
NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE                   2,066            2,066
 GEORGETOWN, TX.......................
O.C. FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX..........             907              907
PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX....................           1,005            1,005
PROCTOR LAKE, TX......................           2,155            2,155
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TX.........             304              304
RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX..................           1,456            1,456
SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX............           8,822            8,822
SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX.....           5,820            5,820
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, TX...             101              101
SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX...................           3,157            3,157
STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX.............           2,210            2,210
TEXAS CITY SHIP CHANNEL, TX...........           1,482            1,482
TEXAS WATER ALLOCATION ASSESSMENT, TX.             100            1,000
TOWN BLUFF DAM, B A STEINHAGEN LAKE,             2,735            2,735
 TX...................................
WACO LAKE, TX.........................           3,090            3,090
WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX..................           1,747            1,747
WHITNEY LAKE, TX......................           8,559            8,559
WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX........           4,532            4,532

                 UTAH

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT.....              75               75
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, UT...             598              598

                VERMONT

BALL MOUNTAIN LAKE, VT................             719              719
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VT.....              70               70
NARROWS OF LAKE CHAMPLAIN, VT & NY....              80               80
NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT...............             635              635
NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT............             747              747
TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT....................             681              681
UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT.................             578              578

               VIRGINIA

APPOMATTOX RIVER, VA..................  ...............             500
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--ACC,             1,823            1,823
 VA...................................
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--DSC,               967              967
 VA...................................
CHINCOTEAGUE HARBOR OF REFUGE, VA.....             266              266
CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA................             207              207
GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA.....           2,022            2,022
HAMPTON RDS, NORFOLK & NEWPORT NEWS              1,108            1,108
 HBR, VA (DRIFT REM...................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA.....             226              226
JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA...............           3,667            3,667
JOHN H KERR LAKE, VA & NC.............          11,571           11,571
JOHN W FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA           1,938            1,938
LYNNHAVEN INLET, VA...................           1,058            1,058
NORFOLK HARBOR, VA....................          10,072           10,072
NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA....             656              656
PHILPOTT LAKE, VA.....................           6,961            6,961
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA.........             870              870
RUDEE INLET, VA.......................             370              370
WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, VA.              54               54
WATERWAY ON THE COAST OF VIRGINIA, VA.             260              260
YORK RIVER, VA........................             250              250

              WASHINGTON

CHIEF JOSEPH DAM GAS ABATEMENT, WA\1\.           6,500   ...............
CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA..................             785              785
COLUMBIA RIVER AT BAKER BAY, WA & OR..               3              500
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN CHINOOK AND                   6              500
 SAND ISLAND, WA......................
COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR          95,700   ...............
 & ID\1\..............................
EDIZ HOOK, WA.........................              63               63
EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WA           1,293            1,293
GRAYS HARBOR AND CHEHALIS RIVER, WA...           9,180            9,180
HOWARD HANSON DAM ECOSYSTEM                     15,000   ...............
 RESTORATION, WA\1\...................
HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA.................           2,627            2,627
ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA...........           4,982            4,982
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL               70               70
 PROJECTS, WA.........................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA.....             623              623
LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA........           7,554            7,554
LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, WA.........           2,360            2,360
LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, WA........           6,874            6,874
LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA.....           7,787            4,664
LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE              1,500   ...............
 COMPENSATION,\1\.....................
MILL CREEK LAKE, WA...................           2,437            2,437
MOUNT ST. HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA.             257              257
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA..................           3,271            3,271
NEAH BAY, WA..........................             308              308
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA.........             338              338
PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, WA..             997              997
QUILLAYUTE RIVER, WA..................           1,572            1,572
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WA...             506              506
SEATTLE HARBOR, WA....................             913              913
STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA...............             248              248
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                   53               53
 WATERS, WA...........................
SWINOMISH CHANNEL, WA.................  ...............             400
TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA............             120              120
THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM, WA & OR......           7,696            7,696
WILLAPA RIVER AND HARBOR, WA..........              34               34

             WEST VIRGINIA

BEECH FORK LAKE, WV...................           1,473            2,500
BLUESTONE LAKE, WV....................           1,508            1,508
BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV...................           1,973            1,973
EAST LYNN LAKE, WV....................           2,044            2,044
ELKINS, WV............................              14               14
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV.....             255              255
KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV......           9,380            9,380
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY & OH          30,292           30,292
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, WV, KY &           2,700            2,700
 OH...................................
R D BAILEY LAKE, WV...................           2,836            2,836
STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV............           1,039            1,039
SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV.................           2,044            2,044
SUTTON LAKE, WV.......................           2,210            2,210
TYGART LAKE, WV.......................           1,521            1,521

               WISCONSIN

EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI..............             611              611
FOX RIVER, WI.........................           1,775            3,775
GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI\1\...............           4,344            5,394
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WI.....             125              125
MILWAUKEE HARBOR, WI..................             650              650
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WI.........             160              160
STURGEON BAY HARBOR AND LAKE MICHIGAN               16               16
 SHIP CANAL, WI.......................
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                  498              498
 WATERS, WI...........................
TWO RIVER HARBOR, WI..................  ...............             400

                WYOMING

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WY.....              34               34
JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY...............             326              326
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WY...              87               87

TOTALLING ADJUSTMENTS.................             -20   ...............
                                       ---------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, PROJECTS LISTED UNDER        2,348,593        2,161,160
       STATES.........................

            REMAINING ITEMS

AQUATIC NUISANCE CONTROL RESEARCH.....             690              690
ASSET MANAGEMENT/FACILITIES AND                  4,750            4,750
 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE................
BUDGET/MANAGEMENT SUPPORT FOR O&M;                5,865            5,865
 BUSINESS LINES.......................
ACTIONS FOR CHANGE TO IMPROVE                    7,737            4,000
 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE............
COASTAL INLET RESEARCH PROGRAM........           2,475            2,475
CONTINUING AUTHORITY PROJECTS NOT                2,278   ...............
 REQUIRING SPECIFIC LEGISLATION
 BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL
 (SECTION 204/207/933)................
    NATIONAL MITIGATION PROJECTS                 5,325   ...............
     (SECTION 111)....................
CULTURAL RESOURCES (NAGPRA/CURATION)..           1,500            1,500
DREDGE WHEELER READY RESERVE..........          12,000           12,000
DREDGING DATA AND LOCK PERFORMANCE               1,062            1,062
 MONITORING SYSTEM....................
DREDGING OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL            6,080            6,080
 RESTORATION (DOE.....................
DREDGING OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT            1,391            1,391
 PROGRAM (DOTS).......................
EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM..             270              270
FACILITY PROTECTION...................          12,000           12,000
GREAT LAKES SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MODEL..             900              900
INDEPENDENT (PART) ASSESSMENT OF                   500              500
 ENVIRONMENT--STEWARDSHIP.............
INLAND WATERWAY NAVIGATION CHARTS.....           3,708            3,708
INLAND NAVIGATION SAFETY INITIATIVE...           3,000            3,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS.........           1,780            1,780
MONITORING OF COASTAL NAVIGATION                 1,575            1,575
 PROJECTS.............................
NATIONAL COASTAL MAPPING PROGRAM......           7,000           13,900
NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM...........          15,000           15,000
NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS (NEPP)           6,000            6,000
NATIONAL (LEVEE) FLOOD INVENTORY......          10,000           10,000
NATIONAL NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT            3,326            3,326
 ACTIVITIES...........................
NATIONAL PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT FOR                  300              300
 REALLOCATION.........................
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT TECHNICAL SUPPORT              300              300
 (ABS-P2, WINABS).....................
PROTECTION OF NAVIGATION:
    REMOVAL OF SUNKEN VESSELS.........             500              500
    PROTECT, CLEAR AND STRAIGHTEN                   50               50
     CHANNELS (SEC 3).................
    WATERBORNE COMMERCE STATISTICS....           4,271            4,271
    HARBOR MAINTENANCE FEE DATA                    725              725
     COLLECTION.......................
RECREATION ONE STOP (R1S) NATIONAL               1,130            1,130
 RECREATION RESERVAT..................
REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT                     1,391            4,500
 DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM................
    Southeast Oahu Regional Sediment    ...............            (500)
     Management, HI...................
    North Carolina RSM, NC............  ...............            (600)
    Delaware Estuary RSM, NJ..........  ...............            (300)
    South Jetty and Clatsop Spit, OR..  ...............            (500)
    South Coastal Rhode Island          ...............            (750)
     Regional Sediment Management.....
    Long Island Coastal Planning, NY..  ...............            (500)
RELIABILITY MODELS PROGRAM FOR MAJOR               608              608
 REHAB................................
WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT                 653              653
 (WOTS)...............................
                                       ---------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL FOR ITEMS NOT LISTED            126,140          124,809
       UNDER STATES...................
TOTALLING ADJUSTMENTS.................             267   ...............
ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE......  ...............         -65,969
                                       ---------------------------------
      TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE       2,475,000        2,220,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ITEMS FUNDED IN CONSTRUCTION.

    Lowell Creek Tunnel, Alaska.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $500,000 for studies to divert tunnel flood flows away 
from the city of Seward.
    Petersberg Harbor, Alaska.--$500,000 is recommended to 
obtain environmental clearances in advance of a planned 
dredging of the harbor in 2010.
    Helena Harbor, Arkansas.--The Committee recommends $400,000 
for maintenance dredging of this harbor.
    Osceola Harbor, Arkansas.--The Committee recommends 
$500,000 for maintenance dredging of this harbor.
    Dana Point Harbor, California.--The Committee has 
recommended $700,000 for surveys and dredging.
    Noyo Harbor, California.--$750,000 is recommended for 
dredging.
    Cherry Creek, Chatfield, and Trinidad Lakes, Colorado.--The 
Committee has recommended an additional $1,000,000 for 
continued repairs at these three lakes. This action in no way 
is intended to alter the Corps of Engineers' lease and property 
accountability policies. It is the Committee's understanding 
that the State of Colorado has agreed to cost share this 
project on a 50-50 basis. It is also the understanding of the 
Committee that the Secretary is not to assume, nor share in the 
future of the operation and maintenance of these recreation 
facilities.
    Harbor of Refuge, Lewes, Delaware.--The Committee 
recommends $500,000 to perform a stability analysis, as well 
as, surveys and design work on the historic breakwater in this 
harbor.
    Small Harbors, Delaware.--The Committee recommendation 
includes funds to dredge a number of small harbors in Delaware. 
With the limited funding available to the Committee, the 
Committee has attempted to provide for some of the dredging 
needs of the State. However, recognizing that conditions on 
these small harbors is constantly changing the Committee is 
directing the Corps to propose a dredging program for fiscal 
year 2009 that would most effectively utilize the scarce funds 
available for these harbor projects.
    Wilmington Harbor, Delaware.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $3,750,000 for this project. Additional funds 
recommended above the budget request are for maintenance of 
disposal areas and additional dredging.
    Intracoastal Waterway, Caloosahatchee to Anclote, 
Florida.--The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for maintenance 
dredging.
    Intracoastal Waterway, Jacksonville to Miami, Florida.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $2,500,000 for maintenance 
dredging.
    Miami River, Florida.--The Committee recommends $10,820,000 
for completion of the dredging of the Miami River Channel. This 
project provides the first maintenance dredging of the Miami 
River since its original authorization in 1930.
    Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Georgia.--$1,000,000 is 
recommended for dredging critical areas of this waterway as 
well as for work related to new upland disposal sites.
    Savannah Harbor, Georgia.--The Committee recommendation for 
Savannah Harbor includes the funds recommended for O&M; in this 
account and $5,275,000 in the Dredged Material Disposal 
Facilities program in the Construction, General account. The 
administration proposed these two funding amounts as a single 
line item in O&M.;
    Barbers Point, Hawaii.--The Committee recommends an 
additional $348,000 above the budget request for daily 
operation and maintenance and facility upgrades to public use 
facilities.
    Northwestern Division Projects, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, 
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, and Oregon.--Small changes were 
recommended to the budget request by the Corps. The Senate 
request shown for these projects represents the revised budget 
amount not an increase or decrease taken by the Committee.
    Chicago Harbor, Illinois.--The Committee is aware of the 
City of Chicago's interest in modifying the existing Chicago 
Lakefront Inner Breakwater consistent with the City of 
Chicago's 2016 Olympic Master Plan for Chicago Harbor. The 
Committee encourages the Chicago District of the Army Corps of 
Engineers to work with the City of Chicago on preliminary 
design concepts, cost estimates and other aspects of the 
project to determine what environmental, recreational and 
economic development benefits might be achieved by the City's 
proposal.
    Green and Barren Rivers, Kentucky.--The Committee 
recommends an additional $1,000,000 for the Green River Lock 
and Dam number 3 (Rochester Lock) detailed engineering analysis 
for stabilizing the existing lock structure and further the 
evaluation of the stability of the dam structure.
    Barren River Lake, Kentucky.--The Committee recommends an 
additional $2,000,000 for the Port Oliver Public Use Facility.
    Small Waterway Dredging on the Louisiana Coast, 
Louisiana.--The Committee has included additional funds for a 
number of the smaller waterways on the Louisiana gulf coast 
that were not funded in the administration's budget request. 
With the limited funding available to the Committee, the 
Committee has attempted to provide for some of the dredging 
needs of the State. However, recognizing that conditions on 
these small waterways is constantly changing the Committee is 
directing the Corps to propose a dredging program for fiscal 
year 2009 that would most effectively utilize the scarce funds 
available for these harbor projects.
    Small Harbors, Maryland.--The Committee recommendation 
includes funds to dredge a number of small harbors used by 
waterman on the Chesapeake Bay. With the limited funding 
available to the Committee, the Committee has attempted to 
provide for some of the dredging needs of the State. However, 
recognizing that conditions on these small waterways is 
constantly changing the Committee is directing the Corps to 
propose a dredging program for fiscal year 2009 that would most 
effectively utilize the scarce funds available for these harbor 
projects
    New Bedford, Fairhaven, and Acushnet, Massachusetts.--The 
Committee has recommended an additional $100,000 to evaluate 
improvements to the barrier in cooperation with the city to 
improve pedestrian access to the waterfront.
    Michigan Harbor Dredging, Michigan.--The Committee notes 
that there are some 50 federally maintained harbors and 
waterways in Michigan. However, the Committee also notes that 
fewer than 20 are budgeted. With the limited funding available 
to the Committee, the Committee has recommended $5,000,000 
under this line item to provide for some of the dredging needs 
of the State rather than trying to fund small amounts for each 
project. The Committee has listed all of the harbors and 
waterways in the table that are eligible for this funding. 
However, recognizing that conditions on these small waterways 
is constantly changing and the Great Lakes are suffering from 
near historic low water levels, the Committee is directing the 
Corps to propose a dredging program for fiscal year 2009 that 
would most effectively utilize the scarce funds available for 
these harbor and waterway projects.
    Rouge River, Michigan.--The Committee recommendation for 
Rouge River includes the funds recommended for O&M; in this 
account and $160,000 in the Dredged Material Disposal 
Facilities program in the Construction, General account. The 
administration proposed these two funding amounts as a single 
line item in O&M.;
    Mouth of the Yazoo River, Mississippi.---The Committee 
includes additional funds for the maintenance dredging of the 
entrance to the Vicksburg Harbor.
    Pascagoula Harbor, Mississippi.--The Committee has 
recommended $7,500,000 for this project. Additional funds above 
the budget request are to perform maintenance dredging of the 
Bar Channel, the Pascagoula River, and Bayou Casotte channels.
    Rosedale Harbor, Mississippi.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $500,000 for maintenance dredging of the harbor.
    Absecon Inlet, New Jersey.--The Committee recommends 
$250,000 for dredging of the inlet.
    Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program, 
New Mexico.--The Committee has included $200,000 for the Corps 
to participate with the Bureau of Reclamation, the State and 
other agencies in the Rio Grande Collaborative Program.
    Rio Grande Bosque Rehabilitation, New Mexico.--The 
Committee includes $4,000,000 to continue fire reduction work 
and general Bosque rehabilitation in order to complete repairs 
and fire protection resulting from 2003 and 2004 fires in the 
urban interface.
    Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, North Carolina.--The 
Committee recommends $2,000,000 for dredging of the project.
    Coastal Inlets, North Carolina.--The Committee has included 
additional funds for the coastal inlets on the North Carolina 
coast that were not funded in the administration's budget 
request. With the limited funding available to the Committee, 
the Committee has attempted to provide for some of the dredging 
needs of the State. However, recognizing that conditions on 
these inlets are constantly changing the Committee is directing 
the Corps to propose a dredging program for fiscal year 2009 
that would most effectively utilize the scarce funds available 
for these inlets.
    Garrison Dam and Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota.--The 
Committee recommends $1,700,000 for the Williston Pumping Plant 
feature of the project; $100,000 for mosquito control; and 
$500,000 for the Corps to work in cooperation with the Friends 
of Lake Sakakawea to ensure the recreation sites around the 
lake can be utilized.
    Homme Lake, North Dakota.--Additional funds are recommended 
for dam safety activities and non-routine maintenance 
activities.
    Lake Ashtabula and Baldhill Dam, North Dakota.--Additional 
funds are recommended to ensure basic levels of service, and 
for non-routine maintenance and dam safety activities.
    Oregon Coastal Ports, Oregon.--The Committee has included 
additional funds for a number of the coastal harbors on the 
Oregon coast that were either not funded or underfunded in the 
administration's budget request. With the limited funding 
available to the Committee, the Committee has attempted to 
provide for some of the dredging needs of the State. However, 
recognizing that conditions on these inlets are constantly 
changing the Committee is directing the Corps to propose a 
dredging program for fiscal year 2009 that would most 
effectively utilize the scarce funds available for these 
harbors.
    Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux, South 
Dakota.--The Committee notes that title VI of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1999, as amended, requires that 
funding to inventory and stabilize cultural and historic sites 
along the Missouri River in South Dakota, and to carry out the 
terrestrial wildlife habitat programs, shall be provided from 
the Operation and Maintenance account. The Committee provides 
$3,000,000 to protect cultural resource sites and provide 
funding to the State and tribes for approved restoration and 
stewardship plans and in compliance with the requirements of 
title VI, directs the Corps to contract with or reimburse the 
State of South Dakota and affected tribes to carry out these 
duties.
    Rhode Island Harbors, Rhode Island.--The Committee has 
included additional funds for a number of the harbors in Rhode 
Island that were either not funded or underfunded in the 
administration's budget request. With the limited funding 
available to the Committee, the Committee has attempted to 
provide for some of the dredging needs of the State. However, 
recognizing that conditions on these inlets are constantly 
changing the Committee is directing the Corps to propose a 
dredging program for fiscal year 2009 that would most 
effectively utilize the scarce funds available for these 
harbors.
    Fox Point Hurricane Barrier, Rhode Island.--$500,000 is 
recommended for the transfer of the project and routine O&M; of 
the project.
    Woonsocket, Rhode Island.--$300,000 is recommended for the 
transfer of the project and routine O&M; of the project.
    Cooper River, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.--The 
Committee recommendation for Charleston Harbor includes the 
funds recommended for O&M; in this account and $2,580,000 in the 
Dredged Material Disposal Facilities program in the 
Construction, General account. The administration proposed 
these two funding amounts as a single line item in O&M.;
    Oahe Dam, Lake Oahe, South Dakota, and North Dakota.--The 
Committee has recommended $300,000 to allow the Corps to modify 
public facilities so that they can be utilized with the extreme 
low water levels currently being experienced on the lake.
    Houston Ship Channel, Texas.--The Committee recommendation 
for the Houston Ship Channel includes the funds recommended for 
O&M; in this account and $500,000 in the Construction, General 
account for beneficial use of dredged material. The 
administration proposed these two funding amounts as a single 
line item in O&M.;
    Texas Water Allocation Study, Texas.--The Committee 
recommends $1,000,000 for this ongoing study.
    Chinook, Head of Sand Island, and Baker Bay, Washington.--
The Committee notes the proximity of Corps navigation 
facilities on the Columbia River between Chinook and the Head 
of Sand Island, Washington, and at Baker Bay, Washington, and 
encourage the Corps of Engineers to seek ways to achieve cost 
savings and efficiency, such as by utilizing appropriate 
contracting methods while having these two projects be 
considered together when seeking bids and awarding contracts.
    Mud Mountain Dam, Washington.--Within the funds 
recommended, the Corps is directed to continue to satisfy 
Federal fish passage obligations for the term of the 
cooperative agreement with Puget Sound Energy.
    Beech Fork Lake, West Virginia.--Additional funds 
recommended above the budget request are for repairs of public 
use facilities.
    Fox River, Wisconsin.--Additional funds recommended above 
the budget request are to reimburse Wisconsin, in accordance 
with the agreement, for the costs of repairs and rehabilitation 
of the transferred locks and for the Corps of Engineers to 
undertake major repairs for the dams and associated 
infrastructure.
    Green Bay Harbor, Wisconsin.--The Committee recommendation 
for Green Bay Harbor includes the funds recommended for O&M; in 
this account and $950,000 in the Dredged Material Disposal 
Facilities program in the Construction, General account. The 
administration proposed these two funding amounts as a single 
line item in O&M.; The Committee has also recommended an 
additional $1,050,000 for backlog maintenance dredging.
    Actions for Change to Improve Operation and Maintenance.--
The Committee has recommended $4,000,000 for this item. The 
Committee believes that these funds can serve to make 
significant improvements to the way the Corps administers 
completed projects to account for changed conditions since 
construction.
    National Coastal Mapping.--$13,900,000 is recommended for 
this program. Additional funds recommended above the budget 
request are for LIDAR bathymetry for use in regional sediment 
management and for Coastal Zone Mapping and Imaging LIDAR/LASER 
to be conducted with the University of Southern Mississippi.
    Regional Sediment Management Demonstration Program.--The 
Committee has recommended $4,500,000 for this program, 
$3,000,000 above the budget request. Within the funds 
recommended, the Corps is directed to undertake studies for the 
Southeast Coast of Oahu, Hawaii; the State of North Carolina; 
South Coastal Rhode Island; Delaware Estuary, New Jersey; and 
for Long Island, New York coastal planning.

                 FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

Appropriations, 2008....................................................
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     $40,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      40,000,000

    The Committee has recommended $40,000,000 for the FCCE 
account. This account provides funds for preparedness 
activities for natural and other disasters, response, and 
emergency flood fighting and rescue operations, hurricane 
response, and emergency shore protection work. It also provides 
for emergency supplies of clean water where the source has been 
contaminated or where adequate supplies of water are needed for 
consumption.

                           REGULATORY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $180,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     180,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     183,000,000

    An appropriation of $183,000,000 is recommended for the 
regulatory program of the Corps of Engineers.
    This appropriation provides for salaries and costs incurred 
administering regulation of activities affecting U.S. waters, 
including wetlands, in accordance with the Rivers and Harbors 
Act of 1899 33 U.S.C. section 401, the Clean Water Act of 1977 
Public Law 95-217, and the Marine Protection, Research and 
Sanctuaries Act of 1972 Public Law 92-532.
    The appropriation helps maintain program performance, 
protects important aquatic resources, and supports partnerships 
with States and local communities through watershed planning 
efforts.
    The Committee is aware that the Corps of Engineers has 
begun a pilot program aimed at streamlining decisions for 
certain complex, high impact permit applications which have 
national or large regional implications. Specifically, we 
understand this program is focusing on projects related to rail 
capacity expansion, highway construction and pipelines where 
knowledge and experience gained in one district can be shared 
with other districts facing similar challenges, thus promoting 
efficiencies, the development and sharing of ``best 
practices,'' and use of virtual or dedicated teams to expedite 
broad-impact permit applications. Since the Committee continues 
to be concerned about the permit application backlog and delays 
in making permit decisions, it fully supports this effort and 
encourages the Corps to dedicate even more attention and expand 
its efforts to an even greater extent in developing and using 
this pilot program to minimize negative impacts of the backlog 
and resulting delays, especially where there are significant 
impacts to the nation's economy and environmental health. The 
Committee further supports the three emphasis areas selected 
for the pilot program as it believes them to be critical 
elements of a healthy, expanding economy which must be 
vigorously developed, but in an environmentally sound manner.
    The Committee is keenly aware that U.S. economic health and 
national security depends on the continued availability of 
reliable and affordable energy. The Committee is also aware 
that the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Regulatory Branch 
plays a key role by authorizing much of the 1.13 billion tons 
of coal production expected this year through its regulatory 
program.
    Therefore, the Committee directs the Corps to work with the 
Office of Surface Mining [OSM] to develop a more efficient 
process for issuing permits associated with surface coal mining 
operations. To avoid unnecessary time delays and duplication of 
agency resources, the Corps shall maintain the availability of 
a meaningful general permit for surface coal mining that may be 
issued in coordination with and for the term of the permit 
already required pursuant to the Surface Mining Control and 
Reclamation Act [SMCRA]. The Corps should also dedicate 
sufficient personnel and financial resources to support a 
consistent program for permit review and issuance.
    The Committee has included legislative text directing the 
Corps to reimburse the Port of Arlington, Oregon, up to 
$3,200,000 of the funds recommended for direct construction 
costs determined by the secretary to have been incurred by the 
port as a result of the issuance of a permit to construct a 
commercial dock and offload facility. Due to not scrupulously 
following established permit procedures the Corps was forced to 
withdraw the permit after the port had invested some 
$2,500,000. The port is now required to deconstruct these 
facilities. Reimbursement for the costs for removal of these 
facilities shall also be provided within this amount.

            FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $140,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     130,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     140,000,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $140,000,000 
to continue activities related to the Formerly Utilized Sites 
Remedial Action Program [FUSRAP] in fiscal year 2005.
    The responsibility for the cleanup of contaminated sites 
under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program was 
transferred to the Army Corps of Engineers in the fiscal year 
1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, Public 
Law 105-62.
    FUSRAP is not specifically defined by statute. The program 
was established in 1974 under the broad authority of the Atomic 
Energy Act and, until fiscal year 1998, funds for the cleanup 
of contaminated defense sites had been appropriated to the 
Department of Energy through existing appropriation accounts. 
In appropriating FUSRAP funds to the Corps of Engineers, the 
Committee intended to transfer only the responsibility for 
administration and execution of cleanup activities at eligible 
sites where remediation had not been completed. It did not 
intend to transfer ownership of and accountability for real 
property interests that remain with the Department of Energy.
    The Corps of Engineers has extensive experience in the 
cleanup of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive wastes through its 
work for the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies. 
The Committee always intended for the Corps' expertise be used 
in the same manner for the cleanup of contaminated sites under 
FUSRAP. The Committee expects the Corps to continue programming 
and budgeting for FUSRAP as part of the Corps of Engineers--
Civil program. The Committee directs the Corps to prioritize 
sites that are nearing completion during fiscal year 2008.
    The Corps is directed to prioritize sites that are nearing 
completion and initiate cleanup expeditiously for the former 
Sylvania nuclear fuel site in Hicksville, New York.

                            GENERAL EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $175,046,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     177,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     177,000,000

    This appropriation finances the expenses of the Office, 
Chief of Engineers, the Division Offices, and certain research 
and statistical functions of the Corps of Engineers. The 
Committee recommendation is $177,000,000.
    Executive Direction and Management.--The Office of the 
Chief of Engineers and 8 division offices supervise work in 38 
district offices.
    Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity.--This support 
center provides administrative services (such as personnel, 
logistics, information management, and finance and accounting) 
for the Office of the Chief of Engineers and other separate 
field operating activities.
    Institute for Water Resources.--This institute performs 
studies, analyses, and develops planning techniques for the 
management and development of the Nation's water resources.
    United States Army Corps of Engineers Finance Center.--This 
center provides centralized support for all Corps finance and 
accounting.
    Office of Congressional Affairs.--The Committee has 
included statutory language for the past several years 
prohibiting any funds from being used to fund an Office of 
Congressional Affairs within the executive office of the Chief 
of Engineers. The Committee believes that an Office of 
Congressional Affairs for the Civil Works Program would hamper 
the efficient and effective coordination of issues with the 
Committee staff and Members of Congress. The Committee believes 
that the technical knowledge and managerial expertise needed 
for the Corps headquarters to effectively address Civil Works 
authorization, appropriation, and headquarters policy matters 
resides in the Civil Works organization. Therefore, the 
Committee strongly recommends that the Office of Congressional 
Affairs not be a part of the process by which information on 
Civil Works projects, programs, and activities is provided to 
Congress.
    The Committee reminds the Corps that the General Expenses 
account is to be used exclusively for executive oversight and 
management of the Civil Works Program.
    In 1998, The Chief of Engineers issued a Command Directive 
transferring the oversight and management of the General 
Expenses account, as well as the manpower associated with this 
function, from the Civil Works Directorate to the Resource 
Management Office. The Corps is reminded that General Expense 
funds are appropriated solely for the executive management and 
oversight of the Civil Works Program under the direction of the 
Director of Civil Works.
    The Committee is pleased with the efforts of the Corps to 
restructure the management of general expense funds. It 
continues to believe that the general expense dollars are 
ultimately at the discretion of the Chief of Engineers and are 
intended to be utilized in his effort to carry out the Corps' 
civil works mission. The new controls put in place to manage 
the general expense dollars and evaluate the needs of the Corps 
address the Committee's previous concerns. The Committee 
requests the Corps continue to provide biannual written 
notification of the dispersal of general expense funds.
    Millions of dollars have been spent over the last several 
years on an initiative to contract out Government jobs in order 
to make the Government more efficient. However, in more than 70 
percent of the cases Government employees win the competition 
for their jobs. The Committee fails to see any evidence of cost 
savings or increased efficiency by undergoing these expensive 
competitions. Therefore, the Committee directs that no funds 
provided in this account or otherwise available for expenditure 
shall be used to comply with the competitive sourcing 
initiative.

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

Appropriations, 2008....................................      $4,500,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................       6,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       4,500,000

    The Committee has recommended $4,500,000 for the Office of 
the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) [OASA(CW)]. 
As has been previously stated, the Committee believes that this 
office should be funded through the Defense appropriations bill 
and directs the administration to budget for this office under 
the Department of Defense, Operation and Maintenance--Army 
account in future budget submissions. The Committee continues 
to believe that the ASA(CW) has neither the time nor should he 
be involved in the day-to-day operational matters of the civil 
works program. It is the Committee's opinion that the 
traditional role of the ASA(CW) is to provide the Chief of 
Engineers advice about policy matters and generally be the 
political spokesperson for the administration's policies; 
however, the Chief of Engineers is responsible for carrying out 
the program. This is underscored by the administration's budget 
documents that state that the OASA(CW) provides policy 
direction and oversight for the civil works program and the 
Headquarters of the Corps provides executive direction and 
management of the civil works program.
    The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works advises 
the Secretary of the Army on a variety of matters, including 
the Civil Works program of the Corps of Engineers. The 
Assistant Secretary is a member of the Army Secretariat with 
responsibilities, such as participating in Continuity of 
Government exercises that extend well beyond Civil Works. The 
Assistant Secretary also oversees the administration, operation 
and maintenance, and capital development of Arlington National 
Cemetery and the Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery. 
Congressional oversight of the Army Cemetery program lies not 
with the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, but 
rather with the Appropriations Subcommittee on Military 
Construction and Veterans Affairs and with the Committee on 
Veterans Affairs.
    The Army's accounting system does not track OMA funding of 
overhead or Army-wide support offices on the basis of which 
office receives support, nor would it be efficient or effective 
to do so for a 20-person office. Instead, expenses such as 
legal support, personnel services, finance and accounting 
services, the executive motor pool, travel on military 
aircraft, and other support services are centrally funded and 
managed on a department-wide basis. Transferring the funding 
for the expenses of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works to 
a separate account has greatly complicated the Army's 
accounting for such indirect and overhead expenses with no 
commensurate benefit to justify the change. The Committee does 
not agree that these costs should be funded in this bill and 
therefore has only provided funding for salaries and expenses 
as in previous years.

             GENERAL PROVISIONS--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL

    Section 101. The bill includes language concerning 
reprogramming guidelines.
    Section 102. The bill includes language prohibiting 
implementation of competitive sourcing or HPO.
    Section 103. The bill includes language prohibiting the 
divesting or transferring Civil Works functions.
    Section 104. The bill includes language concerning report 
notifications.
    Section 105. The bill includes language concerning 
reallocations in Lake Cumberland, Kentucky.
    Section 106. The bill includes language regarding the 
Middle Rio Grande Collaborative Program, New Mexico.
    Section 107. The bill includes language regarding 
congressional budget justifications.
    Section 108. The bill includes language authorizing a study 
of the Missouri River.
    Section 109. The bill includes language increasing the cost 
ceiling for the Folsom, California, Bridge.
    Section 110. The bill includes language regarding crediting 
of non-Federal expenditures on the San Lorenzo River, 
California project.
    Section 111. The bill includes language concerning the 
Missouri River Levee System.
    Section 112. The bill includes language concerning Corps of 
Engineers Senior Executive Service positions.
    Section 113. The bill includes language regarding a 
replacement health care facility at Lake Sakakawea, North 
Dakota.
    Section 114. The bill includes language concerning 
continuing contracts and the Inland Waterway Trust Fund.
    Section 115. The bill includes language increasing the cost 
ceiling on the LMRMRIS.
    Section 116. The bill includes language modifying the 
Middle Rio Grande Bosque project.
    Section 117. The bill includes language modifying the San 
Antonio, Texas, project.
    Section 118. The bill includes language concerning the 
Morganza to the Gulf, Louisiana project.
    Section 119. The bill includes language concerning 
Chatfield Lake, Colorado.
    Section 120. The bill includes language increasing the cost 
ceiling for the Big Sioux River, South Dakota project.

                                TITLE II

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                Central Utah Project Completion Account

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $43,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      42,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      42,000,000

    The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2009 to carry 
out the provisions of the Central Utah Project Completion Act 
totals $42,000,000. An appropriation of $39,373,000 has been 
provided for Central Utah project construction; $987,000 for 
fish, wildlife, and recreation, mitigation and conservation. 
The Committee recommendation provides $1,640,000 for program 
administration and oversight.
    Legislative language is included which allows up to 
$1,500,000 of the funds provided to be used for administrative 
costs.
    The Central Utah Project Completion Act (titles II-VI of 
Public Law 102-575) provides for the completion of the central 
Utah project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. 
The Act also authorizes the appropriation of funds for fish, 
wildlife, recreation, mitigation, and conservation; establishes 
an account in the Treasury for the deposit of these funds and 
of other contributions for mitigation and conservation 
activities; and establishes a Utah Reclamation Mitigation and 
Conservation Commission to administer funds in that account. 
The act further assigns responsibilities for carrying out the 
act to the Secretary of the Interior and prohibits delegation 
of those responsibilities to the Bureau of Reclamation.

                         Bureau of Reclamation


                      WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $949,882,000
Budget estimate, 2009\1\................................     779,320,000
Committee recommendation................................     927,320,000

\1\Includes rescission of $175,000,000.

    An appropriation of $927,320,000 is recommended by the 
Committee for general investigations of the Bureau of 
Reclamation. The water and related resources account supports 
the development, management, and restoration of water and 
related natural resources in the 17 Western States. The account 
includes funds for operating and maintaining existing 
facilities to obtain the greatest overall level of benefits, to 
protect public safety, and to conduct studies on ways to 
improve the use of water and related natural resources. Work 
will be done in partnership and cooperation with non-Federal 
entities and other Federal agencies.
    The Committee has divided underfinancing between the 
Resources Management Subaccount and the Facilities Operation 
and Maintenance subaccount. The Committee directs that the 
underfinancing amount in each subaccount initially be applied 
uniformly across all projects within the subaccounts. Upon 
applying the underfinanced amounts, normal reprogramming 
procedures should be undertaken to account for schedule 
slippages, accelerations or other unforeseen conditions.

                         DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS

    The Committee received more than 130 requests for projects, 
programs, studies or activities for the Bureau of Reclamation 
for fiscal year 2009. These were items that were additions to 
the budget request as well as those included in the budget 
request. The Committee obviously was unable to accommodate all 
of these requests.
    In the interest of providing full disclosure of funding 
provided in the Energy and Water bill, all disclosures are made 
in this report accompanying the bill.
    All of the projects funded in this report have gone through 
the same rigorous public review and approval process as those 
proposed for funding by the President. The difference in these 
projects, of course, is that the congressionally directed 
projects are not subject to the artificial budgetary 
prioritization criteria that the administration utilizes to 
decide what not to fund.
    A new table has been added to the end of this report to 
show the requestors of the various projects. For those 
programs, projects, or studies that were included in the 
budgetary documents provided in the budget request, the words 
``the President'' has been added to denote this administration 
request. The level of funding provided for each of these 
programs projects or studies should not be construed as what 
was requested. Rather, the only intent is to disclose the 
requestor.
    It should be noted that many line items only have the 
President listed as the requestor. It should not be inferred 
that the affected members are not interested in these projects 
studies or activities. Rather this is due to Committee 
direction that the President's budget requests are the basis 
for the Committee bill and a requests by the affected Members 
is unnecessary unless a Member wishes to request a different 
amount than the budget request.
    The purposes for the funding provided in the various 
accounts is described in the paragraphs associated with each 
account. The location of the programs, projects or studies are 
denoted in the account tables.
    The amounts recommended by the Committee are shown on the 
following table along with the budget request.

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

                            ARIZONA

AK CHIN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT....................  ...........       9,900  ..........       9,900
ARIZONA WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT............................  ...........  ..........       1,000  ..........
COLORADO RIVER BASIN, CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT..................      26,528          322      28,028         322
COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE SYSTEM.....................       2,350   ..........       2,350  ..........
NORTHERN ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM........................         320   ..........         320  ..........
PHOENIX METROPOLITAN WATER REUSE PROJECT.......................         200   ..........         200  ..........
SALT RIVER PROJECT.............................................         469          131         469         131
SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE WATER SETTLEMENT ACT...................         325   ..........         325  ..........
SOUTH/CENTRAL ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...................         718   ..........         718  ..........
SOUTHERN ARIZONA WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT...........       2,969   ..........       2,969  ..........
YUMA AREA PROJECTS.............................................       1,658       20,205       1,658      20,205
YUMA EAST WETLANDS.............................................  ...........  ..........       1,500  ..........

                           CALIFORNIA

CACHUMA PROJECT................................................       1,016          702       1,016       1,102
CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM..............................         352   ..........         352  ..........
CALLEGUAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT RECYCLING PLANT.............         800   ..........       1,500  ..........
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECTS:
    AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION....................................       1,708        7,772       1,708       7,772
    AUBURN--FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT..................................       2,088   ..........       2,088  ..........
    DELTA DIVISION.............................................      15,138        5,599      15,138       5,599
    EAST SIDE DIVISION.........................................       1,591        2,943       1,591       2,943
    FRIANT DIVISION............................................       1,988        3,733       3,988       3,733
    MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS.............................      12,006        1,145      16,006       1,145
    REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND EXTRAORDINARY MAINTAINANCE....  ...........      24,091  ..........      24,091
    SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION..................................         931        1,497       7,931       1,497
    SAN FELIPE DIVISION........................................         675          100         675         100
    SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION.......................................         391   ..........         391  ..........
    SHASTA DIVISION............................................         150        7,764         150       7,764
    TRINITY RIVER DIVISION.....................................       7,215        3,102       7,815       3,102
    WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS.................................       1,117        8,334       1,117       8,334
    WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS UNIT...................       3,497        5,422       3,497       5,422
    YIELD FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION............................         303   ..........         303  ..........
INLAND EMPIRE REGIONAL WATER RECYCLING PROJECT.................  ...........  ..........       1,000  ..........
IRVINE BASIN GROUND AND SURFACE WATER..........................  ...........  ..........       1,000  ..........
LAKE TAHOE REGIONAL WETLANDS...................................         100   ..........         100  ..........
LONG BEACH AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROJECT............         692   ..........         692  ..........
LONG BEACH DESALINATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJ..........  ...........  ..........       1,000  ..........
MOKELUMNE RIVER REGIONAL WATER STORAGE & CONJUNCTIVE USE STUDY.  ...........  ..........  ..........  ..........
ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL WATER RECLAMATION PROJECT...............         558   ..........         558  ..........
ORLAND PROJECT.................................................  ...........         703  ..........         703
SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT....................................         700   ..........         700  ..........
SAN DIEGO AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM.............       3,000   ..........       3,000  ..........
SAN GABRIEL BASIN PROJECT......................................         700   ..........         700  ..........
SAN JOSE AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM..............         250   ..........         250  ..........
SOLANO PROJECT.................................................       1,626        2,863       1,626       2,863
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.....................         260   ..........         260  ..........
VENTURA RIVER PROJECT..........................................         389           31         389          31

                            COLORADO

ANIMAS-LA PLATA PROJECT, CRSP..................................      49,743          257      49,743         257
COLLBRAN PROJECT...............................................         166        1,390         166       1,390
COLORADO--BIG THOMPSON PROJECT.................................         450       12,842         450      12,842
COLORADO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM................................         204   ..........         204  ..........
FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT.......................................          75          154          75         154
FRYINGPAN--ARKANSAS PROJECT....................................         172        8,123         172       8,123
GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II............................         164        1,281         164       1,281
LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY..............................          36        3,059          36       3,059
MANCOS PROJECT.................................................          42          104          42         104
PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II..........................          50        2,366          50       2,366
PINE RIVER PROJECT.............................................         184          151         184         151
SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT........................................         292        4,345         292       4,345
UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT............................................         128          136         128         136
UPPER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS................................         250   ..........         250  ..........

                             IDAHO

BOISE AREA PROJECTS............................................       2,769        2,515       2,769       2,515
COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY PROJECT...............      18,000   ..........      18,000  ..........
IDAHO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...................................         179   ..........         179  ..........
LEWISTON ORCHARDS PROJECTS.....................................         548           30         548          30
MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS.........................................       2,768        2,790       2,768       2,790

                             KANSAS

KANSAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM..................................          73   ..........          73  ..........
WICHITA-CHENEY PROJECT.........................................          10          375          10         375
WICHITA PROJECT--EQUUS BEDS DIVISION...........................          50   ..........       1,050  ..........

                            MONTANA

FORT PECK RESERVATION/DRY PRAIRIE RURAL WATER SYSTEM...........  ...........  ..........      15,000  ..........
HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT...........................................  ...........         653  ..........         653
HUNTLEY PROJECT................................................          52          108          52         108
LOWER YELLOWSTONE PROJECT......................................          31           15          31          15
MILK RIVER PROJECT.............................................         308        1,340         308       1,340
MONTANA INVESTIGATIONS.........................................         134   ..........         134  ..........
ROCKY BOYS/NORTH CENTRAL MONTANA REGIONAL WATER................  ...........  ..........      10,000  ..........
SUN RIVER PROJECT..............................................          75          275          75         275

                            NEBRASKA

MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT...........................................          12          158          12         158
NEBRASKA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM................................          64   ..........          64  ..........

                             NEVADA

HALFWAY WASH PROJECT STUDY.....................................         200   ..........         200  ..........
LAHONTAN BASIN PROJECT.........................................       5,021        2,684       7,521       2,684
LAKE MEAD/LAS VEGAS WASH PROGRAM...............................         900   ..........       2,725  ..........
NORTH LAS VEGAS, WATER REUSE...................................  ...........  ..........       3,000  ..........

                           NEW MEXICO

ALBUQUERQUE METRO AREA WATER RECYCLING AND REUSE...............  ...........  ..........       1,000  ..........
CARLSBAD PROJECT...............................................       2,657        1,127       2,657       1,127
EASTERN NEW MEXICO RURAL WATER SUPPLY..........................  ...........  ..........         500  ..........
JICARILLA APACHE RESERVATION RURAL WATER SYSTEM................  ...........  ..........       1,000  ..........
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT......................................      13,047        9,653      16,047       9,653
NAVAJO-GALLUP WATER SUPPLY, NM, UT, CO.........................  ...........  ..........       1,000  ..........
NAVAJO NATION INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...........................          77   ..........          77  ..........
PECOS RIVER BASIN WATER SALVAGE PROJECT........................  ...........         203  ..........         203
RIO GRANDE PROJECT.............................................         590        3,752         590       3,752
SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM....................          59   ..........          59  ..........
SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO/WEST TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM..........          57   ..........          57  ..........
TUCUMCARI PROJECT..............................................          23           35          23          35
UPPER RIO GRANDE BASIN INVESTIGATIONS..........................          29   ..........          29  ..........

                          NORTH DAKOTA

PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN--GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT.............      16,495        5,611      64,375       5,611

                            OKLAHOMA

ARBUCKLE PROJECT...............................................          48          241          48         241
CENTRAL OKLAHOMA MASTER CONSERVATORY DISTRICT FEASIBILITY STUDY  ...........  ..........         250  ..........
MCGEE CREEK PROJECT............................................          25          651          25         651
MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT..........................................  ...........         523  ..........         523
NORMAN PROJECT.................................................          26          447          26         447
OKLAHOMA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM................................         128   ..........         128  ..........
WASHITA BASIN PROJECT..........................................          30        1,396          30       1,396
W.C. AUSTIN PROJECT............................................          65          416          65         416

                             OREGON

BURNT, MALHEUR, OWYHEE, AND POWER RIVER BASIN WATER              ...........  ..........         300  ..........
 OPTIMIZATION FEASIBILITY STUDY................................
CROOKED RIVER PROJECT..........................................         407          444         407         444
DESCHUTUS ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT........................  ...........  ..........         300  ..........
DESCHUTES PROJECT..............................................         238          178         988         178
EASTERN OREGON PROJECTS........................................         542          286         542         286
KLAMATH PROJECT................................................      23,388        1,612      23,388       1,612
OREGON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM..................................         294   ..........         444  ..........
ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT DIVISION.....................         577          325         577         325
SAVAGE RAPIDS DAM REMOVAL......................................       3,000   ..........       3,000  ..........
TUALATIN BASIN WATER SUPPLY PROJECT............................  ...........  ..........         400  ..........
TUALATIN PROJECT TITLE TRANSFER AND FACILITY ASSESSMENT STUDY..  ...........  ..........         106  ..........
TUALATIN PROJECT...............................................         111          270         111         270
UMATILLA PROJECT...............................................         954        2,978         954       2,978

                          SOUTH DAKOTA

LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM.............................  ...........  ..........      30,000  ..........
MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT.................................  ...........          15  ..........          15
MNI WICONI PROJECT.............................................      16,240       10,000      27,000      10,182
PERKINS COUNTY RURAL WATER SYSTEM..............................  ...........  ..........       2,000  ..........
RAPID VALLEY PROJECT, DEERFIELD DAM............................  ...........          86  ..........          86

                             TEXAS

BALMORHEA PROJECT..............................................          41           17          41          17
CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT.........................................          59           86          59          86
LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY WATER RESOURCES........................          50   ..........       4,050  ..........
NUECES RIVER PROJECT...........................................          25          533          25         533
SAN ANGELO PROJECT.............................................          35          367          35         367
TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...................................         146   ..........         146  ..........

                              UTAH

HYRUM PROJECT..................................................         146           32         146          32
MOON LAKE PROJECT..............................................           3           73           3          73
NEWTON PROJECT.................................................           4           38           4          38
NORTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...........................         156   ..........         456  ..........
OGDEN RIVER PROJECT............................................         196          172         196         172
PARK CITY FEASIBILLTY STUDY....................................  ...........  ..........         500  ..........
PROVO RIVER PROJECT............................................         951          415         951         415
SCOFIELD PROJECT...............................................          55           78          55          78
STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT......................................         203           20         203          20
SOUTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...........................         121   ..........         121  ..........
WEBER BASIN PROJECT............................................       1,028          720       1,028         720
WEBER RIVER PROJECT............................................          30          107          30         107

                           WASHINGTON

COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT.........................................       3,737        6,811       6,737       6,811
ODESSA SUBAREA SPECIAL STUDY...................................         600   ..........       1,000  ..........
WASHINGTON AREA PROJECTS.......................................          85           10          85          10
WASHINGTON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM..............................          57   ..........         145  ..........
YAKIMA PROJECT.................................................       1,201        6,565       1,701       6,799
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT...................       8,503   ..........       8,503  ..........
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE...............................  ...........  ..........         500  ..........

                            WYOMING

KENDRICK PROJECT...............................................          91        3,242          91       3,242
NORTH PLATTE PROJECT...........................................         302        1,578         302       1,578
SHOSHONE PROJECT...............................................          84          665          84         665
WYOMING INVESTIGATIONS.........................................          26   ..........          26  ..........
                                                                ------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL FOR PROJECTS....................................     274,970      213,288     438,679     213,704

                       REGIONAL PROGRAMS

COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL, TITLE I.................  ...........       9,444  ..........       9,444
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL, TITLE II................       5,850   ..........       5,850  ..........
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE, SECTION 5..............................       1,918        3,995       1,918       3,995
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE, SECTION 8..............................         710   ..........         710  ..........
COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM...............         265   ..........         265  ..........
DAM SAFETY PROGRAM:
    DEPARTMENT DAM SAFETY PROGRAM..............................  ...........       1,250  ..........       1,250
    INITIATE SOD CORRECTIVE ACTION.............................  ...........      71,500  ..........      71,500
    SAFETY OF EVALUATION OF EXISTING DAMS......................  ...........      18,500  ..........      18,500
DROUGHT EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM...........................         500   ..........         500  ..........
EMERGENCY PLANNING & DISASTER RESPONSE PROGRAM.................  ...........       1,422  ..........       1,422
ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION.....................      21,939   ..........      21,939  ..........
ENVIRONMENTAL & INTERAGENCY COORDINATION ACTIVITIES............       1,739   ..........       1,739  ..........
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION...........................         973   ..........         973  ..........
EXAMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES.............................  ...........       6,254  ..........       6,254
FEDERAL BUILDING SEISMIC SAFETY PROGRAM........................  ...........       1,384  ..........       1,384
GENERAL PLANNING STUDIES.......................................       2,163   ..........       2,163  ..........
LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM..............................       7,481   ..........       7,481  ..........
LOWER COLORADO RIVER INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAMS...................         243   ..........         243  ..........
LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM........................      16,400   ..........      16,400  ..........
MISCELLANEOUS FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS.........................  ...........         714  ..........         714
NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM................................       7,020   ..........       7,020  ..........
NEGOTIATION & ADMINISTRATION OF WATER MARKETING................       1,658   ..........       1,658  ..........
OPERATIONS AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT..............................         684          522         684         522
PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN--OTHER PICK-SLOAN....................       3,687       37,053       3,687      37,053
POWER PROGRAM SERVICES.........................................         847          250         847         250
PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY PROGRAM...............................         641          155         641         155
RECLAMATION LAW ADMINISTRATION.................................       2,132   ..........       2,132  ..........
RECLAMATION RECREATION MANAGEMENT (TITLE XXVII)................  ...........  ..........       1,000  ..........
RECREATION & FISH & WILDLIFE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION............         951   ..........         951  ..........
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT:
    DESALINATION AND WATER PURIFICATION PROGRAM................         375        1,600       2,375       1,600
    SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.............................       9,000   ..........       9,000  ..........
RURAL WATER LEGISLATION, TITLE I...............................       1,000   ..........       1,000  ..........
SITE SECURITY..................................................  ...........      28,950  ..........      28,950
TITLE XVI WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM..................         800   ..........       3,300  ..........
UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER ISSUES--TECHNICAL SUPPORT..........          93   ..........          93  ..........
WATER FOR AMERICA INITIATIVE...................................      19,000   ..........      19,000  ..........
                                                                ------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, REGIONAL PROGRAMS..............................     108,069      182,993     113,169     183,393
UNDER FINANCING................................................  ...........  ..........     -18,183      -3,442
                                                                ================================================
      TOTAL WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES........................     383,039      396,281     533,665     393,655
      GRAND TOTAL..............................................     779,320      779,320     927,320     927,320
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Arizona Water Rights Settlement Act, Arizona.--Funds are 
recommended for advance planning and environmental compliance 
activities for rehabilitation of the San Carlos Irrigation 
Project in cooperation with the San Carlos Irrigation and 
Drainage District.
    Central Arizona Project, Colorado River Basin.--The 
Committee recommendation includes additional funds for 
activities related to the Gila River Settlement in New Mexico 
and Arizona.
    Central Valley Project--Friant Division.--The Committee 
recommendation includes an additional $1,000,000 for the 
Friant-Kern and Madera canals capacity improvements and an 
additional $1,000,000 for the Semi Tropic Phase II groundwater 
banking.
    Miscellaneous Project Programs.--An additional $4,000,000 
above the budget request is provided for anadromous fish screen 
projects.
    Central Valley Project-Sacramento River Division.--Within 
the funds recommended, $2,000,000 is recommended for the 
Sacramento Valley Integrated Plan and $5,000,000 is recommended 
for the Red Bluff Diversion Dam.
    Central Valley Project-Trinity River Division.--The 
Committee has recommended $600,000 above the budget request to 
accelerate implementation of the Trinity River Restoration 
Program.
    Mokelumne River Regional Water Storage, California.--The 
Committee directs the Secretary of the Department of the 
Interior to initiate a feasibility study authorized in title V 
of Public Law 109-338. In carrying out this study, the 
Secretary of the Interior shall include the entire Mokelumne 
River drainage as the study area and shall also consider 
regional projects that include recommendations for expansion of 
reservoir storage capacities. This study shall include in the 
feasibility study analysis the project currently under 
consideration by the Mokelumne River Forum and described in 
both the Northeastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Banking 
Authority and the Mokelumne-Amador-Calaveras Integrated 
Regional Water Management Plans.
    As authorized, this study is intended to be regional in 
scope and shall examine the feasibility of providing additional 
water supply and improved water management reliability to 
Mokelumne River Forum member agencies through the development 
of new storage and conjunctive use programs and projects, 
including, but not limited to, the Eastern San Joaquin Ground 
Water Basin, Pardee Reservoir, Lower Bear Reservoir, and Duck 
Creek.
    Fort Peck, Dry Prairie Rural Water System, Montana.--The 
Committee has recommended $15,000,000 for continued 
construction of this rural water project.
    Middle Rio Grande Project, New Mexico.--The Committee 
recommendation includes an additional $3,000,000 for additional 
needs in the Middle Rio Grande Collaborative Program.
    Truckee Canal Reconstruction, Nevada.--The canal breached 
in January 2008, flooding Fernley, Nevada. The Committee 
recommendation includes $2,500,000 under the Lahontan Basin 
project for Reclamation to perform an exploration/risk analysis 
of the canal to determine the full extent of rehabilitation 
needed for the canal to resume flows above 350 cubic feet per 
second.
    Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin, Garrison Diversion Unit, North 
Dakota.--Within the Committee recommendation, $52,000,000 is 
recommended for rural water projects. Of this amount, 
$26,000,000 shall be expended for the following projects: 
$8,000,000 for the Northwest Area Water Supply; $6,000,000 for 
the South Central Regional Water District; $4,000,000 for the 
North Central Rural Water System; $8,000,000 for the Southwest 
Pipeline. Additionally the Committee recommends $1,880,000 for 
the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Irrigation Project.
    Deschutes Project, Oregon.--Within the funds provided, 
$750,000 is recommended for water conservation measures.
    Oregon Investigations Program, Oregon.--$150,000 above the 
budget request is recommended for developing appraisal-level 
designs and cost estimates for on-reservation distribution 
systems.
    Northern Utah Investigations Program, Utah.--The Committee 
has recommended an additional $300,000 for the Rural Water 
Technology Alliance.
    Columbia Basin Project, Washington.--The Committee 
recommends an additional $3,000,000 above the budget request 
for the Potholes Reservoir Supplemental Feed Route 
Implementation.
    Odessa Subarea Special Study, Washington.--The Committee 
has provided $1,000,000 for this study.
    Yakima Project, Washington.--$500,000 of the funds 
recommended under this heading are for the Storage Dam Fish 
Passage Feasibility Study.
    Salt Cedar/Russian Olive Control.--The Committee has 
recommended no funding under the 2006 Salt Cedar/Russian Olive 
Control Act. Studies have shown that there is no water salvage 
gained by eradication of these invasive nuisance species. 
Without the water salvage component, there is no real nexus to 
Reclamation's mission of providing water and power to the West. 
The Committee agrees that these invasive species need to be 
controlled and eradicated, where possible, due to their ability 
to outcompete native vegetation. However, this mission is much 
more suited to other Federal agencies than the Bureau of 
Reclamation.
    Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project, Title I.--In 
fiscal years 2006 and 2008, the conferees expressed their 
concern that the Bureau of Reclamation was making excess 
releases of approximately 100,000 acre feet of water per year 
from storage in Colorado River reservoirs to help meet the 
United States' Colorado River water quality obligations to 
Mexico. The excess releases are being made because Wellton-
Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District's agricultural return 
flows--that bypass the Colorado River and are discharged to the 
Cienega de Santa Clara in Mexico (bypass flows)--are not 
counted as part of the 1.5 million acre-feet of water that the 
United States is required to deliver annually to Mexico. 
Because the bypass flows are not counted, system storage from 
the Colorado River has been used to make up for the bypass 
flows. The Yuma Desalting Plant was originally constructed to 
treat the flows and return a portion of them to the river, thus 
reducing excess releases from Colorado River reservoirs.
    The current drought and projected long-term water demands 
have heightened concern about this demand on the river system. 
Consequently, in fiscal years 2006 and 2008, the conferees also 
directed the Bureau of Reclamation to dedicate sufficient 
resources to the Yuma Desalting Plant so that one-third 
operational capacity may be achieved by the end of calendar 
years 2006 and 2008, respectively. To date, the plant is not 
one-third operational, although Reclamation did conduct a 
demonstration run at one-tenth capacity for 90 days in 2007. 
The Committee, once again, directs the Bureau of Reclamation, 
within the funds provided for the Colorado River Basin Salinity 
Control Project, title I, to dedicate sufficient funds to the 
Yuma Desalting Plant so that one-third operational capacity may 
be achieved by the end of calendar year 2008. The Bureau of 
Reclamation is also directed to provide the Committee with a 
status report of the plant's operational status by no later 
than March 1, 2009. If the plant is not one-third operational 
by the end of calendar year 2008, the report shall include an 
explanation as to why the Bureau of Reclamation has failed to 
comply with the Committee's directive.
    Drought Emergency Assistance.--The Committee has provided 
the budget request for this program. Within the funds provided, 
the Committee urges the Bureau of Reclamation to provide full 
and fair consideration for drought assistance from the State of 
Hawaii.
    Research and Development, Desalination Research and 
Development Program.--The Committee recommends $2,000,000 above 
the budget request to be provided to New Mexico State 
University for research activities undertaken at or associated 
with the National Inland Desalination Research Facility.
    Title XVI, Water Reclamation, and Reuse.--The Committee has 
provided $3,300,000 for this program. Within the funds 
provided, the Committee has included $2,500,000 for the 
WateReuse Foundation. These funds are available to support the 
Foundation's research priorities.
    Water for America Initiative.--A critical component of 
reducing tension among multiple water users is collaborative 
planning and joint operations. Within the funds provided, funds 
are provided for the Desert Research Institute to address water 
quality and environmental issues in ways that will bring 
industry and regulators to mutually acceptable answers. Within 
the amounts provided, Reclamation is urged to continue urban 
water conservation projects identified through the Metropolitan 
Water District of Southern California Innovative Conservation 
Program; industrial water efficiency surveys to assess 
opportunities to conserve water in industrial water use; and 
for weather based irrigation controller activities to pilot 
ways to speed distribution and acceptance of these landscape 
water efficiency devices.

                CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $59,122,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................   \1\56,079,000
Committee recommendation................................      56,079,000

\1\Includes $7,500,000 legislative proposal on which Congress has not 
acted.

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $56,079,000 
for the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund. The Committee 
is aware that the legislation to effect a transfer of 
$7,500,000 in Friant surcharges to a new San Joaquin River 
Restoration Fund has not been enacted. However, the Committee 
has provided the administration's full request and included 
legislative text that would allow these funds to be utilized in 
the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund. It is the 
Committees' understanding that even if the legislation 
establishing the new fund is not established, inclusion of the 
Committee's legislative text would allow Reclamation to 
undertake San Joaquin River Settlement Act activities within 
existing authorities.
    The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund was authorized 
in the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, title 34 of 
Public Law 102-575. This fund was established to provide 
funding from project beneficiaries for habitat restoration, 
improvement and acquisition, and other fish and wildlife 
restoration activities in the Central Valley project area of 
California. Revenues are derived from payments by project 
beneficiaries and from donations. Payments from project 
beneficiaries include several required by the act (Friant 
Division surcharges, higher charges on water transferred to 
non-CVP users, and tiered water prices) and, to the extent 
required in appropriations acts, additional annual mitigation 
and restoration payments.

                    CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $40,098,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      32,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      42,000,000

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

                       POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $58,811,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      59,400,000
Committee recommendation................................      59,400,000

    The Committee recommendation for general administrative 
expenses is $59,400,000. This is the same as the budget 
request.
    The policy and administrative expenses program provides for 
the executive direction and management of all reclamation 
activities, as performed by the Commissioner's offices in 
Washington, DC, Denver, Colorado, and five regional offices. 
The Denver office and regional offices charge individual 
projects or activities for direct beneficial services and 
related administrative and technical costs. These charges are 
covered under other appropriations.

             General Provisions--Department of the Interior

    Section 201. The bill includes language regarding the San 
Luis Unit and the Kesterson Reservoir in California.
    Section 202. The bill includes language that states 
requirements for purchase or lease of water from the Middle Rio 
Grande or Carlsbad Projects in New Mexico.
    Section 203. The bill includes language regarding Drought 
Emergency Assistance.
    Section 204. The bill includes language concerning the 
Water for America Initiative.
    Section 205. The bill includes language regarding the Rio 
Grande Collaborative water operations team.
    Section 206. The bill includes language concerning 
expending funds from the Desert Terminus Lakes program for the 
Truckee River Settlement Act.
    Section 207. The bill includes language concerning 
expending funds from the Desert Terminus Lakes program.

                               TITLE III

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

          Laboratory Directed Research and Development [LDRD]

    The Committee recognizes the invaluable role the Laboratory 
Directed Research and Development [LDRD] program provides to 
the Federal Government and the Nation in general. Discretionary 
LDRD investments have been and will continue to be responsive 
to the energy needs of the Nation, as evidenced by recent R&D; 
projects in materials science, optoelectronics, computer 
science, and high energy density physics. Cutting-edge LDRD 
research provides the science base for energy-specific 
applications such as fuel cells, hydrogen technologies, carbon 
management, nuclear energy and solid state lighting. In 
addition, LDRD is the national labs' most important tool for 
maintaining the vitality of the national labs in support of 
other national security missions. LDRD enables the labs to hire 
the ``best and brightest'' young scientists and engineers and 
allows them to seek innovative science and technology solutions 
for current or emerging national security issues, including 
those of energy security. LDRD investments have been effective 
in providing solutions for today's energy problems and 
demonstrate the inherent flexibility of the program to provide 
national security mission support on a very timely basis. 
Energy climate research needs can best be addressed by 
continuing a vibrant LDRD program at the national laboratories.

                        Reprogramming Guidelines

    The Committee requires the Department to promptly and fully 
inform the Committee when a change in program execution or 
funding is required during the fiscal year. A reprogramming 
includes the reallocation of funds from one activity to another 
within an appropriation, or any significant departure from a 
program, project, or activity described in the agency's budget 
justification, as presented to and approved or modified by 
Congress in an appropriations act or the accompanying statement 
of managers or report. For construction projects, a 
reprogramming constitutes the reallocation of funds from one 
construction project identified in the justifications to 
another or a significant change in the scope of an approved 
project.
    Reprogrammings should not be employed to initiate new 
programs or to change program, project, or activity allocations 
specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in the 
act or report. In cases where unforeseen events or conditions 
are deemed to require such changes, proposals shall be 
submitted in advance to the Committee and be fully explained 
and justified.

                 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Appropriations, 2008....................................  $1,722,407,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................   1,255,393,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,928,259,000

    The Committee recommendation is $1,928,259,000 for Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, $672,866,000 above the 
President's request. The Department's request for the Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy program is $467,014,000 less 
than the fiscal year 2008 appropriation. The reduction is 
driven by the complete elimination of the Weatherization 
Assistance Program (-$227,222,000), but also reflects large 
cuts to Hydrogen R&D; (-$64,849,000) and the National Renewable 
Energy Laboratories Facilities and Infrastructure 
(-$62,194,000) subprograms. This Committee continues to support 
a broad and ambitious research, development and deployment 
program that covers a variety of technological approaches to 
solve this Nation's energy problems. Our recommendation, 
therefore, restores most of the administration's reductions and 
increases some areas beyond the request. In addition, this 
Committee recognizes that the Department may carry out 
international cooperative agreements, including the U.S.-
Israeli energy cooperation agreement as described in the Energy 
Independence and Security Act, section 917, as long as these 
agreements are consistent with activities described in the 
congressional budget justification. The Committee recommends 
$5,000,000 to support the U.S.-Israeli energy cooperation 
agreement.
    Local Government and Tribal Technology Demonstrations.--The 
Committee provides $50,000,000 and recommends establishment of 
a new, competitive grant program that funds city government-
led, county government-led, and/or tribal nations-led 
demonstration projects capable of reducing electricity demand 
involving public and private partnerships. The Department shall 
prioritize projects that have substantial local cost-share 
match, that are replicable in the future under market 
conditions after demonstration of cost/benefit advantages, and 
that meet goals of greenhouse gas and/or water use reductions. 
The Committee recommends that each project achieve at least a 
50 percent reduction in energy usage. The Committee recommends 
each grant not exceed $5,000,000 per project and the total 
Federal share of each project be capped at 50 percent.
    Hydrogen Technology.--The Committee recommends 
$175,000,000, a total of $28,787,000 above the request. The 
Committee agrees with the Department's proposal to transfer 
several subprograms from the Hydrogen budget to the Vehicles 
Technology budget in fiscal year 2009. With this increase, the 
Committee's recommendation for all hydrogen programs in the 
Department's fiscal year 2009 budget amounts to $296,500,000.
    Of the increased funding, $22,000,000 is applied to 
Hydrogen Production and Delivery R&D;, which supports 
development of hydrogen fuel from various sources such as wind, 
solar, or biomass. While the program has used natural gas to 
meet the 2015 production-cost goal, clearly that is not enough. 
Renewable hydrogen remains a critical element of our future 
energy system and our Nation's security. A total of $11,500,000 
is provided for Systems Analysis, $3,787,000 above the request, 
so that model validation refinement and analysis of selected 
cross-cutting issues for multiple production pathways is not 
deferred, as proposed by the administration. Finally, 
$3,000,000 is provided for Manufacturing R&D;, which is 
$3,000,000 above the request. Manufacturing R&D; must be 
conducted in parallel with technology development to 
commercialize new technologies through a domestic supplier base 
as expeditiously as possible.
    Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D.--The; Committee 
recommends $235,000,000, an increase of $10,000,000 above the 
request. With the additional funds, the Department should 
pursue development of biofuels from non-food sources, 
especially those with the largest potential to sequester 
industrial carbon-dioxide, such as algae, that are also 
compatible with gasoline and diesel fuels. These biofuels will 
be developed from a variety of renewable feedstocks, including 
algae, that exhibit greater than 50 percent greenhouse gas 
benefits compared to conventional hydrocarbon fuels. This 
research should include demonstrations using brackish water.
    The Committee also recommends that the Department expand 
its Thermochemical Platform research and development to focus 
on conversion of biomass to bio-crude, particularly upgrading 
these bio-crudes to refinery grade feedstocks that compliment 
the existing petroleum refining and fuel distribution 
infrastructure. This expanded research and development program 
is an important part of expanding research collaboration 
between the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and 
Washington State University, in a new Bioproducts, Sciences and 
Engineering Laboratory in Richland, Washington.
    Solar Energy.--The Committee recommends $229,000,000, an 
increase of $72,880,000 over the President's request. A total 
of $59,495,000 of this increase is transferred from the Office 
of Science, Basic Energy Sciences program. The distribution of 
the $229,000,000 for Solar Energy is as follows: $156,833,000 
for Photovoltaic Energy Systems; $50,000,000 for Concentrating 
Solar Power; and $22,167,000 for Solar Heating and Lighting.
    Wind Energy.--The recommendation is $62,500,000, an 
increase of $10,000,000 over the request. With the increase, 
this office should work with the Office of Electricity Delivery 
and Energy Reliability to develop better models and 
transmission interconnection systems with the purpose of 
increasing the ease of adding electricity from wind to the 
grid. The Committee has provided a budget increase in the 
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability program to assist 
the Wind Energy program by providing support for the key area 
of transmission, which is needed to take electricity generated 
by wind power to the marketplace.
    Within available funds, the program shall establish a 
manufacturing initiative jointly with the Industrial 
Technologies Program focusing on manufacturing issues for the 
rapidly growing wind energy industry.
    Geothermal Technology.--The recommendation for Geothermal 
Technology is $30,000,000, the same as the administration's 
request, which is already $10,182,000 above fiscal year 2008. 
The Committee understands that workforce and educational 
activities are critical to the future of the geothermal 
industry, and the Department's future budget requests should 
include funding for these needs.
    The Committee encourages the Department to focus its 
efforts on research and development of Enhanced Geothermal 
Systems. However, we recognize that there is significant near 
term crossover benefit for both the enhanced and existing 
hydrothermal systems--for example, through pursuit of 
geothermal mapping, existing hydrothermal systems marketers may 
find new areas to place capacity.
    Water Power Energy R&D.--The; Committee recommends 
$30,000,000, a total of $27,000,000 above the request. With the 
additional funding, this Committee directs the Department to 
accelerate the comprehensive resource assessment of water power 
in the United States and accelerate the technology 
characterizations, with the goal of completing them in fiscal 
year 2009, 1 year sooner than projected in the budget. The 
Department should also carry out the establishment of one 
National Marine Renewable Energy Research, Development, and 
Demonstration Center as described in the Energy Independence 
and Security Act [EISA], section 634. The Committee recognizes 
ocean and tidal power research efforts as identified in the 
EISA and directs the Department, working with the Department of 
Commerce, as indicated in EISA section 633, to utilize the 
DOE's only marine sciences laboratory to undertake a research 
and development program to expand marine and hydrokinetic 
renewable energy programs.
    Vehicle Technologies.--The Committee provides $293,000,000, 
an increase of $71,914,000 over the request. Consistent with 
the EISA section 641(g), the Committee provides an additional 
$50,543,000, for a new total of $100,000,000, for vehicle 
energy storage systems demonstrations aimed at developing 
novel, high capacity energy storage, onboard management, 
integration into electric drive vehicle platforms and the grid, 
and new technologies and processes that reduce manufacturing 
costs. These cost-shared demonstrations are to be conducted 
through consortia. Another $15,000,000 of the increase is 
provided to Fuels Technology subprogram, bringing its total to 
$31,122,000. These funds will expand and accelerate testing of 
intermediate fuel blends (15 percent-20 percent ethanol mixed 
with 80 percent-85 percent gasoline) on vehicles, other 
engines, and infrastructure components to provide data on how 
these blends may affect materials, durability, performance, and 
emissions and alleviate supply/demand imbalances. Work should 
be done in coordination with the Biomass Program. The remaining 
$6,371,000 of the increase is provided to the Safety Codes and 
Standards subprogram to facilitate efforts in quantitative risk 
assessment, component and system level testing, leak detection 
technologies, and fuel quality R&D;, for a variety of fuels and 
technologies. Finally, the Department is directed to continue 
research efforts in the area of computational predictive 
engineering of lightweight thermoplastic polymer composites.
    Building Technologies.--The Committee provides 
$176,481,000, an increase of $52,716,000 over the request. 
Commercial Buildings Integration is increased $27,000,000 to a 
total of $40,000,000, for expansion of partnerships with 
leading laboratories, universities, and DOE selected consortia, 
consistent with EISA section 422.
    Emerging Technologies is provided an increase of 
$10,000,000, for a new total of $49,465,000. The entire 
$10,000,000 is for solid state lighting research and 
development. Residential Buildings Integration is provided a 
$5,000,000 increase, for a new total of $31,900,000. The 
increased funding will enable the program to move more quickly 
into testing strategies that achieve a 50 percent reduction in 
the energy used in a home. Technology Validation and Market 
Introduction is increased $9,716,000, for a new total of 
$34,116,000. Of this increase, $8,000,000 is for building 
energy codes for continued assistance to States and the balance 
of $1,716,000 is for expansion of the Energy Star labeling for 
energy efficient and renewable technologies that deliver energy 
savings and reduced emissions. The remaining $1,000,000 of the 
increase is provided to evaluate models for accelerating and 
advancing appliance standards and test procedures, specifically 
evaluating international regulatory models that can be 
considered for adoption in the United States.
    Industrial Technologies.--The Committee provides 
$65,119,000, an increase of $3,000,000 over the request. The 
increase provides for organizing a cross-cutting manufacturing 
initiative for clean energy technologies developed in other 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs, including wind 
turbine gearboxes, carbon fiber and other lightweight materials 
for automotive applications, sensors and controls, and other 
technologies that benefit from improved manufacturing 
techniques.
    Federal Energy Management Program.--The Committee 
recommends $22,000,000, the same as the request.
    Facilities and Infrastructure.--The Committee recommends 
$36,982,000, an increase of $23,000,000 above the budget 
request. The Department is directed to use $12,000,000 of the 
increase to execute an existing memorandum of agreement with 
Sandia National Laboratories for supercomputing equipment and 
capacity to support the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy-based mission needs. 
Numerical simulation on high performance computers enables the 
study of complex engineering systems and natural phenomena that 
would be too expensive, or even impossible, to study by direct 
experimentation. This resource will be located at Sandia to 
take advantage of the more than 20 years of experience with 
high performance computing hardware and software development. 
The Committee expects both laboratories to contribute in their 
respective areas of scientific and engineering excellence. The 
remaining $11,000,000 is provided for continuing two 
construction projects at the National Renewable Energy 
Laboratory--$4,000,000 is provided for the Energy Systems 
Integration Facility, bringing the total funding for the 
project to $8,000,000; $7,000,000 is provided for the South 
Table Mountain Infrastructure project, which is $7,000,000 
above the request.
    Weatherization Assistance Program.--The Committee provides 
$201,181,000, a total of $201,181,000 above the request. Of 
that amount, $200,000,000 is for weatherization grants and 
$1,181,000 is for training and technical assistance.
    Intergovernmental Activities.--The Committee provides 
$50,000,000 for the State Energy Program Grants, $6,000,000 for 
Tribal Energy Activities and $5,000,000 for Renewable Energy 
Production Incentives.
    Program Direction.--The Committee recommends $121,846,000, 
the same as the budget request, which will assist the Office by 
providing 30 new hires to fill critical skill gaps commensurate 
with the technical workload increases to programs.
    Program Support.--The Committee recommends $15,000,000, 
which is $5,000,000 less than the request, but still $4,199,000 
above the fiscal year 2008 enacted appropriation. The Committee 
supports the program's efforts to enhance its Planning, 
Analysis, and Evaluation subprogram and especially its efforts 
to improve its Technology Advancement and Outreach subprogram, 
but because of overall budget constraints cannot fully support 
the request.
    Use of Prior Year Balances.--The Committee does not accept 
the proposal to reduce this request by using $738,000 of prior 
year uncosted balances.
    Congressionally Directed Projects.--The Committee includes 
$124,150,000 for the following list of projects that provide 
for research, development, and demonstration of energy 
efficiency or renewable energy technologies or programs. The 
Committee reminds recipients that statutory cost sharing 
requirements may apply to these projects.

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Committee
                         Project                          recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Algal-Base Renewable Energy for Nevada, Desert Research          750,000
 Institute, Reno, NV for the development of algal-based
 energy system..........................................
Alternative Energy for Higher Education, Creighton            $1,200,000
 University, Omaha, NE, for a solar energy project......
Alternative Energy School of the Future, Clark County,         1,250,000
 Andre Agassi Charitable Foundation, Las Vegas, NV, for
 a solar fuel cell system...............................
Alternative Fuel Cell Membranes for National Energy            1,000,000
 Independence, University of Southern Mississippi, USM,
 MS, for advanced fuel cell membrane research...........
Anaerobic Digester and Combined Heat Power Project,              600,000
 Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, Montgomery and
 Prince George's Counties, MD, for a study on anaerobic
 power generation.......................................
Bioenergy and Bioproducts Laboratory, Auburn University,       1,000,000
 Auburn, AL, to conduct research on biofuel conversion,
 biofuel testing, and certification.....................
Bioenergy Demonstration Project: Value-Added Products          2,000,000
 from Renewable Fuels, University of Nebraska, Lincoln,
 NE, for research on the byproducts of biofuel
 production.............................................
Biogas Center of Excellence, Michigan Economic                 1,000,000
 Development Corporation, Flint, MI, for a center for
 the production of biogas...............................
Biomass Energy Resources Center, Biomass Energy Resource       1,500,000
 Center, Montpelier, VT, for the installation of new
 small scale technology.................................
Biomass Gasification Research and Development Project,         1,000,000
 Port of Benton, Richland, WA, for the gasification and
 research of biomass....................................
Biorefinery for Ethanol, Chemicals, Animal Feed and            1,000,000
 Biomaterials from Sugarcane Bagasse, Louisiana State
 University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA, for a
 biomass conversion project.............................
Bipolar Wafer Cell NiMH Lithium Ion Battery, Electro           2,000,000
 Energy, Danbury, CT, to advance wafer cell battery
 technology.............................................
Carbon Neutral Green Campus, Nevada State College, Clark         250,000
 County, NV for environmental sustainability............
Center for Biomass Utilization, University of North            2,000,000
 Dakota Energy and Environmental Research Center, Grand
 Forks, ND, for research on biomass production and its
 byproducts.............................................
Center for Nanoscale Energy, North Dakota State                5,000,000
 University, Fargo, ND, for nanomaterials research......
Central Vermont Recovered Biomass Facility, Vermont            1,000,000
 Sustainable Jobs Fund, Montpelier, VT, for a digester
 system.................................................
Chariton Valley Densification--Phase II, Chariton Valley       1,000,000
 RC&D;, Inc, Centerville, IA, for research on switchgrass
Christmas Valley Renewable Energy Development, Oregon            400,000
 Department of Energy, Salem, OR, for the development of
 a renewable energy-producing facility..................
City of Miami Green Initiative, City of Miami, Miami,          1,000,000
 FL, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fuel
 consumption in the city................................
Clean Power Energy Research Consortium, Nicholls State         2,000,000
 University, Louisiana State University, University of
 New Orleans, Tulane University, Southern University,
 University of Louisiana, Thibodeaux, LA, for a joint
 venture of Louisiana universities to promote
 alternative fuels......................................
Clean Technology Commercialization Initiative, Ben             1,000,000
 Franklin Technology Partners, Harrisburg, PA, to
 support clean and alternative energy technologies......
Coastal Ohio Wind Project, Bowling Green State                 1,000,000
 University, Bowling Green, OH, for wind energy research
Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research, The               1,000,000
 Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research, Inc., St.
 Simons Island, N/A, to support university-industry
 research and technology transfer projects..............
Cooling Heating and Power and Bio-Fuel Application             2,000,000
 Center, Mississippi State University, Mississippi
 State, MS, to conduct research on increased energy
 efficiency through the use of electric and thermal
 delivery systems.......................................
Development of Biofuels Using Ionic Transfer Membranes,          600,000
 University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Clark County, NV for
 biofuels research......................................
Development of High Yield Tropical Feedstocks,                 1,500,000
 University of Hawaii, College of Tropical Agriculture
 and Human Resources, Honolulu, HI, for a tropical
 bioenergy project......................................
Dueco Plug-In Hybrid Engines, Dueco Inc., Waukesha, WI,        2,000,000
 for new plug-in hybrid electric propulsion technology..
Energy Production Through Anaerobic Digestion, New               500,000
 Jersey Department of Agriculture, Trenton, NJ, for
 anaerobic digester technology..........................
Fluid Flow Optimization of Aerogel Blanket Manufacturing       1,500,000
 Process, Aspen Aerogels, Northborough, MA, for energy-
 efficient insulation research..........................
Forestry biofuel statewide Collaboration Center,               1,500,000
 Michigan Economic Development Corporation, Upper
 Peninsula, MI, to improve the supply chain for woody
 biomass................................................
Genetic Improvements of Switchgrass, University of Rhode       1,500,000
 Island at Kingston, Kingston, RI, to improve
 switchgrass for use as a biofuel.......................
Geothermal Power Generation Plant, Oregon Institute of         1,600,000
 Technology (OIT), Klamath Falls, OR, for a geothermal
 power plant............................................
Great Basin Center for Geothermal Energy, University of          650,000
 Nevada, Reno, NV, to continue and expand the Center's
 activities in promoting geothermal power...............
Great Plains Wind Power Test Facility, Texas Tech              2,000,000
 University, Lubbock, TX, for the testing,
 characterization, and improvement of grid-connected
 wind turbines and wind-driven water desalination
 systems................................................
Hawaii-New Mexico Sustainable Energy Security                  3,000,000
 Partnership, Hawaii Natural Energy Institute,
 Honolulu,, HI, to continue the analysis and technology
 efforts of the Partnership.............................
Hollow Glass Microspheres, University of Nevada, Las             550,000
 Vegas, Clark County, NV for hydrogen storage methods
 research...............................................
Hydroelectric Power Generation, Quincy, City of Quincy,          500,000
 Quincy, IL, for Quincy's efforts to install
 hydroelectric plants at locks and dams.................
Hydrogen Storage System for Vehicular Propulsion,              1,500,000
 Delaware State U., Dover, Delaware State University,
 Dover, DE, to develop a hydrogen storage system........
Integrated Solar Energy Windows, PPG Industries,               1,000,000
 Pittsburgh, PA, for the development of next generation,
 transparent photovoltaic (PV) solar cells..............
Integrated Sustainability Initiative, University of            1,000,000
 Nevada, Reno, NV, to promote campus sustainability.....
Kansas Biofuels Certification Laboratory, University of        1,000,000
 Kansas, Lawrence, KS, for analysis of biofuels,
 measuring emissions of biofuels, and research of
 biofuel cells..........................................
La Samilla Solar Trough Storage Project, Sandia National       2,000,000
 Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, for solar trough storage
 advancement............................................
Landfill Gas Utilization Plant, County of Chautauqua,          2,000,000
 Chautauqua County, NY, for landfill-gas power
 generation.............................................
Lightweight Composites for Heavy-Duty Vehicles and               500,000
 Hydrogen Storage, West Virginia University, Morgantown,
 WV, to advance the use of lightweight composite
 materials for vehicles.................................
Maine Tidal Power Initiative, University of Maine,             1,000,000
 Orono, ME, to develop protocols that allow locations in
 northern New England to be prioritized for tidal energy
 development............................................
MidSouth/Southeast Bioenergy Consortium, MidSouth/             1,500,000
 Southeast Bioenergy Consortium, Fayetteville, AR, for
 research on the byproducts of biofuel production.......
Multifunctional Solar Energy Systems Research, Utah            1,000,000
 State University, Logan, UT, for research and
 development of multifunctional electricity-producing
 systems................................................
National Agriculture-Based Industrial Lubricants (NABL),         600,000
 Biomass (IA), University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls,
 IA, for the advancement of biobased industrial and
 automotive lubricants and for biofuels services........
National Center for Commercialization of Bioenergy,              750,000
 Kansas State University, Olathe, KS, for the
 commercialization of near market bioenergy technologies
 to meet national renewable fuel mandates...............
National Wind Energy Center, University of Houston,            2,000,000
 Houston, TX, to focus on developing advanced offshore
 wind technology for cost-effective, renewable clean
 energy production......................................
Nevada Institute for Renewable Energy Commercialization,         500,000
 Incline Village, NV, for the promotion of renewable
 energy in business.....................................
New School Green Building, The New School, New York, NY,       2,000,000
 for an environmentally friendly school facility........
North Carolina Center for Automotive Research, North           1,000,000
 Carolina Center for Automotive Research, Jackson, NC,
 to equip the Chassis Dynamics Laboratory...............
Offshore Renewable Energy, Rhode Island Coastal                  700,000
 Resources Management Council, Wakefield, RI, to develop
 an Ocean Special Area Management Plan..................
Ohio Advanced Energy Manufacturing Center (OAEMC),             1,000,000
 Edison Welding Institute, Columbus, OH, for an advanced
 energy manufacturing program...........................
Oregon Solar Highway, Oregon Department of                     1,000,000
 Transportation, Salem, OR, to demonstrate the
 feasibility of large-scale deployment of solar
 photovoltaic technology................................
Pecos Valley Biomass Energy Project, NM, Clark County          2,500,000
 School District, Roswell, NM, for a bio-methane gas
 system.................................................
Placer County Biomass Utilization Pilot Project, Placer        1,500,000
 County, Auburn, CA, for a biomass facility.............
Pope/Douglas Third Combuster Expansion, Pope/Douglas           1,000,000
 Solid Waste Management, Alexandria, MN, to increase
 waste to energy capacity...............................
Power Grid Reliability and Security, Washington State          1,000,000
 University, Washington State University, Pullman, WA,
 to create solutions for grid reliability and security
 enhancements...........................................
Renewable Energy Clean Air Project, County of                    700,000
 Koochiching, International Falls, MN, for syn-gas
 energy production......................................
Renewable Energy Development Venture, Pacific                  2,500,000
 International Center for High Technology Research,
 Honolulu, HI, to expand potential energy resources in
 the State of Hawaii....................................
Renewable Energy Feasibility Study, City of Trenton,             500,000
 Trenton, NJ, to examine possible renewable energy
 sources................................................
Renewable Energy Integration and Development, Clark and        2,000,000
 Washoe Counties, Nevada System of Higher Education
 (NSHE), Las Vegas, NV, for a renewable energy center...
Renewable/Sustainable Biomass Project, Alaska Village            500,000
 Initiatives, Alaska, AK, for use of biomass for energy
 generation in rural Alaska villages....................
Sandia National Lab Concentrating Solar, Sandia National       3,000,000
 Lab, Albuquerque, NM, for concentrating solar
 activities.............................................
Solar Panels and Environmental Education, County of            1,000,000
 Essex, Newark, NJ, for the installation of solar panels
 to further environmental education.....................
Solar Park Pilot Project, City of St. Petersburg, St.          1,000,000
 Petersburg, FL, to develop a renewable energy plan for
 the City's parks.......................................
Solar Power Generation, Township of Cherry Hill, Cherry          300,000
 Hill, NJ, for solar technology.........................
Solar Thermal Demonstration Project, Clark County School       1,250,000
 District, Clark County, NV, for solar technology for
 schools................................................
Southern Regional Center for Lightweight Innovative            4,000,000
 Design, Mississippi State University, Mississippi
 State, MS, to reduce emissions and posture the US for
 less reliance on foreign oil...........................
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project,           3,000,000
 Naknek Electrical Association, Naknek, AK, for an
 exploratory well for a 25MW geothermal plant to serve
 villages in rural Alaska...............................
Stamford Waste-to-Energy Project (CT), City of Stamford,       2,000,000
 Stamford, CT, to convert dried sludge into clean,
 renewable energy.......................................
Strategic Biomass Initiative, Mississippi Technology             500,000
 Alliance, Jackson, MS, to encourage bioenergy industry
 in the southeast.......................................
Sun Grant Initiative, South Dakota State University,           4,000,000
 Brookings, SD, for regional biomass feedstock research
 and education..........................................
Sustainable Energy for Homes and Businesses, Vermont             750,000
 Department of Public Service, Montpelier, VT, to
 support Vermont's wind and solar program...............
Sustainable Energy for Vermont Schools Competition,              900,000
 Vermont Superintendents Association, Montpelier, VT,
 for school-based projects to highlight sustainable
 energy technologies....................................
Sustainable Energy Research Center, Mississippi State         10,500,000
 University, Mississippi State, MS, to develop new
 engineering and scientific knowledge and serve as a
 catalyst to create sustainable energy industries in the
 southeastern United States.............................
Sustainable Las Vegas, University of Nevada, Las Vegas,        1,000,000
 Clark County, NV to increase conservation and
 sustainability in Las Vegas............................
The Institute for Energy, Environment and                        750,000
 Sustainability, Johnson County Community College,
 Overland Park, KS, to serve as a resource for local
 education, business and civic entities and would
 include education and training in renewable energy.....
Thin Film Photovoltaic Research & Development, Omega           1,000,000
 Optical, Brattleboro, VT, to research solar panel
 technology.............................................
Tidal Energy Study, Snohomish County PUD No. 1, Everett,         500,000
 WA, for environmental studies of possible tidal energy
 pilot plants...........................................
Transportable Emissions Testing Lab, West Virginia             1,000,000
 University, Morgantown, WV, for mobile labs that test
 bus emissions..........................................
USD Catalysis Group for Alternative Energy, South Dakota       1,100,000
 Catalysis Group, Vermilion, SD, for the development of
 metal oxide and carbon catalyzed reactions technologies
Vermont Biofuels Initiative, Vermont Sustainable Jobs          1,500,000
 Fund, Montpelier, VT, to test the feasibility of
 different uses of biodiesel............................
Wind Turbine Model and Pilot Project for Alternative           1,500,000
 Energy, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, for a shore-
 side wind turbine......................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

              Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $138,556,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     134,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     166,900,000

    The Committee recommendation for Electricity Delivery and 
Energy Reliability is $166,900,000, an increase of $32,900,000 
above the request. Of the increase, $10,000,000 is provided for 
Visualization and Controls, bringing the program total to 
$35,305,000, to accelerate the development of a resilient power 
grid through inherently secure control systems and wide-area 
monitoring tools. Additional funds help implement a national 
wide-area grid monitoring system in support of the independent 
system operators. Another $4,000,000 of the increase is applied 
to the Energy Storage and Power Electronics line, bringing that 
subprogram total to $17,403,000. The increase supports enhanced 
efforts on power electronic activities. Finally, an additional 
$6,000,000 is provided for Renewable and Distributed Systems 
Integration subprogram, bringing the total to $39,306,000. This 
funding supports renewable energy grid integration activities 
facilitating increased deployment of renewables and other clean 
energy sources to power our Nation. In particular, the 
Committee encourages continuation of the electricity 
transmission, distribution, and energy assurance activities 
including the Modern Grid Initiative, and its Phase 2 
Development Field Tests for the Allegheny Power Initiative, and 
encourages the Department to continue research and development 
in grid reliability and renewable energy integration at the 
Electricity Infrastructure Operations Center at the Pacific 
Northwest National Laboratory.
    Congressionally Directed Projects.--The Committee includes 
$12,900,000 above the request for the following list of 
projects that provide for research, development, and 
demonstration of electricity delivery and energy reliability 
technologies or programs. The Committee reminds recipients that 
statutory cost sharing requirements may apply to these 
projects.

  CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY
                                PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Committee
                         Project                          recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternate Fuel for Cement Processing, Auburn University,      $1,500,000
 Auburn, AL, to focus on the integration of the burning
 process into existing kiln systems in Lafarge plants,
 maximization of burn efficiency and minimization of
 waste/discharge........................................
Center of Excellence Lab, Bismarck State College,              1,400,000
 Bismarck, ND, to develop a state-of-the art lab........
Energy Development and Reliability, Bismarck State               300,000
 College, Bismarck, ND, to promote and advance the
 region's energy industry...............................
Integrated Distribution Management System, Southern            1,500,000
 Company, Birmingham, AL, to provide seamlessly
 integrated set of information systems providing all of
 the major functionality needed to operate an electric
 distribution system....................................
Iowa Stored Energy Plant, Iowa Associations of Municipal       1,500,000
 Utilities, Ankeny, IA, for compressed air energy
 storage project........................................
Navajo Electrification Demonstration Program, Navajo           2,000,000
 Tribal Utility Authority, Fort Defiance, AZ, to provide
 electric power to homes on the reservation.............
North Dakota Energy Workforce Development, Bismarck            1,900,000
 State College, Bismarck, ND, for a workforce
 development programs...................................
San Mateo County Solar Genesis Project, County of San          1,500,000
 Mateo, Redwood City, CA, for a solar power electric
 generation facility....................................
SmartGrid Integration Lab, Colorado State University,          1,000,000
 Ft. Collins, CO, to demonstrate core smart grid
 capabilities...........................................
Technology Development, Red River Valley Research                300,000
 Corridor, Grand Forks, ND, to promote and advance the
 research, development and commercialization activities
 occurring in North Dakota's Red River Valley Research
 Corridor...............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             Nuclear Energy

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $961,665,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     853,644,000
Committee recommendation................................     803,000,000

                        RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

    The Committee recommendation for nuclear energy research 
and development includes a total of $803,000,000.
    Integrated University Program.--The Committee provides 
$15,000,000 for a new Integrated University Program. The 
Committee is concerned about the lack of stable support for the 
nuclear engineering programs across the Nation. The Office of 
Nuclear Energy's University Program has been repeatedly 
restructured and elements of this program where moved to the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission last year. To be the effective 
source of innovation and highly trained engineers and 
scientists that the Nation needs, our nuclear engineering 
programs must have sustained support for multiyear research 
projects and modern curricula. The needs go beyond nuclear 
energy with pressing shortfalls in trained professionals 
capable of supporting crucial nuclear nonproliferation missions 
such as nuclear forensics and international safeguards.
    The Committee provides the Office of Nuclear Energy [NE], 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC], and Defense Nuclear 
Nonproliferation [DNN] $15,000,000 each (for a total of 
$45,000,000) for a new Integrated University Program. Of this 
amount, $10,000,000 shall be used by each organization to 
support university research and development in areas relevant 
to the organization's mission; and $5,000,000 will be used by 
each organization to support a Nuclear Science and Engineering 
Grant Program. The Grant Program will be coordinated and 
jointly implemented by the NE, NRC, and DNN. It will support 
multiyear research projects that do not align with programmatic 
missions but are critical to maintaining the discipline of 
nuclear science and engineering. The Office of Nuclear Energy 
shall provide a report to the House and Senate Appropriations 
Committees on how the NE, NRC, and DNN will coordinate the 
Integrated University Program and provide a stable source of 
funding for nuclear engineering university programs.
    Nuclear Power 2010.--The Committee recommends $241,600,000 
to support the development of license applications for new 
nuclear power plant designs under the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission's combined Construction and Operating License 
process. This is the same amount as the budget request.
    Generation IV.--The Committee recommends $70,000,000 for 
the Generation IV nuclear energy systems initiative, the same 
as the request.
    Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative.--The Committee recommends 
$10,000,000 for nuclear hydrogen research and development.
    Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative.--The Committee recommends 
$229,700,000 for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative to support 
the development of advanced spent fuel separation processes and 
fuel fabrication technologies. The funds should support a 
balanced portfolio of technologies for managing actinide 
inventories utilizing both fast and thermal reactors. Improving 
methods and capabilities for developing and qualifying recycled 
fuels should be priority. Advanced materials modeling and 
simulation capabilities should be utilized to aid this effort. 
No funding is provided for grid appropriate reactors.
    The Committee, consistent with the recommendation in the 
Fiscal year 2008 Conference report, continues to provide 
additional investment in laboratory facilities. Within the 
available funds, $15,000,000 is provided to support upgrades to 
Los Alamos hot cells and the materials test station, and 
$15,000,000 to Oak Ridge to upgrade its radiological 
facilities.

                   RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

    Radiological Facilities.--The Committee recommends 
$41,000,000, an increase of $2,300,000. The additional 
$2,300,000 will be added to the ``Research reactor 
infrastructure'' program for a total of $6,000,000 to support 
university research reactors, including reactor instrumentation 
and equipment upgrades.

                      IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

    The Committee recommends $119,700,000, an increase of 
$15,000,000 to support nuclear research and development at the 
Idaho National Laboratory. Funds will be used to support the 
Advanced Test Reactor National Scientific User Facility program 
at INL. These funds will support university and industry 
related research programs and allow for capability enhancements 
to support nuclear fuels and materials research. The funds will 
also be used for maintenance and infrastructure investment to 
support the INL mission as a preeminent nuclear energy R&D; 
laboratory.

                           PROGRAM DIRECTION

    The Committee recommends $73,000,000 for Program Direction, 
a decrease of $7,500,000. The decrease is based upon the 
Committee's decision to put the Mixed Oxide Facility under the 
Nuclear Nonproliferation program.
    Congressionally Directed Projects.--The Committee includes 
$3,000,000 for the following list of projects.

            CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED NUCLEAR ENERGY PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Committee
                         Project                          recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technologies Ventures Corporation, Technologies Ventures      $3,000,000
 Corporation, Albuquerque, NM, for technology transfer
 activities.............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

                          (TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

    The Committee recommends the transfer of funds of 
$149,000,000 in the Clean Coal Technology to fossil energy 
research and development.

                 Fossil Energy Research and Development

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $742,838,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     754,030,000
Committee recommendation................................     876,730,000

    The Committee recommendation for Fossil Energy Research and 
Development is $876,730,000, an increase of $122,700,000 above 
the request.
    The Committee believes that the Department has failed to 
recognize and stress the importance of restoring a sustained 
and balanced commitment to fossil energy research and 
development. The Committee feels that the Department has failed 
to fully recognize the significance of the Carbon Sequestration 
Program as evidenced in recent findings of a panel of 
scientific experts from the International Energy Agency [IEA]. 
The IEA validated that the Department's Regional Carbon 
Sequestration Partnerships and their large-scale CO2 
tests are the world's most ambitious. The Committee has 
provided additional funding to sustain technology development 
and to send a clear message that the Congress is serious about 
making a long-term investment in fossil energy.
    Clean Coal Power Initiative.--The Committee recommends 
$232,300,000 for the Clean Coal Power Initiative. The Committee 
is disappointed that the Department has underfunded its 
commitment and thus delayed the current and future rounds of 
the Clean Coal Power Initiative. This lack of commitment leaves 
an even wider gap in the development and demonstration of 
advanced clean coal technologies. These technology advancements 
are critically important for addressing the existing fleet of 
coal-fired power plants as well as the next generation of 
fossil-fuel powered facilities. The Committee anticipates that 
more than $600,000,000 will be available for the Round 3 
solicitation and encourages the Department to proceed with 
issuing this solicitation for carbon capture and storage and 
innovative uses of carbon dioxide. The Office of Fossil Energy 
is required to provide the Committee a status report on all 
nine awarded projects for the Clean Coal Power Initiative's 
Round 1 and 2, including completed and ongoing projects.
    FutureGen.--The Committee recommends no funding for the 
FutureGen account. The Committee has supported the technical 
and scientific efforts behind the FutureGen initiative for the 
past 5 years but does not support funding for the 
``restructured'' effort this year. The Committee has instead 
provided funds for the Clean Coal Power Initiative at a level 
of $147,300,000 more than the budget request. The Committee has 
distributed the remaining $8,700,000 of the budget request 
within Fossil Energy Research and Development. The Committee 
understands that $134,000,000 of unobligated balances remain in 
this account and are set aside for future use with this program 
but are not available until March 2009.
    Fuels and Power Systems.--The Committee recommends 
$412,132,000 for fuels and power systems, an increase of 
$29,400,000. The recommendation includes $50,000,000 for 
Innovations for Existing Plants [IEP]. The IEP program is 
directed to continue carbon capture research for the existing 
fleet. Of the IEP funds, $12,000,000 is for Federal 
laboratories, in collaboration with research institutions, to 
continue to conduct research and development on the critical 
link between water and fossil energy extraction and utilization 
and how different regions of the country can employ water 
efficiency technology. In light of the new Clean Air Mercury 
Rule, the Committee supports $5,000,000 in additional research 
for a broader mercury program. The Committee understands the 
Department has been moving forward on the Ramgen Compression 
Initiative, and it is the Committee's expectation that the 
Department fully complete the development and testing of the 
Ramgen CO2 compressor. The Committee recommends 
$63,000,000 for the Advanced Integrated Gasification Combined 
Cycle activities and $30,000,000 for Advanced Turbines. The 
Committee recommends $149,132,000 for Carbon Sequestration 
activities. Additional funds are needed for the Regional 
Partnerships to carry out the large-scale projects that were 
awarded in fiscal year 2008 into field activities, in order to 
accelerate wide-scale deployment of advanced clean coal 
technologies with carbon capture and storage. The Committee 
encourages the Office of Fossil Energy to continue research on 
the co-sequestration of carbon dioxide and criteria pollutants 
with other offices and agencies. The Office of Fossil Energy 
shall be the lead office for these activities. Within available 
funds, the Department is encouraged to study geologic resources 
that have the potential to be regionally and nationally 
significant in order to reduce data gaps. Within in available 
funds for Carbon Sequestration, the Committee encourages the 
program to continue to study carbon dioxide accelerated growth 
algae technology to recycle carbon and produce fuels. The 
Committee recommends $30,000,000 for Fuels to support both 
fuels from coal liquids and hydrogen. Within available funds 
for Fuels, the Committee recommendation includes adequate 
funding to continue the integrated coal and biomass research 
activity to address carbon emissions and technology barrier 
issues. The Committee recommends $60,000,000 for Fuel Cell 
Research. The Committee recommends $30,000,000 for Advanced 
Research. Of this funding, $5,000,000 is for computational 
energy sciences.
    Natural Gas Technologies.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $20,000,000. Of this amount, $15,000,000 is provided 
for methane hydrates, and $5,000,000 is for research to 
continue to develop technology solutions to minimize the 
impact, or develop treatment technologies for produced water as 
a by-product of natural gas production.
    Oil Technology.--The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for 
Oil Technology. Of this funding, the Committee recommends 
$1,200,000 to continue support for the Risk Based Management 
System, a nationwide database for oil and gas regulations and 
technology developments. The Committee recommends the 
continuation of the stripper well program.
    Program Direction.--The Committee recommends $152,804,000 
for Program Direction, of which $122,054,000 is for the 
National Energy Technology Laboratory.
    Other Programs.--The Committee recommends $9,700,000 for 
fossil energy environmental restoration. The Committee 
recommendation is $656,000 for the special recruitment program. 
The Committee recommendation for plant and capital equipment is 
$17,748,000, of which $9,848,000 is to be directed to the 
Morgantown site, $6,900,000 to the Pittsburgh site, and 
$1,000,000 to the Albany site. The Committee recommendation for 
cooperative research and development is $5,000,000.
    The Committee continues to support the Department's project 
management efforts and the role of the National Energy 
Technology Laboratory [NETL], with assistance from the Golden 
field office, in setting up a successful Project Management 
Center [PMC]. The Committee encourages the Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy to continue the collaboration 
and funding of the PMC with the NETL.
    Use of Prior Year Balances.--The Committee supports the use 
of prior year balances in the amount of $11,310,000 from 
completed or cancelled construction projects, the same as the 
budget request.
    Congressionally Directed Projects.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $32,700,000 for the following 
congressionally directed projects.

             CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED FOSSIL ENERGY PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Committee
                         Project                          recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arctic Energy Office, Arctic Energy Office, Fairbanks,        $6,000,000
 AK, for research in fossil energy, natural gas
 technologies, and oil technologies.....................
Center for Zero Emissions Research and Technology,             4,500,000
 Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, for research
 related to carbon sequestration, greenhouse gas
 emissions, and clean power generation..................
CO2 Capture/Sequestration Research, Pennsylvania State           500,000
 University, Centre County, PA, to study carbon capture
 and sequestration......................................
Fossil Fuel Research & Development, University of North        4,000,000
 Dakota Energy and Environmental Research Center, Grand
 Forks, ND, to address strategic national energy issues.
Gulf Of Mexico Hydrates Research Consortium, University        1,200,000
 of Mississippi, University of Mississippi, MS, to
 develop and deploy an integrated multi-sensor station
 on the seafloor in the Gulf of Mexico..................
Long Term Environmental and Economic Impacts of the              500,000
 Development of a Coal Liquefaction Sector in China,
 West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, for the study
 of the development of commercial liquefaction plants...
Multi-Year Demonstration of Carbon Sequestration in a          1,500,000
 Deep Saline Reservoir, Xcel Energy, Denver, CO, to
 determine the feasibility of geologic CO2 sequestration
 in a deep saline reservoir.............................
National Center for Hydrogen Technology, University of         3,000,000
 North Dakota Energy and Environmental Research Center,
 Grand Forks, ND, for the development of hydrogen
 technologies...........................................
Shale Oil Upgrading Utilizing Ionic Conductive                 1,000,000
 Membranes, Ceramatec, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT, to
 develop processes for upgrading oil shale, making oil
 extract high quality and affordable....................
Solid Oxide Fuel Cells, Siemens Power Generation,              2,000,000
 Pittsburgh, PA, to support development, construction,
 and testing of the fuel processing systems.............
The Center for Advanced Separation Technology,                 3,000,000
 University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, to support
 efforts to develop new technologies that reduce the
 cost of separations in coal, metals, and industrial
 mining operations......................................
University of Kentucky Coal-Derived Low Energy Materials       1,000,000
 for Sustainable Construction Project, University of
 Kentucky, Lexington, KY, to research alternative uses
 for coal combustion byproducts.........................
Refining Capacity Study, North Dakota Association of             500,000
 Rural Electric Cooperatives, Mandan, ND, to study
 refining capacity......................................
Utah Center for Ultra Clean Coal Utilization & Heavy Oil       4,000,000
 Research, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, to
 continue research on the commercial viability and
 validity of unconventional and clean energy
 technologies...........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $20,272,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      19,099,000
Committee recommendation................................      19,099,000

    The Committee recommends $19,099,000 for fiscal year 2009, 
the same as the budget request for the operation of the naval 
petroleum and oil shale reserves. The Department is directed to 
operate the field as close to maximum efficiency as possible, 
given available funds.

                      Strategic Petroleum Reserve

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $186,757,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     344,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     205,000,000

    The Committee recommends $205,000,000 for the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve. Of these funds, the Committee directs the 
Department use $31,507,000 to initiate new site expansion 
activities and support beyond land acquisition, consistent with 
the budget request. While the Committee has provided for the 
operation of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, it does not 
support any other expansion activities at this time.

                   Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $12,335,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................       9,800,000
Committee recommendation................................       9,800,000

    The Committee recommends $9,800,000, the same as the budget 
request.

                   Energy Information Administration

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $95,460,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     110,595,000
Committee recommendation................................     110,595,000

    The Committee recommends $110,595,000 for the Energy 
Information Administration.

                   Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $182,263,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     213,411,000
Committee recommendation................................     269,411,000

    For the Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup program, the 
Committee recommends $269,411,000, an increase of $56,000,000 
above the President's request. The fiscal year 2009 program is 
underfunded to the point even this administration has admitted 
that, for the first time in its 20-year history, the cleanup 
budget request is insufficient to meet its existing regulatory 
compliance milestones. The result is non-compliance with 
regulatory agreements and layoffs around the cleanup complex. 
Thus, the Committee has had to significantly increase our mark 
in the hope of avoiding those consequences.
    Internal Reprogramming Authority.--In fiscal year 2009, 
Environmental Management may transfer up to $2,000,000, one 
time, between accounts listed below to reduce health and safety 
risks, gain cost savings, or complete projects, as long as a 
program or project is not increased or decreased by more than 
$2,000,000 in total during the fiscal year. This reprogramming 
authority may not be used to initiate new programs or to change 
funding levels for programs specifically denied, limited, or 
increased by Congress in the act or report. The Committee on 
Appropriations in the House of Representatives and the Senate 
must be notified within 30 days after the use of this internal 
reprogramming authority.
    The following is a list of account control points for 
internal reprogramming purposes: West Valley Demonstration 
Project; Gaseous Diffusion Plants; Fast Flux Test Reactor 
Facility Decontamination and Decommissioning; Small Sites; and 
transfers between construction line item(s) and the operating 
budget within the same site, as applicable.
    West Valley Demonstration Project.--The Committee includes 
$72,900,000 for West Valley, $15,300,000 above the budget 
request. The Committee provides the additional funding for 
decontamination and decommissioning of facilities to reduce the 
surveillance and maintenance costs at the site.
    Gaseous Diffusion Plants.--The Committee recommends 
$92,696,000, a net increase of $11,400,000 at Paducah for 
completion of the Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion 
[DUF\6\] facility. Within the funds provided, the Committee 
recommends $34,959,000 for Paducah for operations and 
$15,400,000 to complete construction of the Depleted Uranium 
Facility at Paducah, for which the administration did not 
request any funding. The Committee shifted $4,000,000 from 
operations to construction activities and provided an 
additional $11,400,000 to complete construction in fiscal year 
2009. The Committee recommends the budget request of 
$42,337,000 for the Portsmouth facility.
    The Committee remains deeply concerned by the Department's 
inadequate management of the DUF\6\ conversion facilities in 
Paducah, Kentucky and Portsmouth, Ohio. Shortly after the 
Committee authorized these projects, the Department estimated 
that construction would be completed in 2006 and operations 
would commence shortly thereafter. Despite the Committee's 
action to provide the Department all the funds requested, these 
facilities remain incomplete and behind schedule for startup. 
The Committee is concerned that continued mismanagement will 
significantly increase costs and needlessly delay the disposal 
of this hazardous material. Within 60 days of this report, the 
Department of Energy shall provide this Committee with a final 
cost and schedule estimate, a description of how it plans to 
meet that schedule, and how it plans to prevent similar 
problems in future contracts.
    Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility Decontamination and 
Decommissioning Project.--The Committee recommends $10,755,000, 
the same as the budget request.
    Small Sites.--The Committee includes $90,060,000 for fiscal 
year 2009, a total of $25,647,000 above the request. Within 
this account, the Brookhaven National Laboratory is provided 
$29,015,000, which is $20,582,000 above the request, to 
continue decontamination and decommissioning of the Graphite 
Research Reactor and the High Flux Beam Reactor. The Stanford 
Linear Accelerator Center is provided $7,883,000, which is 
$3,000,000 above the request, to meet a fiscal year 2009 
milestone at risk due to the lack of funding in the request. 
Moab is provided $32,578,000, an increase of $2,065,000 above 
the request.
    The Committee provides $459,000 to Argonne, $187,000 for 
the California sites, $12,533,000 for the Energy Technology 
Engineering Center, $4,400,000 for the Idaho National 
Laboratory, $1,905,000 for the Los Alamos National Laboratory, 
and $1,100,000 for Completed Sites/Program Support, all the 
same as requested.
    The Committee has again included bill language regarding 
the Department's activities at the Energy Technology and 
Engineering Center, Santa Susana Field Laboratory, in Simi 
Valley, California. The Committee understands that the 
Department is working toward, but has not finalized the 
interagency agreement with the EPA as required in H.R. 2764. It 
is the expectation of the Committee that this agreement would 
provide EPA with all the funding necessary to begin the 
radiological site characterization survey in fiscal year 2008, 
and that DOE would continue its funding of the survey to its 
completion, as determined by EPA. The bill language requires 
the Department to provide EPA with the funding it requires in 
fiscal year 2009 for ongoing work on the survey.
    Uncosted Offset.--The Committee does not accept the 
proposal to reduce this request by using $653,000 of prior year 
uncosted balances.
    Congressionally Directed Projects.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $3,000,000 for the following 
congressionally directed projects.

   CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Committee
                         Project                          recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bioinformatics and Computational Biology Initiative, The       1,000,000
 University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, to provide
 data management support for research in genomics and
 metabolomic programs...................................
Southwest Experimental Fast Oxide Reactor                      2,000,000
 Decommissioning [SEFOR], University of Arkansas in
 Fayetteville, Fayetteville, AR, for the decommissioning
 of SEFOR in Strickler, AR..............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $622,162,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     480,333,000
Committee recommendation................................     515,333,000

    Uranium Enrichment D&D; Fund.--The Committee provides 
$515,333,000, a total of $35,000,000 above the budget request. 
Last year's budget reported that the site closure of the East 
Tennessee Technology Park would be completed in 2010 rather 
than in 2008, a 2-year slip. This budget now states that 
completion cannot be expected sooner than 2015, a further delay 
of 5 years. This Committee recognizes that this schedule slip 
is solely due to lack of funding in the request; and has, 
therefore, provided a total of $199,495,000, an increase of 
$15,265,000, for the decontamination and decommissioning of the 
East Tennessee Technology Park.
    The Committee recommends $115,614,000 for continued cleanup 
activities at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Paducah, 
Kentucky. This amount is the same as appropriated in fiscal 
year 2008 and $19,735,000 over the Department's request. The 
Committee is concerned that the cuts proposed in the 
Department's budget will harm cleanup efforts of the plant and 
this report includes additional funds to accelerate the 
decontamination and decommissioning of the C-410 building and 
the West End Smelter. In recent years, this Committee has 
provided funds above the requested amount, which have been used 
to accelerate important projects such as the removal of 1,900 
uranium tetrafluoride drums and the disposal of all outdoor 
Designated Material Storage Areas. From the amounts provided, 
the Committee recommends the Department continue to support 
research activities designed to address pressing environmental 
remediation problems at the Paducah site and provide objective 
data and analysis to stakeholders such as the Department as 
well as State and Federal regulators.
    Uranium/Thorium Reimbursement.--The Committee recommends no 
funding for this activity, the same as the request.

                                Science

Appropriations, 2008....................................  $4,017,711,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................   4,721,969,000
Committee recommendation................................   4,640,469,000

    The Committee recommends $4,640,469,000 for the Office of 
Science. This is $622,758,000 above fiscal year 2008 and 
represents the single largest increase for any program in the 
bill. From within available funds, the Office of Science is 
directed to retain the Nation's existing capability to produce 
a wide range of isotopes including californium-252. Consistent 
with the cost-sharing requirements of Public Law 101-101, the 
Department is directed to develop a cost recovery strategy to 
ensure the long-term viability of this program.

                          HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

    The Committee provides $804,960,000 for High Energy 
Physics. The Committee has long been a strong supporter of the 
Department's space-based Joint Dark Energy Mission [JDEM] and 
is pleased that the recent National Academy of Sciences' Beyond 
Einstein Program Assessment Committee [BEPAC] judged this 
mission to be the top priority. The Committee concurs with the 
view of the Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel that 
the cost cap recently announced may limit the scientific 
capabilities assumed by the BEPAC review, and that an increase 
in the budget beyond the current funding scenarios would be 
justified. The Committee recommends the full budget request of 
$10,030,000 for conceptual designs for Joint Dark Energy 
Mission. The Committee recommends full funding of the Non 
Accelerator Physics, University Research programs and includes 
$3,200,000 for EXO 200, neurtrinoless double beta decay 
experiments, an increase of $1,000,000 to complete construction 
in 2009.

                            NUCLEAR PHYSICS

    The Committee provides $510,080,000 for Nuclear Physics, 
the same as the budget request. Within the available funds, the 
Committee recommends $24,900,000 for the Isotope Production and 
Applications program. The Committee has been frustrated with 
the lack of cooperation among the various Federal agencies, 
which has resulted in no Federal request to sustain this 
important responsibility in previous years. The Committee 
recommends $5,000,000 within the available funds for the 
Research Isotope Development and Production Subprogram to 
develop and implement a research and production strategy 
consistent with the National Academy of Science study entitled 
``State of the Science of Nuclear Medicine.'' In developing 
this capability, the Department is encouraged to work with 
researchers and commercial customers to develop a predictable 
and reliable supply of isotopes.
    The Committee directs the Office of Science to complete a 
study on the feasibility of expanding the capability of the 
University of Missouri Research Reactor to supply up to half 
the United States demand for feedstock medical imaging 
compounds in the form of molybdenum-99 and technetium-99. The 
Committee also requests that the Department outline options for 
preserving U.S. production of californium-252.

                 BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

    The Committee provides $598,540,000 for Biological and 
Environmental Research, $30,000,000 more than the budget 
request.
    Biological Research.--The Committee recommends 
$423,613,000, an increase of $10,000,000 to support additional 
investment in nuclear medicine. The Committee supports the 
budget request of $48,500,000 for the operation and maintenance 
of the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory.
    Radiochemistry and Instrumentation.--A recent report the 
National Academy of Sciences, Advancing Nuclear Medicine 
through Innovation, recommended the enhancement of the Federal 
commitment to nuclear medicine research. The Committee is 
concerned that the Department may be looking to move this 
research in other directions and emphasizes its commitment to 
nuclear medicine medical application research at the Department 
of Energy. Within the funds provided, $23,121,000 is for 
Radiochemistry and Instrumentation. Of the $23,121,000, 
$17,500,000 is for nuclear medicine medical application 
research. The Committee emphasizes its commitment to nuclear 
medicine medical application research at the Department of 
Energy. All of the added funds must be awarded competitively in 
one or more solicitation that includes all sources--
universities, the private sector, and Government laboratories.
    The Committees support full funding for Testing and Low 
Dose Research. The Committees also notes that diagnostics are 
currently in development between the University of New Mexico 
[UNM] and Los Alamos National Laboratory utilizing the unique 
capabilities of Las Alamos National Laboratory at the IPF and 
LANSCE and the radiopharmaceutical expertise of UNM at the 
Center for Isotopes in Medicine.
    Climate Change Research.--The Committee recommends 
$174,927,000, an increase of $20,000,000 to support improved 
climate modeling and monitoring within the DOE-NNSA 
laboratories.
    Climate Change Modeling.--The nexus of climate and energy 
presents enormous challenges to our national security and to 
our economy. It is imperative that the United States continues 
to provide strong science leadership that guides policy choices 
and technology investments. The Committee believes the DOE-NNSA 
Labs are best equipped to develop and deploy a national system 
for science-based stewardship that combines advanced modeling, 
multi-scale monitoring, and impact analysis tools. These labs, 
with their experience in nuclear weapons nonproliferation and 
their unique capabilities across a wide range of technical 
resources are best able to develop and implement this 
comprehensive climate research strategy. The challenge of 
certifying the nuclear weapons stockpile in an era of test-ban 
treaties has produced one of the world's greatest computational 
resources through the NNSA's Stockpile Stewardship program. 
These computational capabilities have also been applied to the 
development of sophisticated global climate models that can 
assess climate changes far into the future. However, these 
models are still too coarse to resolve the details of climate 
change at the scale of watersheds or State boundaries, where 
many public policy decisions are made. In addition, the models 
do not capture realistically all of the complex physical 
processes and feedbacks between the atmosphere, ocean, and land 
where natural and man-made carbon fluxes are exchanged. The 
Committee recommends an additional $10,000,000 to support 
development of modeling strategies to support a comprehensive 
modeling program and to focus on scaling global models to 
regional scale to improve the predictive value of these models. 
Similarly, more formal information science methods must be 
applied to move from the current state, where predictions of 
climate models developed by different groups are averaged over 
a range of emissions scenarios, to a state where uncertainties 
are systematically reduced for the most important variables 
through deliberate validation and verification using 
experiments to measure sensitivities and feedbacks. These 
techniques have been implemented in the nuclear stockpile 
stewardship program to provide much stronger confidence in 
predictions for complex systems.
    The DOE-NNSA Labs can also apply their expertise in 
developing sensors and measurement systems to provide a 
comprehensive assessment of global carbon fluxes. Improved 
measurements must feed into models to depict the complex carbon 
exchanges that occur between the atmosphere, oceans, 
terrestrial ecosystem, and human activities at a variety of 
spatial and temporal scales. A global system will require 
remote sensing and in situ monitoring of atmospheric greenhouse 
gases and other chemical indicators to allow attribution of 
sources and sinks. Remote sensing includes satellite sensors 
that can observe modest changes in greenhouse gases against a 
high background signal. Methods to observe plume gas signatures 
associated with carbon fluxes will be necessary to provide 
source attribution information. The Committee recommends an 
additional $5,000,000 to support research and development of 
ground and space based monitoring.
    In order to make informed policy decision regarding our 
energy and water need in the future, the Committee encouraged 
the Department to apply Laboratory expertise in consequence 
analysis modeling using complex infrastructure data to assess 
long-term energy impacts through linkages of climate change 
with infrastructure. The impacts of energy choices are linked 
to global markets, and to our financial, energy, electrical, 
and transportation infrastructure. We must understand the 
sensitivity of this complex system to different policy options 
for climate change, including linkages that may lead to costly 
unintended consequences. The Committee recommends an additional 
$5,000,000 to develop decision analysis tools that can describe 
this system at an appropriate level of complexity and 
integration are required to give rapid insights at regional, 
national, and global scales on long-term consequences of 
investments at the intersection of energy technology and 
climate policy. Because of the inherent sensitivity of the data 
and potential vulnerabilities, this area requires capabilities 
at the national security science laboratories.

                         BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

    The Committee provides $1,415,378,000 for Basic Energy 
Sciences. Of these funds $145,468,000 is provided for 
construction activities as requested in the budget. The 
remaining $1,269,910,000 is for research. Within the research 
funds provided $17,000,000 is for the Experimental Program to 
Stimulate Competitive Research [EPSCoR]. Of the decrease, 
$59,495,000 of basic solar research is moved to the EERE solar 
energy research and development program.

                 ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

    The Committee provides $368,820,000 for Advanced Scientific 
Computing Research, the same as the budget request. The 
Committee is concerned that the Department has limited 
cooperation between the NNSA and DOE laboratories in supporting 
the advanced computing architecture and algorithm development. 
The Committee expects the Office of Science to continue to 
support joint research through the Institute for Advanced 
Architecture and Advanced Algorithms.

                         FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

    The Committee provides $493,050,000 for Fusion Energy 
Sciences, the same as the budget request. The Committee 
understands the Department's difficult decision to close the 
National Compact Stellarator Experiment [NCSX] project. The 
fiscal year 2009 budget request included $20,342,000 for the 
NCSX. The Department is directed to reallocate these funds as 
proposed by the Department to the Committee under Scenario II. 
The Committee understands this means approximately $9,000,000 
will be used for orderly closeout of NCSX, $9,250,000 will be 
used to restore run times for three facilities and support 
major upgrade work at NSTX, and $2,000,000 will be used to 
enhance non-NCSX stellarator research. Recent advances in pulse 
power have renewed interest in nuclear energy systems that 
utilize both fusion and fission. The Committee directs the 
Department to work with laboratories and industry to develop a 
systems concept that identifies the challenges, opportunities 
and future research path of such a fusion-fission hybrid 
system.

                  SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

    The Committee provides $110,260,000 to support 
infrastructure activities, the same as the budget request. The 
Committee reiterates its strong support for the construction of 
the Physical Sciences Facility at the Pacific Northwest 
National Laboratory [PNNL]. This project is funded through 
three separate accounts, all of which have important national 
missions at PNNL. Notwithstanding this unique funding 
arrangement, the Committee expects the Under Secretary of 
Science to take the lead in ensuring that the fiscal year 2010 
budget requests are coordinated among all the parties, and will 
be sufficient to complete the project in that fiscal year.

                        SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

    The Committee provides $80,603,000 for Safeguards and 
Security activities, the same as the budget request. The 
program provides funding for physical security, information 
protection, and cyber security for the national laboratories 
and facilities of the Office of Science.

                       SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION

    The Committee provides $186,695,000 for the Office of 
Science Program Direction. The reduction from the budget 
request reflects the Committee's disapproval of the proposed 
increase in funding for headquarters and the field offices. The 
Committee supports the $8,916,000 for the Office of Science and 
Technical Information.

                     SCIENCE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

    These initiatives support the mission of the Department's 
Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists program. The 
Committee provides $13,583,000, the same as the budget request.

                   CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED PROJECTS

    The Committee recommendation includes $58,500,000 for the 
following list of projects.

                CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SCIENCE PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Committee
                         Project                          recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antibodies Research, University of North Dakota Research      $2,750,000
 Foundation, Grand Forks, ND, to research and develop
 antibodies for disease threats.........................
Bionanotechnology: Research and Commercialization,             1,500,000
 Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, LA, for
 bionanotechnology and biofuels research................
Center for Advanced Energy Studies, Idaho National             3,000,000
 Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID, to conduct a pilot program
 to demonstrate the Nuclear Science Talent Expansion
 program................................................
Center for Diagnostic Nanosystems, Marshall University,        2,000,000
 Huntington, WV, for disease detection and diagnosis
 research...............................................
Center for Nanomedicine and Cellular Delivery, School of         750,000
 Pharmacy, University of MD, Baltimore, MD, for research
Center of Excellence and Hazardous Materials, Carlsbad,        2,000,000
 NM, for applied research...............................
Climate Change Modeling Capability, Los Alamos National        5,000,000
 Lab, Los Alamos, NM, for climate change modeling.......
Computing Capability, North Dakota State University,           5,000,000
 Fargo, ND, to increase supercomputing power............
Contrast Media and Wound Closure Reduction Study,                650,000
 University of Mississippi, University of Mississippi,
 MS, for efficiency in Iodine-based medical imaging for
 diagnostic procedures..................................
Facilitating blood-brain barrier research, Seattle             1,500,000
 Science Foundation, Seattle, WA, for cooperative re-
 search.................................................
Former Workers Medical Surveillance Programs, State            1,000,000
 University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, for medical
 surveillance, needs assessment and former worker
 medical screenings.....................................
Functional MRI Research, University of Vermont College         1,250,000
 of Medicine, Burlington, VT, to support MRI research...
Intermountain Center for River Restoration and                   600,000
 Rehabilitation, Utah State University, Logan, UT, to
 continue researching river restoration and
 environmental management...............................
Marine Systems Research, University of Massachusetts at          500,000
 Boston, Boston, MA, for research into aquatic
 ecosystems, marine biology, fisheries and mammal
 sustainability.........................................
Materials and Energy Research Development, Tulane              1,000,000
 University, New Orleans, LA, for environmental and
 materials research.....................................
Matter-Radiation Interactions in Extremes, Los Alamos          7,000,000
 National Lab, Los Alamos, NM, for advanced materials
 testing................................................
Mind Institute, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque,        12,000,000
 NM, to advance the understanding of mental illness
 through advanced brain imaging.........................
Neuroscience research, Dominican University, River               500,000
 Forest, IL, for research in to memory dysfunctions.....
Pioneer Valley Life Sciences Institute Biomedical                500,000
 Research, Pioneer Valley Life Science Institute,
 Springfield, MA, for research programs.................
Regenerative medicine, Rosalind Franklin University of           500,000
 Medicine and Science, North Chicago, IL, for
 regenerative medicine research.........................
Research into Proton Beam Therapy, Seattle Cancer Care         1,500,000
 Alliance, Seattle, WA, to research new uses for proton
 beam therapy...........................................
Sandia Nanotechnology Engineering Center, Sandia               5,000,000
 National Lab, Albuquerque, NM, for nanotechnology
 engineering activities.................................
Supercapacitors, Sandia National Laboratories,                 1,500,000
 Albuquerque, NM, for work to be done in Ostego, NY on
 supercapacitors........................................
Sustainable Biofuels Development Center, Colorado State        1,500,000
 University, Fort Collins, CO, to support research
 efforts in alternative energy technologies.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Nuclear Waste Disposal

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $187,269,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     247,371,000
Committee recommendation................................     195,390,000

    The Committee recommendation for the Office of Civilian 
Radioactive Waste Management includes $195,390,000 from fees 
collected by the Secretary which are deposited into the fund 
established by Public Law 97-425, as amended, and $193,000,000 
provided from the defense appropriation for a total of 
$388,390,000. This total is $106,352,000 below the request.
    The Committee directs the Department to exercise great 
discretion to ensure that any work undertaken at or near Yucca 
Mountain is consistent with the requirements contained in 
section 113(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and elsewhere 
that no repository construction shall be undertaken prior to 
the issuance of a repository license by the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission.
    Congressionally Directed Projects.--The Committee provides 
$1,950,000 for the following list of projects.

        CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Committee
                         Project                          recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cooperative agreement between the Department of Energy        $1,600,000
 and Inyo County, Inyo County, Independence, CA, to
 complete studies under the cooperative agreement.......
Inyo County Affected Unit of Local Government, County of         350,000
 Inyo, Inyo County, CA, to conduct scientific oversight
 responsibilities and participate in licensing
 activities.............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

              Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program


                        ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

                          GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2008....................................      $5,459,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      19,880,000
Committee recommendation................................      19,880,000

                          OFFSETTING RECEIPTS

Appropriations, 2008....................................     -$1,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     -19,880,000
Committee recommendation................................     -19,880,000

                           NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2008....................................      $4,459,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

    The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 authorized the 
Department to issue loan guarantees under title XVII of the 
Energy Policy Act of 2005 until September 30, 2009. The budget 
request proposes to extend authorization for $20,000,000,000 
for eligible projects other than nuclear power facilities 
through fiscal year 2010 and $18,500,000,000 for eligible 
nuclear power facilities through fiscal year 2011. The 
Committee recommends a no-year limitation on the authorization 
for the entire $38,500,000,000 for all projects.

                      Departmental Administration


                                (GROSS)

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $309,662,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     272,144,000
Committee recommendation................................     272,144,000

                        (MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES)

Appropriations, 2008....................................   -$161,247,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................    -117,317,000
Committee recommendation................................    -117,317,000

    The Committee recommends $272,144,000 for Departmental 
Administration, a net appropriation of $154,827,000. The 
Departmental Administration account funds eleven Department-
wide management organizations support administrative functions 
such as human resources, accounting, budgeting, workforce 
diversity and project management activities.

                      Office of Inspector General

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $46,057,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      51,927,000
Committee recommendation................................      51,927,000

    For the Office of Inspector General, the Committee 
recommends $51,927,000 consistent with the budget request. The 
Office of Inspector General identifies opportunities for cost 
savings and operational efficiencies and provides the 
Department of Energy with the assurance that those attempting 
to defraud the Government are apprehended.

                    ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES


                National Nuclear Security Administration


                           WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2008....................................  $6,297,466,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................   6,618,079,000
Committee recommendation................................   6,524,579,000

    The Committee recommends $6,524,579,000 for National 
Nuclear Security Administration Weapon Activities. This is 
$93,500,000 below the request and $227,113,000 above current 
year.

                        DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK

    Life Extension Programs.--The Committee recommends 
$211,385,000 for the Life Extension Program, the same as the 
budget request.
    Stockpile Systems.--The Committee recommends $338,682,000 
for the Stockpile Systems account, the same as the budget 
request.
    Reliable Replacement Warhead.--The Committee recommends no 
funds for the Reliable Replacement Warhead.
    Weapons Dismantlement.--The Committee recommends 
$205,712,000, an increase of $22,000,000 above the request and 
$71,037,000 over current year levels. Within the Operations and 
Maintenance Activities, the Committee recommends $138,822,000, 
an increase of $22,000,000. The Committee understands that 
delays with the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility [PDCF] 
has created a 4- to 6-year gap between the time when PDCF can 
produce feedstock and when it will be required for the Mixed 
Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility. Within the available funds, 
the Committee recommends an additional $22,000,000 toward 
expanded operations of the AIRES line to ensure there is 
adequate feedstock available when the MOX facility begins 
operations. In addition, the Committee expects the NNSA to 
undertake efforts to identify ways to reduce production of by-
product and waste material, lower the dose exposure to workers 
and achieve operational cost savings. The Committee recommends 
$66,890,000 as requested for the construction request 99-D-144, 
the Pit disassembly and conversion facility, SRS. The Committee 
strongly urges the Department to develop updated cost estimates 
from the original estimates provided in 2006. Further, the NNSA 
should analyze and report on whether more timely and more cost-
effective alternatives to the PDCF exist within the existing 
NNSA complex.
    Stockpile Services.--The Committee recommends $888,376,000 
for Stockpile Services, a decrease of $43,560,000. The 
Committee provides $10,000,000 for Pit Manufacturing 
Capability, a decrease of $43,560,000. The $10,000,000 is to be 
used to fund mission transfers from Lawrence Livermore National 
Laboratory to Los Alamos National Laboratory as proposed in the 
request.

                               CAMPAIGNS

    The campaigns provide the foundation for the experimental 
science-based activities that support the NNSA Stockpile 
Stewardship mission. Research supported by the programs provide 
data that is used with the super computing capabilities at each 
of the laboratories needed to support the life extension 
program and to certify to the President the confidence of the 
nuclear deterrent.
    Science Campaign.--The Committee recommends $331,070,000 
for the Science Campaign, an increase of $8,000,000. Within 
these funds, $82,413,000 is recommended for Primary Assessment 
Technologies, an increase of $8,000,000 to be used for to 
support subcritical experiments and to support fielding and 
diagnostics of Powder Gun, JASPER gas gun, the Borolo 
experiment, and the ongoing series of Phoenix experiments. The 
Committee recommends $28,734,000, to support the Dynamic 
Plutonium Experiments an increase of $5,000,000 to support 
additional experiments in order to understand the detailed 
physics of primary boost by 2015. The Committee continues to 
support the Advance Certification program to increase the 
confidence in changes to warhead design to increase the safety 
and reliability margins of the stockpile without underground 
testing. The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for Advanced 
Certification activities. The Committee recommends $29,418,000 
for Advanced Radiography, consistent with the requested level. 
The Committee is pleased that work on the second beam-line at 
the DARHT facility is completed and it is beginning to produce 
extraordinary experimental hydrodynamic test data. The 
Committee recommends $79,292,000 for Secondary Assessment 
Technologies as requested. Test readiness is decreased to 
$5,408,000.
    Engineering Campaign.--The Committee recommends 
$162,742,000 for the Engineering Campaign, an increase of 
$20,000,000. The Committee believes the Engineering Campaign 
offers the best opportunity to explore, develop and deploy 
state-of-the-art use control and surety devices to our 
stockpile. The Committee has provided the resources to rapidly 
develop innovative engineering solutions to support advanced 
use denial as well as weapons surveillance sensors that will 
allow for more accurate assessment of the safety and 
reliability of the stockpile. The Committee recognizes there 
are broad applications beyond on-weapons controls and 
encourages the NNSA to look at other applications including 
securing special nuclear material and nonproliferation 
applications. Enhanced Surety is provided $45,641,000, an 
increase of $10,000,000 to support research and development of 
enhanced surety applications consistent with the 2007 JASON 
Reliable Replacement Warhead study Recommendation 2(a) to 
develop a ``physical understanding of enhanced surety 
features.'' Weapons Systems is provided $17,105,000, the same 
as the request. Nuclear survivability is provided $21,753,000 
consistent with the request. Enhanced surveillance is provided 
$78,243,000, an increase of $10,000,000 to support additional 
research of micro devices that will improve the real time 
surveillance of the existing stockpile, as well as other 
security applications. Within the additional funds, the 
Committee also recommends an increase in the University 
Robotics program of $1,000,000 to be used to enhance the 
request of $2,100,000.
    Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield 
Campaign.--The Committee recommends $453,242,000 for the ICF 
campaign activities. This is an increase of $32,000,000.
    Ignition.--The Committee recommends $103,644,000, 
consistent with the budget request.
    NIF Diagnostics, Cryogenics and Experimental Support.--The 
Committee provides $68,248,000 as requested.
    Pulsed Power Inertial Confinement Fusion.--The Committee 
recommends $10,920,000, an increase of 2,000,000 to support for 
development of the Linear Transformer Driver concept.
    Joint Program in High Energy Density.--The Committee 
supports the budget request to fund a joint program with the 
Office of Science to support joint research utilizing NNSA 
facilities.
    Facility Operations and Target Production.--The Committee 
recommends $210,384,000, an increase of $30,000,000. Of this 
increase $15,000,000 is for National Ignition Facility 
operations and target production and an increase of $15,000,000 
to support single shift operations on the Z machine and to 
explore advanced concepts.
    NIF Assembly and Installation.--$56,899,000 is provided, as 
requested, to support this budgeted activity.
    Construction.--No funding is provided for NIF construction, 
consistent with the request.
    Advanced Simulation and Computing.--The Committee is 
frustrated by the lack of information regarding the computing 
strategy for the NNSA laboratories in this budget. The budget 
lacks specifics regarding the acquisition priorities and budget 
to support new computing platforms. How computing time will be 
allocated and the existing computing workload divided among the 
labs remains unclear. The Committee requests that the NNSA 
provide a written report outlining its shared computing 
strategy to address these issues. The Committee expects this 
strategy to have the benefit of an independent review and be 
submitted to the Senate Energy and Water Development 
Subcommittee within 6 months after enactment.
    While the Office of Science supports a strategy to expand 
its leadership in computing capabilities and capacity, the 
Committee is concerned about the declining NNSA investment in 
computing platforms needed to sustain the computing capability 
at each the three national security labs. Advanced computing 
capabilities are critical to each of our national laboratories, 
enabling a wide range of programmatic activities. The Committee 
has recommended new climate change modeling responsibilities 
for the national labs, and computational modeling and 
simulation will play a very big role in the success of this 
program. It is imperative the NNSA labs have the capability to 
support this and other missions. The President has requested 
$171,000,000 for computational systems, which is $13,000,000 
below current year levels. Even more troubling is the out-year 
funding proposed in this budget which falls to an average of 
$126,000,000 during years 2010 to 2014. This is nearly 
$60,000,000 below current year levels and is insufficient to 
meet our needs in the areas of national security, advanced 
engineering, climate change, nuclear physics and biology, all 
major scientific priorities for the Department of Energy and 
NNSA.
    The Committee understands that NNSA is planning to spend 
$42,000,000 for the Sequoia system, although this figure is not 
identified in the budget request. The total estimated cost of 
this system is $142,000,000 for the base system with an option 
for $35,000,000 for additional memory making it the most 
expensive NNSA computer acquisition to date. The Committee is 
concerned about the cost of this platform in light of the 
declining budgets for the ASC program. The Committee does not 
believe that the administration has requested sufficient 
funding to support the Sequoia acquisition as well as upgrade 
computing capacity at each of the labs and make the investments 
in future platforms necessary to sustain advanced computing 
capabilities at each of the three weapons labs. Prior to the 
release of any funding for the Sequoia system in fiscal year 
2009, the Committee directs the NNSA to provide a report 
explaining the out year computing acquisition strategy and how, 
within the existing 5-year budget plan, the Department intends 
to fulfill the proposed capacity systems acquisition, upgrades 
of the Red Storm system and provide for the acquisition of 
future advanced computing systems. The Committee does support 
the budget request of $15,000,000 to develop the new Zia 
platform under the new memorandum of agreement between Los 
Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories.
    The Committee recommends $573,742,000 for the Advanced 
Simulation and Computing Campaign, an increase of $12,000,000 
above the budget request. Within available funding, the 
Department is directed to continue to fund the Institute for 
Advanced Architecture and Algorithms at $7,000,000 and an 
additional $5,000,000 is to provide for operations of the Red 
Storm system to expand it uses for national security problems. 
The Committee supports the budget request for the Los Alamos 
Roadrunner Computing platform.
    Readiness Campaign.--The Committee recommends $158,037,000 
for the Readiness Campaign, a decrease of $25,000,000. Within 
these funds, the Committee recommends the tritium readiness 
activities be funded at $71,265,000, a decrease of $11,000,000, 
due to unobligated balances in this account, stockpile 
readiness be funded at $21,731,000, a decrease of $7,000,000, 
and non-nuclear readiness at $33,165,000, a decrease of 
$7,000,000. The remaining activities are funded at the budget 
request level.

               READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES

    The Committee recommends $1,703,745,000, a reduction of 
$21,778,000. This funding is used to support the operations and 
maintenance of the NNSA laboratories, productions facility, 
equipment purchases and personnel. Of these funds:
    Operations of Facilities.--The Committee recommends 
$1,193,907,000 for this account. This funding level reflects a 
reduction of $19,000,000 from the proposed $37,687,000 increase 
for the Kansas City Plant.
    Program Readiness.--The Committee recommends the requested 
amount of $73,841,000.
    Material Recycle and Recovery.--The Committee recommends 
the requested amount of $72,509,000.
    Containers.--The Committee recommends the requested amount 
of $23,398,000.
    Storage.--The Committee recommends the requested amount of 
$29,846,000.
    Construction.--The Committee recommends $310,244,000 a 
reduction of $2,778,000. The Committee has provided this 
funding increase to make key investments in laboratory 
infrastructure and security needs.
    Project 09-D-007, LANSCE Reinvestment Project [PED], Los 
Alamos, New Mexico.--The Committee recommends $35,000,0000, an 
increase of $30,000,000 to fund the refurbishment designs for 
this user and experimental facility.
    Project 09-D-404, Test Capabilities Revitalization II, 
Sandia, New Mexico.--The Committee recommends $3,200,000 the 
same as the budget request.
    Project 08-D-801, High Pressure Fire Loop, Pantex, Texas.-- 
The Committee recommends $2,000,000 the same as the request.
  --08-D-802, High Explosives Pressing Facility, Pantex, 
        Texas.-- The Committee recommends $28,233,000 the same 
        as the request.
  --08-D-804, TA-55 Reinvestment Project, Los Alamos, New 
        Mexico.--The Committee recommends $7,900,000 the same 
        as the request.
  --08-D-804 Ion Beam Laboratory Refurbishment, SNL, 
        Albuquerque, New Mexico.--The Committee recommends 
        $10,014,000 the same as the request.
  --07-D-140 Project Engineering and Design, Various 
        Locations.--The Committee recommends $7,446,000 the 
        same as the request.
  --07-D-220 Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility 
        Upgrade Project, LANL, New Mexico.--The Committee 
        recommends $19,660,000 the same as the request.
  --06-D-140 Project Engineering and Design, Various 
        Locations.--The Committee recommends $47,083,000 for 
        these projects. Of the amount provided, $8,500,000 is 
        for the TA-55 reinvestment project. For the design of 
        the Uranium Processing Facility $38,583,000 is 
        provided, the same amount as current year funding and a 
        decrease of $57,578,000 below the request. The 
        Committee does not believe the Department has provided 
        adequate justification to support the Uranium 
        Processing Facility at Y-12 and has reprogrammed 
        funding from this activity to other higher priorities 
        in the past. The Committee notes the Cost Analysis 
        Improvement Group has identified potential long-term 
        cost-savings by constructing the UPF facility at 
        another existing NNSA complex site. The Committee is 
        concerned the NNSA is not giving this issue vigorous 
        consideration.
  --06-D-420 NTS Replace Fire Stations 1 & 2, Nevada Test Site, 
        Nevada.--The Committee recommends $9,340,000, the same 
        as the request.
  --05-D-402, Beryllium Capability Project, Y-12 Plant, Oak 
        Ridge, Tennessee.--The Committee recommends $5,015,000, 
        the same as the request.
  --04-D-125, Chemistry and Metallurgy Facility Replacement 
        Project, Los Alamos, New Mexico.--The Committee 
        recommends $125,000,000 for this project, an increase 
        of $24,800,000. The recommendation provides additional 
        funding to make up for funding shortfalls in previous 
        This facility allows for the consolidation of the 
        NNSA's plutonium analytical chemistry and actinide 
        research activities and replaces the exiting facility 
        which sits atop an active seismic fault. The Committee 
        is sensitive to the fact that the rising cost of 
        materials such as concrete and steel has increased 
        project cost estimates by over 30 percent for this 
        project. The Committee is also aware of the fact that 
        changes in the seismic requirements have required 
        significant design changes that include 4 foot thick 
        walls and doubling the thickness of the concrete slab 
        to 10 feet.
  --04-D-128, TA-18 Mission Relocation Project, Los Alamos, New 
        Mexico.--The Committee recommends $10,353,000, the same 
        as the request.

                      SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET

    The Committee recommendation for the Secure Transportation 
Asset program is $221,072,000 as requested. This organization 
provides an invaluable service is responsible for the safe and 
secure transport of our nuclear weapons, weapons components and 
special nuclear material.

                   NUCLEAR WEAPONS INCIDENT RESPONSE

    The Committee recommends full funding for the nuclear 
weapons incident response program. The committee provides 
$221,936,000 as requested.

             FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE RECAPITALIZATION

    The Committee provides $163,549,000 for Facilities and 
Infrastructure Recapitalization activities, a decrease of 
$6,000,000 in operations and maintenance. This program was 
developed to reduce the backlog in deferred maintenance of 
aging infrastructure facilities throughout the complex. The old 
facilities continue to be a drain on resources and should be 
demolished or disposed of as quickly as possible.

                 ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS AND OPERATIONS

    The Committee recommends $28,316,000 for environmental 
projects and operations, a decrease of $12,271,000.

                       TRANSFORMATION DISPOSITION

    The Committee does not provide any of the $77,391,000 
requested to initiate the transformation disposition program. 
The Committee agrees with the goals of the new program, but 
notes with significant frustration that while the Department of 
Energy and Office of Management and Budget managed to find 
$77,391,000 for decommissioning and demolition of these non-
contaminated buildings under the NNSA's control, the two 
agencies at the same time proposed hundreds of millions in cuts 
to ongoing D&D; work of radiological contaminated buildings 
under the control of the Office of Environmental Management 
[EM]. The EM controlled buildings are contaminated and present 
a threat to human health and the environment. The 
administration argues these NNSA transformation disposition 
funds will lead to cost savings by decreasing hotel costs. 
However, the same logic applies to the EM program. On balance, 
the Committee does not see the logic in DOE and OMB's 
priorities between these two programs D&D; activities.

                        SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

    The Committee recommendation for the Safeguards and 
Security program is $859,839,000 as requested.
    Defense Nuclear Security.--The Committee recommends 
$690,217,000 as requested.
    Construction.--The Committee recommends $47,111,000 as 
requested to support the following projects:
  --08-D-701 Nuclear Materials S&S; Upgrade Project Los Alamos 
        National Laboratory.--The Committee provides 
        $46,000,000 as requested.
  --05-D-170 Project Engineering and Design, Various 
        Locations.--The Committee recommends $1,111,000 as 
        requested.
    Cyber Security.--The Committee provides $122,511,000 as 
requested.

                   CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED PROJECTS

    The Committee recommends $3,500,000 for the following list 
of projects.

          CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED WEAPONS ACTIVITIES PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Committee
                         Project                          recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arrowhead Center, New Mexico State University, Las            $1,000,000
 Cruces, NM, to promote prosperity in New Mexico through
 economic development...................................
Electronic Record for Worker Safety and Health,                1,500,000
 University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Clark County to help
 the Nevada Site Office improve responses to DOE worker
 claims.................................................
Renewable Energy Planning, National Nuclear Security             500,000
 Administration, Nevada Test Site, NV, for planning to
 maximize renewable energy production at the Site.......
Restore Manhattan Project Sites, Los Alamos National             500,000
 Lab, Los Alamos, NM, for historic preservation.........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

Appropriations, 2008....................................   \1\$1,657,996
Budget estimate, 2009...................................       1,247,966
Committee recommendation................................       1,909,056

\1\Includes $322,000,000 in reallocated prior year balances.

    The Committee recommends $1,909,056,000, an increase of 
$175,000,000 above the request and $251,060,000 above current 
year levels. The Committee has restored funding for the Mixed 
Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility as it continues to serve a 
significant nonproliferation objective. The Committee 
recommends a significant upgrade in the Nation's technical 
capability to deal with proliferation threats by focusing 
greater investment in laboratory capabilities and improving the 
capabilities available to IAEA inspectors. Significant funding 
has also been provided to accelerate efforts to repatriate 
nuclear material from around the world and provide for its 
secure storage or elimination. The Committee has provided 
$15,000,000 to Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation to support its 
participation in an Integrated University Program. The 
Committee recommends $10,000,000 of this amount to be used to 
support university programs in technical areas vital to the 
nonproliferation mission, including nuclear forensics and 
international nuclear safeguards. In addition, not less than 
$5,000,000 of this amount will be used for grants to support 
research projects that do not align with programmatic missions 
but are critical to maintaining the discipline of nuclear 
science and engineering.

       NONPROLIFERATION AND VERIFACTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

    The Committee recommends $350,091,000, an increase of 
$75,000,000 above the request. The additional funds will be 
provided to increase our capabilities in proliferation 
detection. Of this amount, $30,000,000 is provided to support 
sustained, multi-year funding for detection research, including 
investments in simulation and data analysis capabilities 
relevant to the nonproliferation and international safeguards 
missions. NNSA should take advantage of the significant 
investments in advanced computing and algorithm development at 
the national laboratories for its nonproliferation programs. 
The Committee remains concerned that despite Congressional 
direction, additional funds have been used to reinforce 
existing efforts rather than to increase the Defense Nuclear 
Nonproliferation's role in investing in core capabilities and 
infrastructure. Within the available increase, the Committee 
recommends $20,000,000 for a more effective nuclear forensic 
and attribution capability. A recent American Association for 
the Advancement of Science report concludes that our technical 
ability to provide decision makers with critical analyses in a 
timely manner needs improvement. Both our pre-detonation and 
post-detonation evaluation capabilities must be strengthened. 
We also have critical shortages in personnel with key skills 
such as radiochemistry. Within the additional funds, 
$10,000,000 is provided for nuclear explosion monitoring 
directed at expanding nuclear explosion monitoring for very low 
yield nuclear testing around the world. The Committee directs 
the Department to utilize not less than an additional 
$5,000,000 to competitively fund an integrated suite of 
research, technology development and demonstration projects 
including infrasound, hydroacoustic, and seismic technologies 
for nuclear explosion monitoring. An additional $10,000,000 is 
provided to support the Integrated University Program. The 
Committee recommendation includes the request of $13,147,000 to 
continue construction of the Physical Sciences Laboratory at 
the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

              NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

    The Committee recommends $175,467,000, an increase of 
$35,000,000 above the request and $25,474,000 above current 
year levels. Within the additional funds $20,000,000 is 
available to support the Next Generation Safeguards Initiative; 
$10,000,000 to be available to support disablement and material 
removal efforts in North Korea or other emerging threats, and 
$5,000,000 to support the Integrated University Program.

       INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS PROTECTION AND COOPERATION

    The Committee recommends $429,694,000 consistent with the 
request. The Committee has provided this office with 
significant funding increases in the past and supports the 
mission of this office.

           ELIMINATION OF WEAPONS-GRADE PLUTONIUM PRODUCTION

    The Committee recommends $141,299,000 consistent with the 
request.

                     FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION

    The Committee recommends $528,782,000, consistent with the 
budget request. The Committee believes the nonproliferation 
mission remains the overall objective of this project and has 
restored the funding to Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.
    U.S. Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition.--The Committee 
recommends $40,774,000 consistent with the budget request. 
Consistent with the budget request, the Committee has included 
$39,274,000 for the research reactor fuel project and the 
reliable fuel supply project. By September 2009, the Department 
expects to have completed the downblending of nearly all of the 
17.4 metric tons of HEU for the reliable fuel supply program. 
The Committee expects the Department to provide a written 
report by the end of the fiscal year to update the Committee on 
how the Department intends to utilize the reliable fuel supply 
and under what terms and conditions this material will be made 
available to other nations. Further, the Committee encourages 
the Department to consider possible domestic needs as well 
consistent with the fiscal year 2008 conference report.
    Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility.--The Committee 
recommends $19,200,000 to support operations and maintenance 
including the development of the feedstock and testing of fuel 
assemblies as requested and $467,808,000 for construction and 
other project costs, consistent with the budget request. The 
Committee understands that the deep cuts to the program in 
fiscal year 2008 will increase the total cost and result in 
delay in the completion of this project but encourages the NNSA 
do its best to safely accelerate completion of this project.

                   GLOBAL THREAT REDUCTION INITIATIVE

    The Committee recommends $284,641,000, an increase of 
$65,000,000 above the request and $86,416,000 above current 
year levels. Of the additional funding $20,000,000 is provided 
to support the development of high density fuels to replace HEU 
cores; and an additional $45,000,000 is provided to accelerate 
the removal of proliferation sensitive materials from around 
the world. The NNSA has recovered more than 16,000 radiological 
sources in an effort to reduce the threat of attacks involving 
radiological dispersion devices. While the recovered sources 
are no longer needed by their previous owners, some may still 
find useful application and could be used to reduce the demand 
for new source material. We should look to maximize the 
recycling of such material and minimize the need for foreign 
imports. Using available funds a report should be produced on 
the benefits and costs of establishing a process for the reuse 
of recovered radiological sources for industrial or other 
legitimate purposes.

                             Naval Reactors

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $774,686,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     828,054,000
Committee recommendation................................     828,054,000

    Through the Naval Reactors program, the National Nuclear 
Security Administration is working to provide the U.S. Navy 
with nuclear propulsion plants that are capable of responding 
to the challenges of 21st century security concerns. The 
Committee recommends $828,054,000 for the Naval Reactors 
program.

                      Office of the Administrator

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $402,137,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     404,081,000
Committee recommendation................................     404,081,000

    The Committee recommends $404,081,000 for the Office of the 
Administrator, the same as the President's request.

               ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES


                     Defense Environmental Cleanup

Appropriations, 2008....................................  $5,349,325,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................   5,297,256,000
Committee recommendation................................   5,771,506,000

    The Committee recommendation for Defense Environmental 
Cleanup is $5,771,506,000, an increase of $474,250,000 above 
the President's request. The Committee is disappointed with the 
administration's fiscal year 2009 budget proposal, which is 
$167,000,000 less than the veto-threat constrained fiscal year 
2008 appropriation. The fiscal year 2009 program is underfunded 
to the point even this administration has admitted that, for 
the first time in its 20-year history, the cleanup budget 
request is insufficient to meet its existing regulatory 
compliance milestones. In testimony presented to the Committee 
this past April, the Assistant Secretary for Environmental 
Management admitted this budget was as much as $900,000,000 
short of supporting regulatory compliance milestones. The 
result is a budget request that, if unchanged, would result 
immediately in non-compliance with regulatory agreements and 
layoffs around the cleanup complex. Thus, our Committee has had 
to significantly increase, to the tune of $554,250,000, our 
recommendation for the entire Environmental Cleanup program in 
the hope of avoiding many of those consequences. We warn the 
Department not to rely on the Congress to solve its legal 
obligations in the future, and we expect a budget submittal 
that is legally compliant in fiscal year 2010.
    Reprogramming Control Levels.--In fiscal year 2009, the 
Environmental Management program may transfer funding between 
projects within the controls listed below using guidance 
contained in the Department's budget execution manual (DOE M 
135.1-1A, Chapter IV). If the amount of a single transfer, or 
the cumulative amount of multiple transfers, between projects 
within the control level exceeds 25 percent of the fiscal year 
2009 appropriated level, the Environmental Management program 
must notify both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees 
within 30 days after the transfer. The Committee recommends the 
following reprogramming control points for fiscal year 2009:
  --Closure sites;
  --Savannah River site, 2012 completion projects;
  --Savannah River site, 2035 completion projects;
  --Savannah River site, tank farm operations projects;
  --Waste Isolation Pilot Plant;
  --Idaho National Laboratory;
  --Oak Ridge Reservation;
  --Hanford site; 2012 completion projects;
  --Hanford site; 2035 completion projects;
  --Office of River Protection, tank farm operations projects;
  --Office of River Protection, Waste Treatment and 
        Immobilization Plant;
  --Program Direction;
  --Program Support;
  --Technology Development and Deployment;
  --All construction line items;
  --NNSA sites; and
  --Safeguards and Security.
    Internal Reprogramming Authority.--Since only a few of the 
sites above have multiple control points to which the internal 
reprogramming statute applies, Environmental Management site 
managers may transfer up to $5,000,000, one time, between 
accounts listed below to reduce health and safety risks, gain 
cost savings, or complete projects, as long as a program or 
project is not increased or decreased by more than $5,000,000 
in total during the fiscal year. This reprogramming authority 
may not be used to initiate new programs or to change funding 
levels for programs specifically denied, limited, or increased 
by Congress in the act or report. The Committee on 
Appropriations in the House of Representatives and the Senate 
must be notified within 30 days after the use of this internal 
reprogramming authority.
    The following is a list of account control points for 
internal reprogramming purposes:
  --Savannah River site, 2012 completion projects;
  --Savannah River site, 2035 completion projects;
  --Savannah River site, tank farm operations projects;
  --Hanford site; 2012 completion projects;
  --Hanford site; 2035 completion projects; and
  --Transfers between construction line item(s) and the 
        operating budget within the same site, as applicable.
    Closure Sites.--The Committee includes $59,383,000, an 
increase of $13,500,000 above the request, to assure disposal 
of the Fernald Byproducts Waste.
    Hanford Site.--The Committee includes $1,020,564,000, a 
total of $168,777,000 above the budget request. Of the 
increase, $80,577,000 is directed to the River Corridor Closure 
Project; $9,000,000 is directed to the stabilization and 
disposition of special nuclear material at the Plutonium 
Finishing Plant; $45,000,000 is provided for solid waste 
operations in the 200 Area; and $25,700,000 is for remediation 
of the groundwater and vadose zone. The Committee notes the 
Department's continued support for the B-Reactor Museum and the 
Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency Response [HAMMER] 
facility, which are provided for within available funds at the 
site.
    Idaho Cleanup Project.--The Committee recommends 
$465,124,000, which is $33,000,000 over the request. From 
within available funds, $2,000,000 is provided to continue the 
national spent fuel program. An increase of $18,000,000 is 
provided for increased buried transuranic waste retrieval, 
characterization, and shipping, as required by State agreement. 
Another $8,000,000 is provided to avoid interrupting currently 
mobilized decontamination and decommissioning teams which are 
reducing Environmental Management's site footprint and cost of 
operation. Finally, $7,000,000 is provided for the exchange of 
spent nuclear fuel with the Savannah River Site, South 
Carolina.
    NNSA Sites.--The Committee recommendation is $346,084,000, 
a total of $101,000,000 above the request. The Committee 
recommends $245,467,000 for cleanup at Los Alamos National 
Laboratory, $83,000,000 above the request. The increase is 
necessary to prevent the site from missing agreed upon cleanup 
milestones in fiscal year 2009. The Committee also provides 
$75,674,000 for Nevada, $10,000,000 above the request, for 
characterization and certification of remaining transuranic 
waste stored at Nevada for disposal at the Waste Isolation 
Pilot Plant; $3,000,000 for the Sandia National Laboratory, 
$3,000,000 above the request, for Landfill Remediation 
activities per the regulatory closure requirement; and 
$5,000,000 above the request for continuing decontamination and 
decommissioning at the Separations Processing Research Unit.
    Oak Ridge Reservation.--The recommendation is $255,000,000, 
an increase of $17,330,000 above the budget request, 
$13,330,000 of which will continue decontamination and 
decommissioning of facilities ``owned'' by Environmental 
Management at the Y-12 and Oak Ridge National Laboratory 
complexes. The remaining $4,000,000 will be used for TSCA 
Operations through fiscal year 2009 to support Paducah and 
Portsmouth cleanup efforts.
    Office of River Protection.--The Committee provides 
$1,031,443,000, an increase of $53,000,000 above the request. 
The entire increase is for supplemental treatment activities 
and single shell tank retrievals in the tank farms. The Waste 
Treatment and Immobilization Plant is fully supported at 
$690,000,000.
    Savannah River Site.--The Committee includes 
$1,264,961,000, an increase of $58,536,000 above the budget 
request. The additional funding will complete Transuranic waste 
drum shipments to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant; provide for 
groundwater cleanup (+$11,692,000) and decontamination and 
decommissioning (+$35,344,000), for packaging special nuclear 
materials (+$8,000,000) for long term storage; and preparing 
spent nuclear fuel for exchange with Idaho ($3,500,000).
    Waste Isolation Pilot Plant [WIPP].--The recommendation is 
$231,661,000 for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. The increase 
of $20,137,000 maintains the fiscal year 2008 level of 
transuranic waste shipments and receipts at this site.
    Program Direction.--The Committee includes $308,765,000, 
the same as the requested amount.
    Program Support.--The Committee includes $33,930,000, the 
same as the request.
    Safeguards and Security.--The Committee recommends 
$260,341,000. The $9,000,000 increase is for security upgrades 
at the Canister Storage Building in Hanford, Washington, for 
special nuclear material that will not be shipped offsite to 
South Carolina.
    Technology Development and Deployment.--The Committee 
provides $22,250,000.
    Federal Contribution to Uranium Enrichment Decontamination 
and Decommissioning Fund.--The recommendation is $463,000,000, 
the same as the request.
    Uncosted Offset.--The Committee does not accept the 
proposal to reduce this request by using $1,109,000 of prior 
year uncosted balances.
    Congressionally Directed Projects.--The Committee includes 
$9,000,000 for the following list of projects.

     CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Committee
                         Project                          recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Characteristics and Clean-up of U.S. Nuclear Legacy,          $4,000,000
 Institute for Clean Energy Technology, Mississippi
 State, MS, for renewal of the cooperative agreement
 with the DOE to help expedite the cleanup of the
 nuclear defense sites..................................
Water Resources Data, Modeling, and Visualization              1,000,000
 Center, Desert Research Institute, Washoe County, NV
 for water research.....................................
WIPP Records Archive, WIPP, Carlsbad, NM, for records          4,000,000
 archiving..............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Other Defense Activities

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $754,359,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................   1,335,996,000
Committee recommendation................................     827,503,000

    The Committee recommendation is $827,503,000, for Other 
Defense Activities, the same as requested, with the exception 
of the MOX construction project, which is funded under the 
Nuclear Nonproliferation program. This amount is sufficient to 
provide for the Office of Health, Safety and Security 
($447,918,000), the Office of Legacy Management ($185,981,000), 
Safeguards and Security for Nuclear Energy's Idaho Site 
($78,811,000), Defense Related Administrative Support, which 
contributes its share toward the Department's administrative 
costs ($108,190,000), and the Office of Hearings and Appeals 
($6,603,000).
    The Committee concurs with the budgetary change proposed by 
the Office of Legacy Management to consolidate its mission 
funding under a single appropriation. This consolidation leads 
to efficiencies in managing the approximately 80 former 
research and production sites, and administering the pension 
and benefit plans for retired cold war employees.
    The Committee also concurs with the change in policy for 
Nuclear Energy's Safeguards and Security Reimbursable Work, 
which again can lead to efficiencies in managing and executing 
the program.
    Congressionally Directed Projects.--The Committed 
recommends $1,050,000 for the following list of projects.

       CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Committee
                         Project                          recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical Monitoring at Paducah, KY, Portsmouth, OH, and        $1,050,000
 Oak Ridge, TN, Paducah, Portsmouth, and Oak Ridge
 Medical Monitoring, Paducah, KY, Portsmouth, OH, and
 Oak Ridge, TN, to provide for continued conventional
 medical work-ups and lung scans and re-scans for
 current and former workers.............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $199,171,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     247,371,000
Committee recommendation................................     193,000,000

    The Committee recommendation for Defense Nuclear Waste 
Disposal under the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management is $193,000,000. Along with $195,390,000 from fees 
collected by the Secretary which are deposited into the fund 
established by Public Law 97-425, as amended, the Committee 
provides a total of $388,390,000 for fiscal year 2009.

                    Power Marketing Administrations


                    BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION

    The Bonneville Power Administration is the Department of 
Energy's marketing agency for electric power in the Pacific 
Northwest. Bonneville provides electricity to a 300,000 square 
mile service area in the Columbia River drainage basin. 
Bonneville markets the power from Federal hydropower projects 
in the Northwest, as well as power from non-Federal generating 
facilities in the region. Bonneville also exchanges and markets 
surplus power with Canada and California. The Committee 
recommends no new borrowing authority for BPA during fiscal 
year 2009.

      OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2008....................................      $6,404,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................       7,420,000
Committee recommendation................................       7,420,000

    For the Southeastern Power Administration, the Committee 
recommends $7,420,000, the same as the budget request. The 
Committee provides $63,522,000 for purchase power and wheeling.
    The Southeastern Power Administration markets hydroelectric 
power produced at Corps of Engineers projects in 11 
Southeastern States. Southeastern does not own or operate any 
transmission facilities and carries out its marketing program 
by utilizing the existing transmission systems of the power 
utilities in the area. This is accomplished through 
transmission arrangements between Southeastern and each of the 
area utilities with transmission lines connected to the 
projects. The utility agrees to deliver specified amounts of 
Federal power to customers of the Government, and Southeastern 
agrees to compensate the utility for the wheeling service 
performed.

      OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $30,165,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      28,414,000
Committee recommendation................................      28,414,000

    For the Southwestern Power Administration, the Committee 
recommends $28,414,000, the same as the budget request. The 
Committee provides $46,000,000 for purchase power and wheeling.
    The Southwestern Power Administration is the marketing 
agent for the power generated at the Corps of Engineers' 
hydroelectric plants in the six State area of Kansas, Oklahoma, 
Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana, with a total 
installed capacity of 2,158 megawatts. It operates and 
maintains some 1,380 miles of transmission lines, 24 generating 
projects, and 24 substations, and sells its power at wholesale, 
primarily to publicly and cooperatively-owned electric 
distribution utilities.

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

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $228,907,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     193,346,000
Committee recommendation................................     218,346,000

    The Western Power Administration is responsible for 
marketing the electric power generated by the Bureau of 
Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers, and the International 
Boundary and Water Commission. Western also operates and 
maintains a system of transmission lines nearly 17,000 miles 
long, providing electricity to 15 Central and Western States 
over a service area of 1.3 million square miles.
    The Committee notes that Western Area Power Administration 
funding for Construction, Rehabilitation, Operations and 
Maintenance is significantly reduced from prior levels. The 
budget proposes to offset this reduction by a far greater 
reliance on use of alternative financing. While direct customer 
financing is well established there are limits on the 
availability of this alternative financing mechanism. The 
Committee is concerned that continued reductions in Western's 
construction program could impair the reliability of the 
transmission systems.
    The Committee recommends $218,346,000 for the Western Area 
Power Administration. The total program level for Western in 
fiscal year 2009 is $901,634,000, which includes $74,544,000 
for construction and rehabilitation, $52,365,000 for system 
power operation and maintenance, $600,960,000 for purchase 
power and wheeling, and $166,423,000 for program direction. The 
Committee recommendation includes $7,342,000 for the Utah 
Mitigation and Conservation Fund.
    Offsetting collections total $406,484,000; with the use of 
$3,366,000 of offsetting collections from the Colorado River 
Dam Fund (as authorized in Public Law 98-381), this requires a 
net appropriation of $218,346,000.
    An increase in purchase power and wheeling use of receipt 
authority of $75,000,000, over and above the request of 
$328,100,000, is needed to provide for increases in cost of 
power, continuing drought conditions, and for certain 
unforeseen charges.

           FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

Appropriations, 2008....................................      $2,477,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................       2,959,000
Committee recommendation................................       2,959,000

    The Falcon Dam and Amistad Dam on the Rio Grande River 
generate power through hydroelectric facilities and sell this 
power to public utilities through the Western Power 
Administration. This fund, created in the Foreign Relations 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, defrays the 
costs of operation, maintenance, and emergency activities and 
is administered by the Western Area Power Administration. For 
the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund, the 
Committee recommends $2,959,000 the same as the request.

                  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $260,425,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     273,400,000
Committee recommendation................................     273,400,000

                            REVENUES APPLIED

Appropriations, 2008....................................   -$260,425,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................    -273,400,000
Committee recommendation................................    -273,400,000


                                                                  DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                            Committee recommendation
                                                                                                          Committee               compared to--
                                                                     Revised enacted  Budget estimate   recommendation ---------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Revised enacted  Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy RDD&D;:
    Local Government and Tribal technology demonstration...........  ...............  ...............          50,000          +50,000          +50,000
        Hydrogen Technology........................................         211,062          146,213          175,000          -36,062          +28,787
        Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D........................;         198,180          225,000          235,000          +36,820          +10,000
        Solar energy...............................................         168,453          156,120          229,000          +60,547          +72,880
        Wind energy................................................          49,545           52,500           62,500          +12,955          +10,000
        Geothermal technology......................................          19,818           30,000           30,000          +10,182   ...............
        Water Power Energy.........................................           9,909            3,000           30,000          +20,091          +27,000
        Vehicle technologies.......................................         213,043          221,086          293,000          +79,957          +71,914
        Building technologies......................................         108,999          123,765          176,481          +67,482          +52,716
        Industrial technologies....................................          64,408           62,119           65,119             +711           +3,000
        Federal energy management program..........................          19,818           22,000           22,000           +2,182   ...............

        Facilities and infrastructure:
            National Renewable Energy Laboratory [NREL]............           6,918            9,982           21,982          +15,064          +12,000
            NREL Solar equipment recapitalization..................           7,927   ...............  ...............          -7,927   ...............
            Construction:
                08-EE-02 South-table mountain site infrastructure             6,831   ...............           7,000             +169           +7,000
                 development, National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
                 Golden, Co........................................
                08-EE-01 Energy systems integration facility,                54,500            4,000            8,000          -46,500           +4,000
                 National Renewal Energy Laboratory, Golden,  CO...
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Subtotal, Construction.........................          61,331            4,000           15,000          -46,331          +11,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Subtotal, Facilities and infrastructure........          76,176           13,982           36,982          -39,194          +23,000

        Program direction..........................................         104,057          121,846          121,846          +17,789   ...............
        Program support............................................          10,801           20,000           15,000           +4,199           -5,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy RDD&D...;       1,254,269        1,197,631        1,541,928         +287,659         +344,297

Federal energy assistance:
    Weatherization assistance......................................         222,713   ...............         200,000          -22,713         +200,000
    Training and technical assistance..............................           4,509   ...............           1,181           -3,328           +1,181
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Weatherization.....................................         227,222   ...............         201,181          -26,041         +201,181

    Other:
        State energy program.......................................          44,095           50,000           50,000           +5,905   ...............
        International renewable energy program.....................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
        Tribal energy activities...................................           5,945            1,000            6,000              +55           +5,000
        Renewable energy production incentive......................           4,955   ...............           5,000              +45           +5,000
        Asia pacific...............................................  ...............           7,500   ...............  ...............          -7,500
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Other..........................................          54,995           58,500           61,000           +6,005           +2,500
          Subtotal, Federal energy assistance......................         282,217           58,500          262,181          -20,036         +203,681
Use of prior year balances.........................................  ...............            -738   ...............  ...............            +738
Congressionally directed projects..................................         185,921   ...............         124,150          -61,771         +124,150
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, ENERGY EFFICENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY.................       1,722,407        1,255,393        1,928,259         +205,852         +672,866
                                                                    ====================================================================================
            ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY

Research and development:
    High temperature superconductivity R&D.........................;          27,930           28,186           28,186             +256   ...............
        Visualization and controls.................................          25,075           25,305           35,305          +10,230          +10,000
        Energy storage and power electronics.......................           6,741           13,403           17,403          +10,662           +4,000
        Renewable and distributed systems integration..............          25,466           33,306           39,306          +13,840           +6,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Research and development.......................          85,212          100,200          120,200          +34,988          +20,000

Operations and analysis............................................          11,451           14,122           14,122           +2,671   ...............
Program direction..................................................          17,603           19,678           19,678           +2,075   ...............
    Congressionally directed projects..............................          24,290   ...............          12,900          -11,390          +12,900
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY...........         138,556          134,000          166,900          +28,344          +32,900
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                           NUCLEAR ENERGY

Research and development:
    Integrated University program..................................  ...............  ...............          15,000          +15,000          +15,000
    Nuclear power 2010.............................................         133,771          241,600          241,600         +107,829   ...............
    Generation IV nuclear energy systems initiative................         114,917           70,000           70,000          -44,917   ...............
    Nuclear hydrogen initiative....................................           9,909           16,600           10,000              +91           -6,600
    Advanced fuel cycle initiative.................................         179,353          301,500          229,700          +50,347          -71,800
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Research and development...........................         437,950          629,700          566,300         +128,350          -63,400

Infrastructure:
    Radiological facilities management:
        Space and defense infrastructure...........................          30,371           35,000           35,000           +4,629   ...............
        Medical isotopes infrastructure............................          14,828   ...............  ...............         -14,828   ...............
        Research reactor infrastructure............................           2,920            3,700            6,000           +3,080           +2,300
        Oak Ridge nuclear infrastructure...........................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Radiological facilities management.............          48,119           38,700           41,000           -7,119           +2,300

    INL infrastructure:
        INL Operations and infrastructure..........................         115,935          104,700          119,700           +3,765          +15,000
        Idaho sitewide safeguards and security.....................          75,261           78,811           78,811           +3,550   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, INL Infrastructure.............................         239,315          222,211          239,511             +196          +17,300

Program direction..................................................          80,872           80,544           73,000           -7,872           -7,544
Use of prior year balances.........................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Nuclear Energy.....................................         758,137          932,455          878,811         +120,674          -53,644
                                                                    ====================================================================================
Funding from other defense activities..............................         -75,261          -78,811          -78,811           -3,550   ...............
Congressional directed projects....................................  ...............  ...............           3,000           +3,000           +3,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY........................................         682,876          853,644          803,000         +120,124          -50,644
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                    OFFICE OF LEGACY MANAGEMENT

Legacy management..................................................          33,872   ...............  ...............         -33,872   ...............

                       CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

Deferral of unobligated balances, fiscal year 2008.................         257,000   ...............  ...............        -257,000   ...............
Deferral of unobligated balances, fiscal year 2009.................        -149,000          149,000          149,000         +298,000   ...............
Transfer to Fossil Energy R&D; [CCPI]...............................         -69,363   ...............  ...............         +69,363   ...............
Transfer to Fossil Energy R&D; [CCDI]...............................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
Transfer to Fossil Energy R&D......................................;         -74,317         -149,000         -149,000          -74,683   ...............
Transfer to Fossil Energy R&D; (Fuels & Power Systems)..............         -20,809   ...............  ...............         +20,809   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY.................................         -56,489   ...............  ...............         +56,489   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
               FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Clean coal power initiative........................................          69,363           85,000          232,300         +162,937         +147,300
FutureGen..........................................................          74,317          156,000   ...............         -74,317         -156,000

Fuels and Power Systems:
    Innovations for existing plants................................          36,081           40,000           50,000          +13,919          +10,000
    Advanced integrated gasification combined cycle................          53,509           69,000           63,000           +9,491           -6,000
    Advanced turbines..............................................          23,782           28,000           30,000           +6,218           +2,000
    Carbon sequestration...........................................         118,908          149,132          149,132          +30,224   ...............
    Fuels..........................................................          24,773           10,000           30,000           +5,227          +20,000
    Fuel cells.....................................................          55,490           60,000           60,000           +4,510   ...............
    Advanced research..............................................          37,159           26,600           30,000           -7,159           +3,400
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Fuels and power systems............................         349,702          382,732          412,132          +62,430          +29,400
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Coal...............................................         493,382          623,732          644,432         +151,050          +20,700

Natural Gas Technologies...........................................          19,818   ...............          20,000             +182          +20,000
Petroleum--Oil Technologies........................................           4,954   ...............           5,000              +46           +5,000
Program direction..................................................         148,597          126,252          152,804           +4,207          +26,552
Plant and Capital Equipment........................................          12,882            5,000           17,748           +4,866          +12,748
Fossil energy environmental restoration............................           9,483            9,700            9,700             +217   ...............
Special recruitment programs.......................................             650              656              656               +6   ...............
Cooperative research and development...............................           4,954   ...............           5,000              +46           +5,000
Congressionally directed projects..................................          48,118   ...............          32,700          -15,418          +32,700
Use of prior year balances.........................................  ...............         -11,310          -11,310          -11,310   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT................         742,838          754,030          876,730         +133,892         +122,700
                                                                    ====================================================================================
NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES.............................          20,272           19,099           19,099           -1,173   ...............
STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE........................................         186,757          346,923          205,000          +18,243         -141,923
Use of prior year balances.........................................  ...............          -2,923   ...............  ...............          +2,923
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE...........................         186,757          344,000          205,000          +18,243         -139,000

NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE.................................          12,335            9,800            9,800           -2,535   ...............
ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION..................................          95,460          110,595          110,595          +15,135   ...............

                 NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

West Valley Demonstration Project..................................          53,900           57,600           72,900          +19,000          +15,300
Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility (WA)...............................          10,248           10,755           10,755             +507   ...............
Gaseous Diffusion Plants...........................................          37,773           81,296           92,696          +54,923          +11,400
Small Sites........................................................  ...............          64,413           90,060          +90,060          +25,647
Use of Prior year balances.........................................  ...............            -653   ...............  ...............            +653
Congressionally directed projects..................................  ...............  ...............           3,000           +3,000           +3,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP.....................         101,921          213,411          269,411         +167,490          +56,000
                                                                    ====================================================================================
    URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING FUND

Decontamination and decommissioning................................         602,344          480,333          515,333          -87,011          +35,000
Uranium/thorium reimbursement......................................          19,818   ...............  ...............         -19,818   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, UED&D; FUND/URANIUM INVENTORY CLEANUP..................         622,162          480,333          515,333         -106,829          +35,000
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                              SCIENCE

High energy physics:
    Proton accelerator-based physics...............................         373,274          419,577          419,577          +46,303   ...............
    Electron accelerator-based physics.............................          78,046           48,772           48,772          -29,274   ...............
    Non-accelerator physics........................................          61,238           86,482           86,482          +25,244   ...............
    Theoretical physics............................................          56,391           63,036           63,036           +6,645   ...............
    Advanced technology R&D........................................;         119,368          187,093          187,093          +67,725   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, High energy physics...................................         688,317          804,960          804,960         +116,643   ...............

Nuclear physics....................................................         415,187          479,019          479,019          +63,832   ...............
    Construction:
        07-SC-02 Electron beam ion source Brookhaven National                 4,162            2,438            2,438           -1,724   ...............
         Laboratory, NY............................................
        06-SC-01 Project engineering and design [PED] 12 GeV                 13,377           28,623           28,623          +15,246   ...............
         continuous electron beam accelerator facility upgrade,
         Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator facility (was
         project 07-SC-001), Newport News, VA......................
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Total, Nuclear physics.................................         432,726          510,080          510,080          +77,354   ...............

Biological and environmental research:
    Biological research............................................         407,530          413,613          423,613          +16,083          +10,000
    Climate change research........................................         136,867          154,927          174,927          +38,060          +20,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Biological and environmental research.................         544,397          568,540          598,540          +54,143          +30,000

Basic energy sciences:
    Research:
        Materials sciences and engineering research................         946,403        1,125,579        1,038,839          +92,436          -86,740
        Chemical sciences, geosciences, and energy biosciences.....         230,234          297,113          231,071             +837          -66,042
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Research.......................................       1,176,637        1,422,692        1,269,910          +93,273         -152,782

    Construction:
        08-SC-01 Advanced light source [ALS] user support building,           4,954           11,500           11,500           +6,546   ...............
         LBNL, CA..................................................
        08-SC-10 Project engineering and design [PED] Photon                    941   ...............  ...............            -941   ...............
         ultrafast laser science and engineering [PULSE] building
         renovation, SLAC, CA......................................
        08-SC-11 Photon ultrafast laser science and engineering               6,391            3,728            3,728           -2,663   ...............
         [PULSE] building renovation, SLAC, CA.....................
        07-SC-06 Project engineering and design [PED] National               29,727           93,273           93,273          +63,546   ...............
         Synchrotron light source II [NSLS-II].....................
        05-R-320 LINAC coherent light source [LCLS]................          50,889           36,967           36,967          -13,922   ...............
        705-R-321 Center for functional nanomaterials [BNL]........             363   ...............  ...............            -363   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Construction...................................          93,265          145,468          145,468          +52,203   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Basic energy sciences.............................       1,269,902        1,568,160        1,415,378         +145,476         -152,782

Advanced scientific computing research.............................         351,173          368,820          368,820          +17,647   ...............
Fusion energy sciences program.....................................         286,548          493,050          493,050         +206,502   ...............

Science laboratories infrastructure:
    Laboratories facilities support:
        Infrastructure support:
            Payment in lieu of taxes...............................           1,506            1,385            1,385             -121   ...............
            Excess facilities disposal.............................           8,748           14,844           14,844           +6,096   ...............
            Oak Ridge landlord.....................................           5,033            5,079            5,079              +46   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, Infrastructure support.....................          15,287           21,308           21,308           +6,021   ...............

        Construction:
            09-SC-72 Seismic life-safety, modernization and          ...............          12,495           12,495          +12,495   ...............
             replacement of general purpose buildings Phase 2, PED/
             Construction, LBNL....................................
            09-SC-73, Interdisciplinary science building Phase 1,    ...............           8,240            8,240           +8,240   ...............
             PED, BNL..............................................
            09-SC-74, Technology and engineering development         ...............           3,700            3,700           +3,700   ...............
             facilities PED, TJNAF.................................
            08-SC-71 Modernization of laboratory facilities PED,     ...............          14,103           14,103          +14,103   ...............
             ORNL..................................................
            07-SC-05 Physical science facilities, PNNL.............  ...............          41,155           41,155          +41,155   ...............
            03-SC-001 Science laboratories infrastructure MEL-001            49,574            9,259            9,259          -40,315   ...............
             Multiprogram energy laboratory infrastructure
             projects, various locations...........................
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Subtotal, Construction.............................          49,574           88,952           88,952          +39,378   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Total, Science laboratories infrastructure.........          64,861          110,260          110,260          +45,399   ...............

Safeguards and security............................................          75,946           80,603           80,603           +4,657   ...............

Science program direction:
    Headquarters...................................................          75,525           82,846           75,525   ...............          -7,321
    Office of Science and Technical Information....................  ...............           8,916            8,916           +8,916   ...............
    Field offices..................................................         102,254          112,151          102,254   ...............          -9,897
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Science program direction.............................         177,779          203,913          186,695           +8,916          -17,218

Workforce development for teachers and scientists..................           8,044           13,583           13,583           +5,539   ...............
Congressionally directed projects..................................         123,623   ...............          58,500          -65,123          +58,500
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, SCIENCE............................................       4,023,316        4,721,969        4,640,469         +617,153          -81,500
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of prior year balances.........................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
Less security charge for reimbursable work.........................          -5,605   ...............  ...............          +5,605   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      TOTAL, SCIENCE...............................................       4,017,711        4,721,969        4,640,469         +622,758          -81,500
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                       NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Repository program.................................................         117,906          172,388          118,457             +551          -53,931
Program direction..................................................          69,363           74,983           74,983           +5,620   ...............
Congressionally directed projects..................................  ...............  ...............           1,950           +1,950           +1,950
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      TOTAL, NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL................................         187,269          247,371          195,390           +8,121          -51,981
                                                                    ====================================================================================
              INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY GUARANTEE PROGRAM

Administrative operations..........................................           5,459           19,880           19,880          +14,421   ...............
Offsetting collection..............................................          -1,000          -19,880          -19,880          -18,880   ...............
Advance appropriation (Public Law 110-161).........................          42,000           25,000           25,000          -17,000   ...............
Proposed change in subsidy cost....................................  ...............         355,000          355,000         +355,000   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY GUARANTEE PROGRAM...............          46,459          380,000          380,000         +333,541   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                    DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

Administrative operations:
    Salaries and expenses:
        Office of the Secretary....................................           5,751            5,700            5,700              -51   ...............
        Chief Financial Officer....................................          41,998           45,048           45,048           +3,050   ...............
        Management.................................................          65,033           67,000           67,000           +1,967   ...............
        Human capital management...................................          27,986           31,436           31,436           +3,450   ...............
        Chief Information Officer..................................          47,106           53,738           53,738           +6,632   ...............
        Congressional and intergovernmental affairs................           4,733            4,700            4,700              -33   ...............
        Economic impact and diversity..............................           5,614            3,545            3,545           -2,069   ...............
        General Counsel............................................          29,889           31,233           31,233           +1,344   ...............
        Policy and international affairs...........................          18,831           19,469           19,469             +638   ...............
        Public affairs.............................................           3,339            3,780            3,780             +441   ...............
        Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Salaries and expenses..........................         250,280          265,649          265,649          +15,369   ...............

    Program support:
        Minority economic impact...................................             829              855              855              +26   ...............
        Policy analysis and system studies.........................             621            1,000            1,000             +379   ...............
        Environmental policy studies...............................             528              531              531               +3   ...............
        Climate change technology program (prog. supp).............           1,059            2,000            2,000             +941   ...............
        Cybersecurity and secure communications....................          34,865           34,512           34,512             -353   ...............
        Corporate management information program...................          28,164           27,250           27,250             -914   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Program support................................          66,066           66,148           66,148              +82   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Administrative operations.........................         316,346          331,797          331,797          +15,451   ...............

    Cost of work for others........................................          91,420           48,537           48,537          -42,883   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION........................         407,766          380,334          380,334          -27,432   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding from other defense activities..............................         -98,104         -108,190         -108,190          -10,086   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Departmental administration (gross)...................         309,662          272,144          272,144          -37,518   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
Miscellaneous revenues.............................................        -161,247         -117,317         -117,317          +43,930   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION (net).....................         148,415          154,827          154,827           +6,412   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL........................................          46,057           51,927           51,927           +5,870   ...............

                  ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

              NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES:
    Life extension program:
        B61 Life extension program.................................          61,908            2,189            2,189          -59,719   ...............
        W76 Life extension program.................................         172,213          209,196          209,196          +36,983   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Life extension program............................         234,121          211,385          211,385          -22,736   ...............

    Stockpile systems:
        B61 Stockpile systems......................................          73,655           80,434           80,434           +6,779   ...............
        W62 Stockpile systems......................................           2,112            1,645            1,645             -467   ...............
        W76 Stockpile systems......................................          67,914           68,418           68,418             +504   ...............
        W78 Stockpile systems......................................          38,245           43,349           43,349           +5,104   ...............
        W80 Stockpile systems......................................          31,753           32,034           32,034             +281   ...............
        B83 Stockpile systems......................................          24,534           25,759           25,759           +1,225   ...............
        W87 Stockpile systems......................................          56,054           37,189           37,189          -18,865   ...............
        W88 Stockpile systems......................................          45,820           49,854           49,854           +4,034   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Stockpile systems.................................         340,087          338,682          338,682           -1,405   ...............

    Reliable replacement warhead...................................  ...............          10,000   ...............  ...............         -10,000

    Weapons dismantlement and disposition:
        Operations and maintenance.................................         134,675          116,822          138,822           +4,147          +22,000
        Construction: 99-D-141 Pit disassembly and conversion        ...............          66,890           66,890          +66,890   ...............
         facility, SRS.............................................
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Weapons dismantlement and disposition.............         134,675          183,712          205,712          +71,037          +22,000

    Stockpile services:
        Production support.........................................         279,529          302,126          302,126          +22,597   ...............
        Research and development support...........................          32,691           36,231           36,231           +3,540   ...............
        Research and development certification and safety..........         178,504          193,375          193,375          +14,871   ...............
        Management, technology, and production.....................         201,645          201,375          201,375             -270   ...............
        Pit manufacturing..........................................  ...............         145,269          145,269         +145,269   ...............
        Pit manufacturing capability...............................  ...............          53,560           10,000          +10,000          -43,560
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Stockpile services................................         692,369          931,936          888,376         +196,007          -43,560
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Directed stockpile work...........................       1,401,252        1,675,715        1,644,155         +242,903          -31,560

    Campaigns:
        Science campaign:
            Advanced certification, non-RRW........................          14,866           20,000           20,000           +5,134   ...............
            Primary assessment technologies........................          62,312           74,413           82,413          +20,101           +8,000
            Dynamic plutonium experiments..........................  ...............          23,734           28,734          +28,734           +5,000
            Dynamic materials properties...........................          96,140           85,805           85,805          -10,335   ...............
            Advanced radiography...................................          30,402           29,418           29,418             -984   ...............
            Secondary assessment technologies......................          78,999           79,292           79,292             +293   ...............
            Test readiness.........................................           4,905           10,408            5,408             +503           -5,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, Science campaigns..........................         287,624          323,070          331,070          +43,446           +8,000

        Engineering campaign:
            Enhanced surety, non-RRW...............................          34,137           35,641           45,641          +11,504          +10,000
            Weapons system engineering assessment technology.......          19,314           17,105           17,105           -2,209   ...............
            Nuclear survivability..................................           8,644           21,753           21,753          +13,109   ...............
            Enhanced surveillance..................................          79,073           68,243           78,243             -830          +10,000

            Microsystem and engineering science applications                  7,485   ...............  ...............          -7,485   ...............
             [MESA], other project costs...........................
            Construction:
                08-D-806 Ion beam laboratory refurbishment, SNL,              9,911   ...............  ...............          -9,911   ...............
                 Albuquerque, NM...................................
                01-D-108 Microsystem and engineering science                 10,984   ...............  ...............         -10,984   ...............
                 applications [MESA], SNL, Albuquerque, NM.........
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal, MESA...................................          28,380   ...............  ...............         -28,380   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal, Engineering campaign...................         169,548          142,742          162,742           -6,806          +20,000

        Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield
         campaign:
            Ignition...............................................         103,029          103,644          103,644             +615   ...............
            NIF diagnostics, cryogenics and experimental support...          68,107           68,248           68,248             +141   ...............
            Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion...............          10,241            8,920           10,920             +679           +2,000
            Joint program in high energy density laboratory plasmas           3,152            3,147            3,147               -5   ...............
            Facility operations and target production..............         112,012          180,384          210,384          +98,372          +30,000
            Inertial fusion technology.............................          29,426   ...............  ...............         -29,426   ...............
            Naval Research Laboratory..............................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
            NIF assembly and installation..........................         134,294           56,899           56,899          -77,395   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal.............................................         460,261          421,242          453,242           -7,019          +32,000
            Construction: 96-D-111 National ignition facility, LLNL           9,945   ...............  ...............          -9,945   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, Inertial confinement fusion................         470,206          421,242          453,242          -16,964          +32,000

        Advanced simulation and computing..........................         574,537          561,742          573,742             -795          +12,000

        Pit manufacturing and certification:
            Pit manufacturing......................................         137,323   ...............  ...............        -137,323   ...............
            Pit certification......................................          37,273   ...............  ...............         -37,273   ...............
            Pit manufacturing capability...........................          39,235   ...............  ...............         -39,235   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, Pit manufacturing and certification........         213,831   ...............  ...............        -213,831   ...............

        Readiness campaign:
            Stockpile readiness....................................          18,562           28,731           21,731           +3,169           -7,000
            High explosives and weapon operations..................           9,647            8,927            8,927             -720   ...............
            Nonnuclear readiness...................................          25,103           40,165           33,165           +8,062           -7,000
            Tritium readiness......................................          71,831           82,265           71,265             -566          -11,000
            Advanced design and production technologies............          32,945           22,949           22,949           -9,996   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, Readiness campaign.........................         158,088          183,037          158,037              -51          -25,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Campaigns.....................................       1,873,834        1,631,833        1,678,833         -195,001          +47,000

    Readiness in technical base and facilities [RTBF]:
        Operations of facilities:
            Kansas City Plant......................................          84,702          122,389          103,389          +18,687          -19,000
            Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.................          89,303           85,160           85,160           -4,143   ...............
            Los Alamos National Laboratory.........................         285,025          298,112          298,112          +13,087   ...............
            Nevada Test Site.......................................          64,863           92,203           92,203          +27,340   ...............
            Pantex.................................................         112,813          104,361          104,361           -8,452   ...............
            Sandia National Laboratory.............................         153,873          127,827          127,827          -26,046   ...............
            Savannah River Site....................................          85,738          108,114          108,114          +22,376   ...............
            Y-12 Productions Plant.................................         224,190          216,904          216,904           -7,286   ...............
            Institutional Site Support.............................          53,948           57,837           57,837           +3,889   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, operations of facilities...................       1,154,455        1,212,907        1,193,907          +39,452          -19,000

        Program readiness..........................................          70,099           73,841           73,841           +3,742   ...............
        Material recycle and recovery..............................          71,567           72,509           72,509             +942   ...............
        Containers.................................................          21,760           23,398           23,398           +1,638   ...............
        Storage....................................................          34,462           29,846           29,846           -4,616   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, RTBF...........................................       1,352,343        1,412,501        1,393,501          +41,158          -19,000

        Construction:
            09-D-007, LANSCE Refurbishment PED Los Alamos National   ...............  ...............          35,000          +35,000          +35,000
             La, Los Alamos, NM....................................
            09-D-404, Test capabilities revitalization II, Sandia    ...............           3,200            3,200           +3,200   ...............
             National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM................
            08-D-801 High pressure fire loop [HPFL] Pantex Plant,             6,866            2,000            2,000           -4,866   ...............
             Amerillo, TX..........................................
            08-D-802 High explosive pressing facility Pantex Plant,          15,008           28,233           28,233          +13,225   ...............
             Amerillo, TX..........................................
            08-D-804 TA-55 Reinvestment project, Los Alamos                   5,885            7,900            7,900           +2,015   ...............
             National Laboratory [LANL]............................
            08-D-806 Ion beam laboratory refurbishment, SNL          ...............          10,014           10,014          +10,014   ...............
             Albuquerque, NM.......................................
            07-D-140 Project engineering and design [PED], various            2,452            7,446            7,446           +4,994   ...............
             locations.............................................
            07-D-220 Radioactive liquid waste treatment facility             26,162           19,660           19,660           -6,502   ...............
             upgrade project, LANL.................................
            06-D-140 Project engineering and design [PED], various           41,552          104,661           47,083           +5,531          -57,578
             locations.............................................
            06-D-402 NTS replace fire stations 1 & 2 Nevada Test              6,591            9,340            9,340           +2,749   ...............
             Site, NV..............................................
            05-D-140 Project engineering and design [PED], various            1,961   ...............  ...............          -1,961   ...............
             locations.............................................
            05-D-402 Beryllium capability [BEC] project, Y-12        ...............           5,015            5,015           +5,015   ...............
             National security complex, Oak Ridge, TN..............
            04-D-125 Chemistry and metallurgy facility replacement           74,141          100,200          125,000          +50,859          +24,800
             project, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos,
             NM....................................................
            04-D-128 TA-18 mission relocation project, Los Alamos            28,892           10,353           10,353          -18,539   ...............
             Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM............................
            01-D-124 HEU materials facility, Y-12 plant, Oak Ridge,          75,528   ...............  ...............         -75,528   ...............
             TN....................................................
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, Construction...............................         285,038          308,022          310,244          +25,206           +2,222
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Readiness in technical base and facilities....       1,637,381        1,720,523        1,703,745          +66,364          -16,778

    Facilities and infrastructure recapitalization pgm.............         118,471           99,550           93,550          -24,921           -6,000
        Construction:
            08-D-601 Mercury highway, Nevada Test Site, NV.........           7,651           11,700           11,700           +4,049   ...............
            08-D-602 Portable water system upgrades Y-12 Plant, Oak          22,070           27,666           27,666           +5,596   ...............
             Ridge, TN.............................................
            07-D-253 TA 1 heating systems modernization [HSM]                12,751           15,755           15,755           +3,004   ...............
             Sandia National Laboratory............................
            06-D-601 Electrical distribution system upgrade, Pantex           2,452            4,000            4,000           +1,548   ...............
             Plant, Amarillo, TX...................................
            06-D-602 Gas main and distribution system upgrade,                1,863   ...............  ...............          -1,863   ...............
             Pantex Plant, Amarillo, TX............................
            06-D-603 Steam plant life extension project [SLEP], Y-           14,733           10,878           10,878           -3,855   ...............
             12 National Security Complex, Oak Ridge,  TN..........
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Subtotal, Construction.............................          61,520           69,999           69,999           +8,479   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Total, Facilities and infrastructure                        179,991          169,549          163,549          -16,442           -6,000
                 recapitalization program..........................

    Transformation disposition.....................................  ...............          77,391   ...............  ...............         -77,391
    Safeguards and security:
        Secure transportation asset:
            Operations and equipment...............................         128,343          131,651          131,651           +3,308   ...............
            Program direction......................................          83,180           89,421           89,421           +6,241   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, Secure transportation asset................         211,523          221,072          221,072           +9,549   ...............

        Defense nuclear security...................................         728,123          690,217          690,217          -37,906   ...............
            Construction:
                08-D-701 Nuclear materials S&S; upgrade project Los           48,550           46,000           46,000           -2,550   ...............
                 Alamos National Laboratory........................
                05-D-170 Project engineering and design [PED],                7,847            1,111            1,111           -6,736   ...............
                 various locations.................................
                08-D-702 Material security consolidation project,            14,713   ...............  ...............         -14,713   ...............
                 Idaho National Lab, ID............................
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal, Construction...........................          71,110           47,111           47,111          -23,999   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal, Defense nuclear security...............         799,233          737,328          737,328          -61,905   ...............

        Cybersecurity..............................................         100,287          122,511          122,511          +22,224   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Safeguards and security...........................         899,520          859,839          859,839          -39,681   ...............

    Environmental projects and operations: Long term stewardship...           8,592           40,587           28,316          +19,724          -12,271
    Nuclear weapons incident response..............................         158,655          221,936          221,936          +63,281   ...............

    Congressionally directed projects..............................          47,232   ...............           3,500          -43,732           +3,500
    Less security charge for reimbursable work.....................         -34,000   ...............  ...............         +34,000   ...............
    Use of prior year balances.....................................         -86,514             -366             -366          +86,148   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES.................................       6,297,466        6,618,079        6,524,579         +227,113          -93,500
    Rescission of prior year balances..............................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES....................................       6,297,466        6,618,079        6,524,579         +227,113          -93,500
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                  DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Nonproliferation and verification, R&D.............................;         362,424          261,944          336,944          -25,480          +75,000
    Construction:
        07-SC-05 Physical Science Facility, Pacific Northwest        ...............          13,147           13,147          +13,147   ...............
         National Laboratory, Richland, WA.........................
        06-D-180 06-01 Project engineering and design [PED]                  24,772   ...............  ...............         -24,772   ...............
         National Security Laboratory, PNNL........................
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Nonproliferation & verification R&D............;         387,196          275,091          350,091          -37,105          +75,000

Nonproliferation and international security........................         149,993          140,467          175,467          +25,474          +35,000
International nuclear materials protection and cooperation.........         624,482          429,694          429,694         -194,788   ...............
Elimination of weapons-grade plutonium production program..........         179,940          141,299          141,299          -38,641   ...............

Fissile materials disposition:
    U.S. surplus fissile materials disposition.....................  ...............          40,774           40,774          +40,774   ...............
    U.S. uranium disposition.......................................          66,235   ...............  ...............         -66,235   ...............
    Mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility:
        Operations and maintenance.................................  ...............          19,200           19,200          +19,200   ...............
        Construction and other project costs: 99-D-143 MOX fuel      ...............         467,808          467,808         +467,808   ...............
         fabrication facility......................................
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility..........  ...............         487,008          487,008         +487,008   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, U.S. surplus fissile materials disp............          66,235          527,782          527,782         +461,547   ...............

    Russian surplus materials disposition..........................  ...............           1,000            1,000           +1,000   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Fissile materials disposition.........................          66,235          528,782          528,782         +462,547   ...............

Global threat reduction initiative.................................         193,225          219,641          284,641          +91,416          +65,000
International nuclear fuel bank....................................          49,545   ...............  ...............         -49,545   ...............
Congressionally directed projects..................................           7,380   ...............  ...............          -7,380   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation...................       1,657,996        1,734,974        1,909,974         +251,978         +175,000

Use of prior year balances.........................................  ...............            -918             -918             -918   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation...................       1,657,996        1,734,056        1,909,056         +251,060         +175,000

Rescissions:
    Rescission of prior year balances--Russian Surplus Materials            -57,000   ...............  ...............         +57,000   ...............
     Disposition program...........................................
    Rescission of prior year balances--Fissile materials                   -115,000   ...............  ...............        +115,000   ...............
     disposition MOX construction line.............................
    Rescission of prior year balances for Emergency Supplemental           -150,000   ...............  ...............        +150,000   ...............
     for fiscal year 1999 (H.R. 4328, Public Law 102-277)..........
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total, Rescissions.........................................        -322,000   ...............  ...............        +322,000   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
        TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION....................       1,335,996        1,734,056        1,909,056         +573,060         +175,000
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                           NAVAL REACTORS

Naval reactors development.........................................         732,374          771,600          771,600          +39,226   ...............
Construction:
    09-D-190, PED, Infrastructure upgrades, KAPL...................  ...............           1,000            1,000           +1,000   ...............
    09-D-902, NRF Office Building #2, ECC upgrade, Idaho...........  ...............           8,300            8,300           +8,300   ...............
    08-D-901 Shipping and receiving and warehouse complex [SRWC],             8,918   ...............  ...............          -8,918   ...............
     BAPL..........................................................
    08-D-190 Project engineering and design, Expended Core Facility             545              300              300             -245   ...............
     M-290 recovering discharge station, Naval Reactor Facility, ID
    07-D-190 Materials research technology complex [MRTC]..........             446           12,400           12,400          +11,954   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Construction.......................................           9,909           22,000           22,000          +12,091   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Naval reactors development............................         742,283          793,600          793,600          +51,317   ...............

Program direction..................................................          32,403           34,454           34,454           +2,051   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      TOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS........................................         774,686          828,054          828,054          +53,368   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                    OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

Office of the Administrator........................................         379,997          404,081          404,081          +24,084   ...............
Congressionally directed projects..................................          22,140   ...............  ...............         -22,140   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR...........................         402,137          404,081          404,081           +1,944   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      TOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION..............       8,810,285        9,584,270        9,665,770         +855,485          +81,500
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                   DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Closure Sites......................................................          42,050           45,883           59,383          +17,333          +13,500

Hanford Site:
    Operating projects 2012 accelerated completions................         419,189          400,902          490,479          +71,290          +89,577
    Operating projects 2035 accelerated completions................         467,309          450,885          530,085          +62,776          +79,200
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Hanford Site..........................................         886,498          851,787        1,020,564         +134,066         +168,777

Idaho National Laboratory..........................................         508,358          432,124          465,124          -43,234          +33,000

NNSA:
    NNSA Service Center/SPRU.......................................          28,831           16,943           21,943           -6,888           +5,000
    Nevada.........................................................          80,368           65,674           75,674           -4,694          +10,000
    California site support........................................             367   ...............  ...............            -367   ...............
    Pantex.........................................................          20,027   ...............  ...............         -20,027   ...............
    Sandia National Laboratories...................................  ...............  ...............           3,000           +3,000           +3,000
    Los Alamos National Laboratory.................................         152,070          162,467          245,467          +93,397          +83,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites.......................         281,663          245,084          346,084          +64,421         +101,000

Oak Ridge Reservation..............................................         190,535          237,670          255,000          +64,465          +17,330

Office of River Protection:
    Waste treatment & immobilization plant.........................         683,722          690,000          690,000           +6,278   ...............

    Tank Farm activities:
        Rad liquid tank waste stabil. and disposition..............         285,351          288,443          341,443          +56,092          +53,000
        River protection community and regulatory support..........             467   ...............  ...............            -467   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Tank Farm activities...........................         285,818          288,443          341,443          +55,625          +53,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Office of River Protection........................         969,540          978,443        1,031,443          +61,903          +53,000

Savannah River site:
    04-D-423 Container surveillance capability in 235F.............          10,900   ...............  ...............         -10,900   ...............
    04-D-414 Project Engineering and Design, 105-K.................  ...............           2,032            2,032           +2,032   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, 2012 accelerated completions.......................          10,900            2,032            2,032           -8,868   ...............

Operating projects 2035 accelerated completions....................         509,394          498,651          557,187          +47,793          +58,536
    Construction: 08-D-414 Project engineering and design Plutonium             991   ...............  ...............            -991   ...............
     Vitrification Facility, VL....................................
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, 2035 accelerated completions.......................         510,385          498,651          557,187          +46,802          +58,536

    Tank Farm activities:
        Rad liquid tank waste stabil. and disposition..............         513,799          578,218          578,218          +64,419   ...............
        05-D-405, Salt waste processing facility...................          87,199          127,524          127,524          +40,325   ...............
        03-D-414, Salt waste processing facility PED SR............           9,910   ...............  ...............          -9,910   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Tank farm activities...........................         610,908          705,742          705,742          +94,834   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Savannah River site...............................       1,132,193        1,206,425        1,264,961         +132,768          +58,536

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant........................................         234,585          211,524          231,661           -2,924          +20,137
Program direction..................................................         306,941          308,765          308,765           +1,824   ...............
Program support....................................................          32,844           33,930           33,930           +1,086   ...............
Safeguards and Security............................................         259,332          251,341          260,341           +1,009           +9,000
Technology development.............................................          21,194           32,389           22,250           +1,056          -10,139
Uranium enrichment D&D; fund contribution...........................         458,787          463,000          463,000           +4,213   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN UP.....................       5,324,520        5,298,365        5,762,506         +437,986         +464,141
                                                                    ====================================================================================
Congressionally directed projects..................................          17,195   ...............           9,000           -8,195           +9,000
Use of prior year balances.........................................  ...............          -1,109   ...............  ...............          +1,109
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN UP........................       5,341,715        5,297,256        5,771,506         +429,791         +474,250
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                      OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Health, safety and security:
    Health, safety and security....................................         326,324          347,271          347,271          +20,947   ...............
    Program direction..............................................          99,137           99,597           99,597             +460   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Health, safety and security...........................         425,461          446,868          446,868          +21,407   ...............

Office of Legacy Management:
    Legacy management..............................................         144,060          174,397          174,397          +30,337   ...............
    Program direction..............................................          10,901           11,584           11,584             +683   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Office of Legacy Management...........................         154,961          185,981          185,981          +31,020   ...............

Nuclear energy: Infrastructure: Idaho sitewide safeguards and                75,261           78,811           78,811           +3,550   ...............
 security..........................................................
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Nuclear energy........................................          75,261           78,811           78,811           +3,550   ...............

Defense related administrative support.............................          98,104          108,190          108,190          +10,086   ...............
Office of Hearings and Appeals.....................................           4,565            6,603            6,603           +2,038   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Other Defense Activities...........................         758,352          826,453          826,453          +68,101   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
Congressionally directed projects..................................  ...............  ...............           1,050           +1,050           +1,050
Less security charge for reimbursable work.........................          -3,003   ...............  ...............          +3,003   ...............
Use of prior year balances.........................................            -990   ...............  ...............            +990   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES..............................         754,359          826,453          827,503          +73,144           +1,050
                                                                    ====================================================================================
DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL.....................................         199,171          247,371          193,000           -6,171          -54,371
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES......................      15,105,530       15,955,350       16,457,779       +1,352,249         +502,429
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                  POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION:
    Operation and maintenance:
        Purchase power and wheeling................................          62,215           63,522           63,522           +1,307   ...............
        Program direction..........................................           6,404            7,420            7,420           +1,016   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Operation and maintenance......................          68,619           70,942           70,942           +2,323   ...............
    Less alternative financing (PPW)...............................         -13,802          -14,002          -14,002             -200   ...............
    Offsetting collections.........................................         -48,413          -49,520          -49,520           -1,107   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION.....................           6,404            7,420            7,420           +1,016   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION:
    Operation and maintenance:
        Operating expenses.........................................          11,892           12,865           12,865             +973   ...............
        Purchase power and wheeling................................          45,000           46,000           46,000           +1,000   ...............
        Program direction..........................................          22,054           24,330           24,330           +2,276   ...............
        Construction...............................................           4,269            5,991            5,991           +1,722   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Operation and maintenance......................          83,215           89,186           89,186           +5,971   ...............

    Less alternative financing (for program direction).............            -877           -2,200           -2,200           -1,323   ...............
    Less alternative financing (for O&M;)...........................          -6,304           -9,381           -9,381           -3,077   ...............
    Less alternative financing (PPW)...............................         -10,000          -11,000          -11,000           -1,000   ...............
    Less alternative financing (Const.)............................            -869           -3,191           -3,191           -2,322   ...............
    Offsetting collections.........................................         -35,000          -35,000          -35,000   ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION.....................          30,165           28,414           28,414           -1,751   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION:
    Operation and maintenance:
        Construction and rehabilitation............................          62,419           74,544           74,544          +12,125   ...............
        Operation and maintenance..................................          52,873           52,365           52,365             -508   ...............
        Purchase power and wheeling................................         475,254          525,960          600,960         +125,706          +75,000
        Program direction..........................................         156,128          166,423          166,423          +10,295   ...............
        Utah mitigation and conservation...........................           7,114            7,342            7,342             +228   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Operation and maintenance......................         753,788          826,634          901,634         +147,846          +75,000

    Less alternative financing (for O&M;)...........................          -5,000          -15,499          -15,499          -10,499   ...............
    Less alternative financing (for Const.)........................         -30,690          -72,663          -47,663          -16,973          +25,000
    Less alternative financing (for Program direction).............         -10,000          -15,800          -15,800           -5,800   ...............
    Less alternative financing (for PPW)...........................        -166,552         -197,842         -197,842          -31,290   ...............
    Offsetting collections (Public Law 108-477, Public Law 109-103)        -308,702         -328,118         -403,118          -94,416          -75,000
    Offsetting collections (Public Law 98-381).....................          -3,937           -3,366           -3,366             +571   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION.....................         228,907          193,346          218,346          -10,561          +25,000
                                                                    ====================================================================================
FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND: Operation and              2,477            2,959            2,959             +482   ...............
 maintenance.......................................................
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      TOTAL, POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS.......................         267,953          232,139          257,139          -10,814          +25,000
                                                                    ====================================================================================
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION:
    Federal energy regulatory commission...........................         260,425          273,400          273,400          +12,975   ...............
    FERC revenues..................................................        -260,425         -273,400         -273,400          -12,975   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      GRAND TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY............................      24,122,361       25,917,888       27,041,658       +2,919,297       +1,123,770
          (Total amount appropriated)..............................     (24,294,361)     (25,743,888)     (26,867,658)     (+2,573,297)     (+1,123,770)
          (Rescissions, including emergency funding)...............       (-322,000)  ...............  ...............       (+322,000)  ...............
          (Deferrals)..............................................        (108,000)        (149,000)        (149,000)        (+41,000)  ...............
          (Advance appropriation)..................................         (42,000)         (25,000)         (25,000)        (-17,000)  ...............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    The following list of general provisions is recommended by 
the Committee. The recommendation includes several provisions 
which have been included in previous Energy and Water 
Appropriations Acts and new provisions as follows:
    Section 301. Language is included under section 301 to 
provide incentives for downblending of highly enriched uranium.
    Section 302. Language is included under section 302, which 
prohibits the use of funds in this act to initiate a request 
for proposal of expression of interest for new programs which 
have not yet been presented to Congress in the annual budget 
submission and which have not yet been approved and funded by 
Congress.
    Section 303. Language is included under section 303 which 
prohibits the use of funds for severance payments under the 
worker and community transition program under section 3161 of 
Public Law 102-484.
    Section 304. Language is included under section 304 to 
prohibit the augmentation of several payments under section 
3161 of Public Law 102-484 unless a reprogramming request is 
submitted to Congress.
    Section 305. Language is included in section 305, which 
permits the transfer and merger of unexpended balances of prior 
appropriations with appropriation accounts established in this 
bill.
    Section 306. Language is included that prohibits the use of 
funds by the Bonneville Power Administration to enter into 
energy efficiency contracts outside its service area.
    Section 307. This section establishes certain notice and 
competition requirements for Department of Energy user 
facilities.
    Section 308. Language is included specifically authorizing 
intelligence activities pending enactment of the fiscal year 
2008 Intelligence Authorization Act.
    Section 309. Language included in section 309 related to 
laboratory directed research and development authorizes an 
increase of 2 percent in laboratory directed research and 
development funds for the purpose of diversifying the 
laboratories' activities in the areas of energy security and 
global climate science and modeling.
    Section 310. Language is included regarding transfer 
authority.
    Section 311. The Committee has included a provision related 
to general plant projects.
    Section 312. The Committee has included a provision related 
to the Reno Hydrogen Fuel Project.
    Section 313. The Committee has included a provision related 
to the integrated university program.
    Section 314. The Committee has included a provision related 
to naming laboratory facilities.

                                TITLE IV

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                    Appalachian Regional Commission

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $73,032,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      65,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      85,000,000

    Established in 1965, the Appalachian Regional Commission is 
an economic development agency composed of 13 Appalachian 
States and a Federal co-chair appointed by the President. For 
fiscal year 2009, the Committee recommends $85,000,000 for the 
ARC, of which $6,325,000 is for salaries and expenses and 
$71,675,000 is for area development and $7,000,000 is for local 
development districts.
    Area Development and Technical Assistant Program funds are 
used to increase job opportunities and income, improve 
education and health, strengthen infrastructure, and for the 
Appalachian Highway System. Such funds are allocated by 
formula, with assistance targeted to the most distressed and 
underdeveloped areas.
    Local Development Districts Program funds assist local 
governments in promoting sustainable community and economic 
development in the Appalachian region.
    The Committee recognizes the importance of trade and 
investment opportunities to the Appalachian Region and is 
encouraged by the findings in a report that Appalachian firms 
could find significant trade and investment opportunities, 
particularly in the energy, high technology, and transportation 
sectors in the Republic of Turkey and the surrounding region. 
In this regard, the Committee supports the Appalachian-Turkish 
Trade Project [ATTP], a project to promote opportunities to 
expand trade, encourage business interests, stimulate foreign 
studies, and to build a lasting and mutually meaningful 
relationship between Appalachian States and the Republic of 
Turkey, as well as the neighboring regions, such as Greece. The 
Committee commends the ARC for its leadership role in helping 
to implement the mission of the ATTP. The Committee expects the 
ARC to continue to be a prominent ATTP sponsor.
    The Committee has included no earmarks in the ARC funds. 
The Commission allocates its funds by formula to its member 
States, based primarily on need. Under the Commission's formula 
system, earmarks out of ARC's base funding could come at the 
expense of those States that have no earmarks. Accordingly, the 
Committee directs that any earmarks in any State be taken from 
within that State's regular ARC allocation.

                Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $21,909,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      25,499,000
Committee recommendation................................      25,499,000

    For fiscal year 2009, the Committee recommends $25,499,000, 
the same as the President's request, for the Defense Nuclear 
Facilities Safety Board [DNFSB]. This Board is responsible for 
evaluating the implementation of standards for design, 
construction, operation, and decommissioning of the Department 
of Energy's defense nuclear facilities. Based on these 
evaluations, the Board makes specific recommendations to the 
Secretary of Energy to ensure that both public and employee 
heath and safety are protected. The Committee encourages the 
DNFSB to undertake the responsibility to provide cost estimates 
to accompany their recommendations.

                        Delta Regional Authority

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $11,685,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................       6,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      20,000,000

    For the Delta Regional Authority, the Committee recommends 
$20,000,000. The Delta Regional Authority was established to 
assist the eight State Mississippi Delta Region in obtaining 
basic infrastructure, transportation, skills training, and 
opportunities for economic development. The Government 
Accountability Office recently reported that the DRA has a 
commendable record in the percentage of funds spent in rural 
America, and the Committee recognizes the DRA's role in 
bettering this underserved area of the Nation.

                           Denali Commission

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $21,800,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................       1,800,000
Committee recommendation................................      21,800,000

    The Denali Commission is a Federal-State partnership 
responsible for promoting infrastructure development, job 
training, and other economic development services in rural 
areas throughout Alaska. For fiscal year 2009, the Committee 
recommends $21,800,000.

                     Nuclear Regulatory Commission


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $917,334,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................   1,007,956,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,022,956,000

                                REVENUES

Appropriations, 2008....................................   -$771,220,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................    -847,357,000
Committee recommendation................................    -860,857,000

                           NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $146,114,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     160,599,000
Committee recommendation................................     162,099,000

    The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission for fiscal year 2009 is $1,022,956, an increase of 
$15,000,000 over the budget request. This amount is offset by 
estimated revenues of $860,857,000 resulting in a net 
appropriation of $162,099,000. The Committee has provided 
$15,000,000 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to support its 
participation in an Integrated University Program. The 
Committee recommends $10,000,000 of this amount to be used to 
support university programs relevant to the NRC mission. In 
addition, not less than $5,000,000 of this amount will be used 
for grants to support research projects that do not align with 
programmatic missions but are critical to maintaining the 
discipline of nuclear science and engineering.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                          GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2008....................................      $8,744,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................       9,044,000
Committee recommendation................................       9,344,000

                                REVENUES

Appropriations, 2008....................................     -$7,870,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      -8,140,600
Committee recommendation................................      -8,410,000

                           NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2008....................................        $874,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................         904,000
Committee recommendation................................         934,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,344,000, an 
increase of $300,000 over the budget request. The additional 
funds will provide the Office of Inspector General with the 
necessary resources to provide effective oversight of the 
agency's IT security controls and information to identify 
vulnerabilities and mitigate risks to the agency's operations. 
The Committee also recommends that the current no year funding 
authority of the Office of Inspector General be retained. The 
Office of Inspector General, as an administrative entity, is 
fully integrated into the administrative processes at the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission to include its accounting, pay 
and travel system, as well as other infrastructure support 
systems. In addition, the proposed 2-year funding authority 
could limit the continuity of the Inspector General's 
oversight.

                  Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

Appropriations, 2008....................................      $3,621,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................       3,811,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,811,000

    The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board was established to 
evaluate the scientific and technical validity of the 
Department of Energy's nuclear waste disposal program. The 
Board reports its findings no fewer than two times a year to 
Congress and to the Secretary of Energy. For fiscal year 2009, 
the Committee recommends $3,811,000.

Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation 
                                Projects

Appropriation, 2008.....................................      $2,261,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................       4,400,000
Committee recommendation................................       4,400,000

    The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural 
Gas Transportation Projects was established as an independent 
agency in the executive branch on December 13, 2006, pursuant 
to the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act of 2004. The Committee 
recommends $4,400,000, the same as the budget request.

                       Tennessee Valley Authority


                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                          GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2008....................................................
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     $17,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................

              OFFSET FROM TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY FUND

Appropriations, 2008....................................................
Budget estimate, 2009...................................    -$17,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................

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

                General Provision, Independent Agencies

    The following general provision is recommended by the 
Committee.

                                TITLE V

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

    The following list of general provisions are recommended by 
the Committee.
    Section 501. The provision prohibits the use of any funds 
provided in this bill from being used to influence 
congressional action.
    Section 502. The provision addresses transfer authority 
under this act.

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

    Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on 
general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment 
to the House bill ``which proposes an item of appropriation 
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing 
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously 
passed by the Senate during that session.''
    The Committee recommends funding for the following programs 
or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal 
year 2009:
    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: General Investigations; 
Construction, General; Mississippi River and Tributaries; 
Operations and Maintenance; Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial 
Action Program;
    Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation;
    Water and Related Resources;
    Department of Energy: Energy Conservation and Supply 
Activities:
    Office of Fossil Energy: Fossil Energy R&D;, Clean Coal, 
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Research;
    Health, Safety and Security;
    Non-Defense Environmental Management;
    Office of Science;
    Department of Administration;
    National Nuclear Security Administration: Weapons 
Activities; Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation; Naval Reactors; 
Office of the Administrator;
    Defense Environmental Management, Defense Site Acceleration 
Completion;
    Other Defense Activities;
    Defense Nuclear Waste Fund;
    Office of Security and Performance Assurance;
    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission;
    Power Marketing Administrations: Southeastern, 
Southwestern, Western Area; and
    Energy Information Administration.

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

    Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on July 10, 2008, 
the Committee ordered reported an original bill (S. 3258) 
making appropriations for the energy and water development and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, 
and authorized the chairman of the Committee or the chairman of 
the subcommittee to offer the text of the Senate bill as a 
Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute to the House 
companion measure, with the bill subject to amendment and 
subject to the budget allocations, by a recorded vote of 29-0, 
a quorum being present. The vote was as follows:
        Yeas                          Nays
Chairman Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson
Ms. Landrieu
Mr. Reed
Mr. Lautenberg
Mr. Nelson
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Stevens
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. Brownback
Mr. Allard
Mr. Alexander

 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.

OMNIBUS CONSOLIDATED RESCISSIONS AND APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 1996, PUBLIC 
                              LAW 104-134


                SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 1996


                               TITLE III


                        RESCISSIONS AND OFFSETS


                               CHAPTER 1


                      ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT


    Subchapter A--United States Enrichment Corporation Privatization


SEC. 3102. DEFINITIONS.

    [For purposes] Except as provided in section 3112A, for 
purposes of this subchapter:

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 3112. URANIUM TRANSFERS AND SALES.

    (a) Transfers and Sales by the Secretary.--The Secretary 
shall not provide enrichment services or transfer or sell any 
uranium (including natural uranium concentrates, natural 
uranium hexafluoride, or enriched uranium in any form) to any 
person except as consistent with this section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (f) Savings Provision.--Nothing in this subchapter shall be 
read to modify the terms of the Russian HEU Agreement.

SEC. 3112A. INCENTIVES FOR ADDITIONAL DOWNBLENDING OF HIGHLY ENRICHED 
                    URANIUM BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

    (a) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Completion of the russian heu agreement.--The 
        term ``completion of the Russian HEU Agreement'' means 
        the importation into the United States from the Russian 
        Federation pursuant to the Russian HEU Agreement of 
        uranium derived from the downblending of not less than 
        500 metric tons of highly enriched uranium of weapons 
        origin.
            (2) Downblending.--The term ``downblending'' means 
        processing highly enriched uranium into a uranium 
        product in any form in which the uranium contains less 
        than 20 percent uranium-235.
            (3) Highly enriched uranium.--The term ``highly 
        enriched uranium'' has the meaning given that term in 
        section 3102(4).
            (4) Highly enriched uranium of weapons origin.--The 
        term ``highly enriched uranium of weapons origin'' 
        means highly enriched uranium that--
                    (A) contains 90 percent or more uranium-
                235; and
                    (B) is verified by the Secretary of Energy 
                to be of weapons origin.
            (5) Low-enriched uranium.--The term ``low-enriched 
        uranium'' means a uranium product in any form, 
        including uranium hexafluoride (UF6) and 
        uranium oxide (UO2), in which the uranium 
        contains less than 20 percent uranium-235, including 
        natural uranium, without regard to whether the uranium 
        is incorporated into fuel rods or complete fuel 
        assemblies.
            (6) Russian heu agreement.--The term ``Russian HEU 
        Agreement'' has the meaning given that term in section 
        3102(11).
            (7) Uranium-235.--The term ``uranium-235'' means 
        the isotope \235\U.
    (b) Statement of Policy.--It is the policy of the United 
States to support the continued downblending of highly enriched 
uranium of weapons origin in the Russian Federation in order to 
protect the essential security interests of the United States 
with respect to the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons.
    (c) Promotion of Downblending of Russian Highly Enriched 
Uranium.--
            (1) Completion of the russian heu agreement.--Prior 
        to the completion of the Russian HEU Agreement, the 
        importation into the United States of low-enriched 
        uranium, including low-enriched uranium obtained under 
        contracts for separative work units, that is produced 
        in the Russian Federation and is not imported pursuant 
        to the Russian HEU Agreement, may not exceed the 
        following amounts:
                    (A) In the 4-year period beginning with 
                calendar year 2008, 16,559 kilograms.
                    (B) In calendar year 2012, 24,839 
                kilograms.
                    (C) In calendar year 2013 and each calendar 
                year thereafter through the calendar year of 
                the completion of the Russian HEU Agreement, 
                41,398 kilograms.
            (2) Incentives to continue downblending russian 
        highly enriched uranium after the completion of the 
        russian heu agreement.--
                    (A) In general.--After the completion of 
                the Russian HEU Agreement, the importation into 
                the United States of low-enriched uranium, 
                including low-enriched uranium obtained under 
                contracts for separative work units, that is 
                produced in the Russian Federation, whether or 
                not such low-enriched uranium is derived from 
                highly enriched uranium of weapons origin, may 
                not exceed--
                            (i) in calendar year 2014, 485,279 
                        kilograms;
                            (ii) in calendar year 2015, 455,142 
                        kilograms;
                            (iii) in calendar year 2016, 
                        480,146 kilograms;
                            (iv) in calendar year 2017, 490,710 
                        kilograms;
                            (v) in calendar year 2018, 492,731 
                        kilograms;
                            (vi) in calendar year 2019, 509,058 
                        kilograms; and
                            (vii) in calendar year 2020, 
                        514,754 kilograms.
                    (B) Additional imports in exchange for a 
                commitment to downblend an additional 300 
                metric tons of highly enriched uranium.--
                            (i) In general.--In addition to the 
                        amount authorized to be imported under 
                        subparagraph (A) and except as provided 
                        in clause (ii), if the Russian 
                        Federation enters into a bilateral 
                        agreement with the United States under 
                        which the Russian Federation agrees to 
                        downblend an additional 300 metric tons 
                        of highly enriched uranium after the 
                        completion of the Russian HEU 
                        Agreement, 4 kilograms of low-enriched 
                        uranium, whether or not such low-
                        enriched uranium is derived from highly 
                        enriched uranium of weapons origin and 
                        including low-enriched uranium obtained 
                        under contracts for separative work 
                        units, may be imported in a calendar 
                        year for every 1 kilogram of Russian 
                        highly enriched uranium of weapons 
                        origin that was downblended in the 
                        preceding calendar year, subject to the 
                        verification of the Secretary of Energy 
                        under paragraph (9).
                            (ii) Maximum annual imports.--Not 
                        more than 120,000 kilograms of low-
                        enriched uranium may be imported in a 
                        calendar year under clause (i).
            (3) Exceptions.--The import limitations described 
        in paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not apply to low-
        enriched uranium produced in the Russian Federation 
        that is imported into the United States--
                    (A) for use in the initial core of a new 
                nuclear reactor;
                    (B) for processing and to be certified for 
                re-exportation and not for consumption in the 
                United States; or
                    (C) to be added to the inventory of the 
                Department of Energy.
            (4) Adjustments to import limitations.--
                    (A) In general.--The import limitations 
                described in paragraph (2)(A) are based on the 
                reference data in the 2005 Market Report on the 
                Global Nuclear Fuel Market Supply and Demand 
                2005-2030 of the World Nuclear Association. In 
                each of calendar years 2016 and 2019, the 
                Secretary of Commerce shall review the 
                projected demand for uranium for nuclear 
                reactors in the United States and adjust the 
                import limitations described in paragraph 
                (2)(A) to account for changes in such demand in 
                years after the year in which that report or a 
                subsequent report is published.
                    (B) Incentive adjustment.--Beginning in the 
                second calendar year after the calendar year of 
                the completion of the Russian HEU Agreement, 
                the Secretary of Energy shall increase or 
                decrease the amount of low-enriched uranium 
                that may be imported in a calendar year under 
                paragraph (2)(B) (including the amount of low-
                enriched uranium that may be imported for each 
                kilogram of highly enriched uranium downblended 
                under paragraph (2)(B)(i)) by a percentage 
                equal to the percentage increase or decrease, 
                as the case may be, in the average amount of 
                uranium loaded into nuclear power reactors in 
                the United States in the most recent 3-
                calendar-year period for which data are 
                available, as reported by the Energy 
                Information Administration of the Department of 
                Energy, compared to the average amount of 
                uranium loaded into such reactors during the 3-
                calendar-year period beginning on January 1, 
                2011, as reported by the Energy Information 
                Administration.
                    (C) Publication of adjustments.--As soon as 
                practicable, but not later than July 31 of each 
                calendar year, the Secretary of Energy shall 
                publish in the Federal Register the amount of 
                low-enriched uranium that may be imported in 
                the current calendar year after the adjustments 
                under subparagraph (B).
            (5) Authority for additional adjustment.--In 
        addition to the adjustment under paragraph (4)(A), the 
        Secretary of Commerce may adjust the import limitations 
        under paragraph (2)(A) for a calendar year if the 
        Secretary--
                    (A) in consultation with the Secretary of 
                Energy, determines that the available supply of 
                low-enriched uranium and the available 
                stockpiles of uranium of the Department of 
                Energy are insufficient to meet demand in the 
                United States in the following calendar year; 
                and
                    (B) notifies Congress of the adjustment not 
                less than 45 days before making the adjustment.
            (6) Equivalent quantities of low-enriched uranium 
        imports.--
                    (A) In general.--The import limitations 
                described in paragraphs (1) and (2) are 
                expressed in terms of uranium containing 4.4 
                percent uranium-235 and a tails assay of 0.3 
                percent.
                    (B) Adjustment for other uranium.--Imports 
                of low-enriched uranium under paragraphs (1) 
                and (2), including low-enriched uranium 
                obtained under contracts for separative work 
                units, shall count against the import 
                limitations described in such paragraphs in 
                amounts calculated as the quantity of low-
                enriched uranium containing 4.4 percent 
                uranium-235 necessary to equal the total amount 
                of uranium-235 contained in such imports.
            (7) Downblending of other highly enriched 
        uranium.--
                    (A) In general.--The downblending of highly 
                enriched uranium not of weapons origin may be 
                counted for purposes of paragraph (2)(B), 
                subject to verification under paragraph (9), if 
                the Secretary of Energy determines that the 
                highly enriched uranium to be downblended poses 
                a risk to the national security of the United 
                States.
                    (B) Equivalent quantities of highly 
                enriched uranium.--For purposes of determining 
                the additional low-enriched uranium imports 
                allowed under paragraph (2)(B), highly enriched 
                uranium not of weapons origin downblended 
                pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall count as 
                downblended highly enriched uranium of weapons 
                origin in amounts calculated as the quantity of 
                highly enriched uranium containing 90 percent 
                uranium-235 necessary to equal the total amount 
                of uranium-235 contained in the highly enriched 
                uranium not of weapons origin downblended 
                pursuant to subparagraph (A).
            (8) Termination of import restrictions.--The 
        provisions of this subsection shall terminate on 
        December 31, 2020.
            (9) Technical verifications by secretary of 
        energy.--
                    (A) In general.--The Secretary of Energy 
                shall verify the origin, quantity, and uranium-
                235 content of the highly enriched uranium 
                downblended for purposes of paragraphs (2)(B) 
                and (7).
                    (B) Methods of verification.--In conducting 
                the verification required under subparagraph 
                (A), the Secretary of Energy shall employ the 
                transparency measures and access provisions 
                agreed to under the Russian HEU Agreement for 
                monitoring the downblending of Russian highly 
                enriched uranium of weapons origin and such 
                other methods as the Secretary determines 
                appropriate.
            (10) Enforcement of import limitations.--The 
        Secretary of Commerce shall be responsible for 
        enforcing the import limitations imposed under this 
        subsection and shall enforce such import limitations in 
        a manner that imposes a minimal burden on the 
        commercial nuclear industry.
            (11) Effect on other agreements.--
                    (A) Russian heu agreement.--Nothing in this 
                section shall be construed to modify the terms 
                of the Russian HEU Agreement, including the 
                provisions of the Agreement relating to the 
                amount of low-enriched uranium that may be 
                imported into the United States.
                    (B) Other agreements.--If a provision of 
                any agreement between the United States and the 
                Russian Federation, other than the Russian HEU 
                Agreement, relating to the importation of low-
                enriched uranium, including low-enriched 
                uranium obtained under contracts for separative 
                work units, into the United States conflicts 
                with a provision of this section, the provision 
                of this section shall supersede the provision 
                of the agreement to the extent of the conflict.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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


                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS


SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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


                                TITLE II


                           General Provisions

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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


                                TITLE I


                       CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL


                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY


                       Corps of Engineers--Civil


             GENERAL PROVISIONS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL

    Sec. 117. Lower Mississippi River Museum and Riverfront 
Interpretive Site, Mississippi.--The Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4811) is amended by--
            (1) * * *
            (2) in section 103(c)(7)--
                    (A) by striking ``There is'' and inserting 
                the following:
                    ``(A) In general.--There is''; and
                    (B) by striking ``$2,000,000'' and all that 
                follows and inserting the following: 
                ``[$15,000,000] $26,000,000 to plan, design, 
                and construct generally in accordance with the 
                conceptual plan to be prepared by the Corps of 
                Engineers.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


      WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007, PUBLIC LAW 110-114


                 TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS


SEC. 3118. MIDDLE RIO GRANDE RESTORATION, NEW MEXICO.

    (a) * * *
    (b) Project Selection.--The Secretary shall select and 
shall carry out restoration projects in the Middle Rio Grande 
from Cochiti Dam to the headwaters of Elephant Butte Reservoir 
in the State of New Mexico in accordance with the plans 
recommended in the feasibility report for the Middle Rio Grande 
Bosque, New Mexico, scheduled for completion in December 2008.
    (c) Local Participation.--In carrying out subsection (b), 
the Secretary shall consult with, and consider the activities 
being carried out by--
            (1) the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Act 
        Collaborative Program; and
            (2) the Bosque Improvement Group of the Middle Rio 
        Grande Bosque Initiative.
    (d) Cost Sharing.--Any requirement for non-Federal 
participation in a project carried out in the bosque of 
Bernalillo County, New Mexico, pursuant to this section shall 
be limited to the provision of lands, easements, rights-of-way, 
relocations, and dredged material disposal areas necessary for 
construction, operation and maintenance of the project.
    [(d)] (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is 
authorized to be appropriated $25,000,000 to carry out this 
section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


       CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008, PUBLIC LAW 110-161


     DIVISION C--ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008


                                TITLE I


             GENERAL PROVISIONS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL

    Sec. 115. The Secretary of the Army acting through the 
Chief of Engineers is directed to plan, design, and construct a 
rural health care facility on the Fort Berthold Indian 
Reservation of the Three Affiliated Tribes, North Dakota, at an 
estimated Federal cost of [$20,000,000. The Secretary shall 
transfer this facility to the Secretary of the Interior for 
operation and maintenance upon the completion of construction.] 
$20,000,000: Provided, That the Secretary shall transfer 
ownership of this facility to the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services for operation and maintenance upon the completion of 
construction.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                        BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL


  PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
                                                     AMENDED
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Budget authority                 Outlays
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Committee     Amount  of     Committee     Amount  of
                                                         allocation\1\      bill      allocation\1\      bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee
 allocations to its subcommittees of amounts in the
 Budget Resolution for 2009: Subcommittee on Energy
 and Water Development:
    Mandatory.........................................  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........
    Discretionary.....................................         33,258        33,258         32,552     \1\32,378
Projections of outlays associated with the
 recommendation:
    2009..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............    \2\19,392
    2010..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............        9,071
    2011..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............        2,967
    2012..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............          728
    2013 and future years.............................  ..............  ...........  ..............        1,124
Financial assistance to State and local governments                NA           119             NA            24
 for  2009............................................

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.

         DISCLOSURE OF CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS

    The Constitution vests in the Congress the power of the 
purse. The Committee believes strongly that Congress should 
make the decisions on how to allocate the people's money.
    As defined in Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate, the term ``congressional directed spending item'' means 
a provision or report language included primarily at the 
request of a Senator, providing, authorizing, or recommending a 
specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit 
authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, 
loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure 
with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality 
or congressional district, other than through a statutory or 
administrative, formula-driven, or competitive award process.
    For each item, a Member is required to provide a 
certification that neither the Member nor the Senator's 
immediate family has a pecuniary interest in such 
congressionally directed spending item. Such certifications are 
available to the public on the website of the Senate Committee 
on Appropriations (www.appropriations.senate.gov/senators.cfm).
    Following is a list of congressionally directed spending 
items included in the Senate recommendation discussed in this 
report, along with the name of each Senator who submitted a 
request to the Committee of jurisdiction for each item so 
identified. Neither the Committee recommendation nor this 
report contains any limited tax benefits or limited tariff 
benefits as defined in rule XLIV.

                                                                             CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Account                                                         Project                                                 Funding                           Member
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GI...............................  ABILENE, TX (BRAZOS RIVER BASIN-ELM CREEK).................................................           150,000   Senator Cornyn
GI...............................  AGUA FRIA RIVER TRILBY WASH, AZ............................................................           250,000   Senator Kyl
GI...............................  AIWW BRIDGE AT DEEP CREEK, VA..............................................................           500,000   Senators Warner, Webb
GI...............................  ALA WAI CANAL, OAHU, HI....................................................................           300,000   The President, Senator Inouye
GI...............................  AMAZON CREEK, OR...........................................................................           350,000   Senators Wyden, Smith
GI...............................  AMITE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA......................................           250,000   Senator Landrieu
GI...............................  ANACOSTIA RIVER & TRIBUTARIES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, MD.......................................           400,000   Senators Mikulski, Cardin
GI...............................  ANCHORAGE HARBOR DEEPENING, AK.............................................................           500,000   The President, Senator Stevens
GI...............................  AUGUSTA, GA................................................................................           278,000   The President
GI...............................  BALTIMORE METRO WTR RES--PATAPSCO AND BACK RIVERS..........................................           250,000   Senators Mikulski, Cardin
GI...............................  BARROW COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION, AK..................................................           400,000   The President
GI...............................  BASALT, CO.................................................................................            50,000   Senator Salazar
GI...............................  BAYOU SORREL LOCK, LA......................................................................         1,599,000   The President, Senators Landrieu, Vitter
GI...............................  BELPRE, OH.................................................................................           150,000   Senator Voinovich, Brown
GI...............................  BLOOMSBURG, PA.............................................................................           700,000   Senators Specter, Casey
GI...............................  BOGUE BANKS, NC............................................................................           132,000   Senator Burr
GI...............................  BOLINAS LAGOON ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA...................................................           350,000   Senator Boxer
GI...............................  BOSSIER PARISH, LA.........................................................................           200,000   Senators Landrieu, Vitter
GI...............................  BOSTON HARBOR (45-FOOT CHANNEL), MA........................................................         2,300,000   The President
GI...............................  BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, BROWNSVILLE CHANNEL, TX..............................................           400,000   The President, Senator Cornyn
GI...............................  BRUSH CREEK BASIN, KS & MO.................................................................           274,000   Senators Brownback, Bond
GI...............................  BUFFALO RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, NY...................................................           100,000   The President
GI...............................  CACHE LA POUDRE, CO........................................................................           130,000   Senator Salazar
GI...............................  CALCASIEU LOCK, LA.........................................................................           600,000   The President, Senators Landrieu, Vitter
GI...............................  CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA...............................................................           162,000   Senators Landrieu, Vitter
GI...............................  CALCASIEU RIVER BASIN, LA..................................................................            67,000   The President, Senators Landrieu, Vitter
GI...............................  CALIFORNIA COASTAL SEDIMENT MASTER PLAN, CA................................................           900,000   The President
GI...............................  CARPINTERIA SHORELINE STUDY................................................................           443,000   Senator Feinstein
GI...............................  CEDAR RIVER (TIME CHECK AREA), CEDAR RAPIDS, IA............................................           300,000   Senators Harkin, Grassley
GI...............................  CENTRALIA, WA..............................................................................         1,200,000   Senator Murray
GI...............................  CHATFIELD, CHERRY CREEK AND BEAR CREEK RESERVOIRS, CO......................................           200,000   Senators Allard, Salazar
GI...............................  CHEHALIS RIVER BASIN, WA...................................................................         1,000,000   Senator Murray
GI...............................  CHERRY RIVER BASIN, WV.....................................................................           150,000   Senator Byrd
GI...............................  CHESAPEAKE BAY MARSHLANDS, MD..............................................................         1,000,000   Senators Mikulski, Cardin
GI...............................  CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINE, MARYLAND COASTAL MANAGEMENT......................................           200,000   Senators Mikulski, Cardin
GI...............................  CHESAPEAKE BAY SUSQUEHANNA RESERVOIR SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT, PA, MD, VA.......................           200,000   Senators Mikulski, Cardin
GI...............................  CLINCH RIVER WATERSHED, VA.................................................................           150,000   Senators Warner, Webb
GI...............................  CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN WATERSHED STUDY CT, MA, NH AN......................................           450,000   Senators Gregg, Dodd, Lieberman
GI...............................  COYOTE & BERRYESSA CREEKS, CA..............................................................           950,000   The President
GI...............................  COYOTE DAM, CA.............................................................................           250,000   Senator Feinstein
GI...............................  CROSS LAKE, LA WATER SUPPLY IMPROVEMENTS...................................................           250,000   Senators Landrieu, Vitter
GI...............................  CURRITUCK SOUND, NC........................................................................           150,000   The President
GI...............................  CUYAHOGA RIVER BULKHEAD STUDY, OH..........................................................           126,000   Senator Voinovich
GI...............................  DALLAS FLOODWAY, UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TX.............................................         1,000,000   The President, Senator Hutchison
GI...............................  DELAWARE RIVER COMPREHENSIVE, NJ...........................................................           290,000   The President, Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
GI...............................  DELAWARE RIVER DREDGED MATERIAL UTILIZATION, PA, DE, & NJ..................................           125,000   Senator Specter
GI...............................  DES PLAINES RIVER, IL (PHASE II)...........................................................           500,000   The President, Senator Durbin
GI...............................  DISMAL SWAMP AND DISMAL SWAMP CANAL, VA....................................................           262,000   Senators Warner, Webb
GI...............................  EASTERN SHORE, MID CHESAPEAKE BAY ISLAND, MD...............................................           983,000   Senators Mikulski, Cardin
GI...............................  EDISTO ISLAND, SC..........................................................................           218,000   The President
GI...............................  ELIZABETH RIVER, HAMPTON ROADS, VA.........................................................            97,000   The President
GI...............................  ELLIOTT BAY SEAWALL........................................................................           750,000   Senators Murray, Cantwell
GI...............................  ESPANOLA VALLEY RIO GRANDE AND TRIBS, NM...................................................           400,000   Senators Domenici, Bingaman
GI...............................  FLAGLER BEACH, FL..........................................................................           250,000   Senators Bill Nelson, Martinez
GI...............................  FORGE RIVER WATERSHED, LONG ISLAND, NY.....................................................           125,000   Senator Schumer
GI...............................  FOUR MILE RUN, VA..........................................................................           300,000   Senators Warner, Webb
GI...............................  FREEPORT HARBOR, TX........................................................................           400,000   The President
GI...............................  GIWW, HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS RIVER..........................................................           150,000   The President
GI...............................  GIWW, HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS RIVER REALIGNMENT, TX..........................................           200,000   The President
GI...............................  GIWW, PORT O'CONNER TO CORPUS CHRISTI BAY, TX..............................................           350,000   The President
GI...............................  GOLETA BEACH, CA...........................................................................           150,000   Senator Feinstein
GI...............................  GRAND (NEOSHO) RIVER BASIN WATERSHED, OK, MO, KS & AR......................................            60,000   Senators Brownback, Roberts
GI...............................  GRAND LAKE COMPREHENSIVE, OK...............................................................           250,000   Senator Inhofe
GI...............................  GREAT LAKES NAV SYST STUDY, MI, IL, IN, MN, NY, OH, PA.....................................           200,000   The President
GI...............................  GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS, MI......................................................         1,000,000   Senators Levin, Stabenow, Coleman, Schumer,
                                                                                                                                                    Clinton, Voinovich, Brown, Kohl
GI...............................  GUADALUPE AND SAN ANTONIO RIVER BASINS, TX.................................................           223,000   The President
GI...............................  HAGATNA RIVER FLOOD CONTROL................................................................           350,000   The President
GI...............................  HAMILTON CITY, CA..........................................................................           500,000   Senator Feinstein
GI...............................  HASHAMOMUCK COVE, SOUTHOLD, NY.............................................................           125,000   Senator Schumer
GI...............................  HEACOCK AND CACTUS CHANNELS, CA............................................................           500,000   Senators Feinstein,Boxer
GI...............................  HILO HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, HI..............................................................           100,000   Senator Inouye
GI...............................  HOCKING RIVER BASIN, MONDAY CREEK, OH......................................................           300,000   Senator Voinovich
GI...............................  HOMER HARBOR MODIFICATION, AK..............................................................           400,000   Senator Stevens
GI...............................  HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS, NJ........................................           204,000   The President, Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
GI...............................  HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, LOWER PASSAIC RIVER, NJ...........................................           500,000   The President, Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
GI...............................  HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, NY & NJ...........................................................           200,000   The President, Senators Lautenberg, Menendez,
                                                                                                                                                    Schumer
GI...............................  HUMBOLT BAY LONG TERM SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT, CA..............................................           200,000   Senator Feinstein
GI...............................  HUMBOLT, IA................................................................................           152,000   Senators Harkin, Grassley
GI...............................  HYDROELECTRIC POWER ASSESSMENT, HI.........................................................           300,000   Senators Inouye, Akaka
GI...............................  ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION, IL.......................................................           400,000   The President
GI...............................  INDIANA HARBOR, IN.........................................................................           300,000   The President
GI...............................  INTERBASIN CONTROL OF GREAT LAKES-MISSISSIPPI RIVER AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES, IL, IN, OH,             300,000   Senator Durbin
                                    WI.
GI...............................  JAMES RIVER, SD & ND.......................................................................           350,000   Senators Johnson, Thune
GI...............................  JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA & NC.....................................................           300,000   The President
GI...............................  KAHUKU, HI.................................................................................           344,000   Senator Inouye
GI...............................  KANSAS CITYS, MO & KS......................................................................           315,000   The President, Senators Bond, Roberts
GI...............................  KALAELOA BARBERS POINT HARBOR MODIFICATION, HI.............................................           350,000   Senator Inouye
GI...............................  KEITH CREEK, ROCKFORD, IL..................................................................           548,000   Senator Durbin
GI...............................  KENAI RIVER BLUFF EROSION, AK..............................................................           500,000   Senator Stevens
GI...............................  LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR, NY....................................................................           250,000   Senator Schumer
GI...............................  LAKE WORTH INLET, FL.......................................................................           200,000   Senator Bill Nelson
GI...............................  LANSING, GRAND RIVER WATERFRONT RESTORATION, MI............................................            50,000   Senators Levin, Stabenow
GI...............................  LITTLE COLORADO RIVER WATERSHED, AZ........................................................           250,000   Senator Kyl
GI...............................  LITTLE KANAWHA RIVER, WV...................................................................           300,000   Senator Byrd
GI...............................  LONG ISLAND, MARSH AND JOHNS CREEKS, GA....................................................           150,000   The President
GI...............................  LOS ANGELES RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA................................................           590,000   Senators Feinstein,Boxer
GI...............................  LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA...........................................        10,000,000   The President, Senators Landrieu, Vitter
GI...............................  LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA (SCIENCE PROGRAM).........................  .................  The President, Senators Landrieu, Vitter
GI...............................  LOWER CACHE CREEK, YOLO COUNTY, WOODLAND AND VICINITY......................................           200,000   Senators Feinstein,Boxer
GI...............................  LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN, TX.............................................................           425,000   The President, Senators Hutchison, Cornyn
GI...............................  LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION OR & WA.........................................           100,000   The President
GI...............................  LOWER MISSION CREEK, CA....................................................................           400,000   Senators Feinstein,Boxer
GI...............................  LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESOURCE STUDY, AR.................................................           254,000   Senators Lincoln, Pryor
GI...............................  LOWER PLATTE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NE.....................................................           177,000   Seators Ben Nelson, Hagel
GI...............................  LOWER POTOMAC ESTUARY WATERSHED, ST MARY'S WATERSHED.......................................           150,000   Senator Cardin
GI...............................  LOWER PUYALLUP RIVER ALTERNATIVES STUDY, WA................................................            57,000   Senators Murray, Cantwell
GI...............................  LOWER SADDLE RIVER, BERGEN COUNTY, NJ......................................................           375,000   Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
GI...............................  LYNNHAVEN RIVER BASIN, VA..................................................................           175,000   The President
GI...............................  MAALAEA HARBOR, MAUI, HI...................................................................           200,000   The President, Senator Inouye
GI...............................  MAHONING RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, OH..................................................           500,000   Senator Voinovich
GI...............................  MALIBU CREEK WATERSHED, CA.................................................................           150,000   Senator Feinstein
GI...............................  MANHATTAN, KS..............................................................................           300,000   Senators Brownback, Roberts
GI...............................  MARSH LAKE, MN (MN RIVER AUTHORITY)........................................................           227,000   Senators Coleman, Klobuchar
GI...............................  MATANUSKA RIVER WATERSHED, AK..............................................................           400,000   Senator Stevens
GI...............................  MATILIJA DAM, CA...........................................................................         1,000,000   Senators Feinstein,Boxer
GI...............................  MAY BRANCH, FORT SMITH, AR.................................................................           250,000   Senators Lincoln, Pryor
GI...............................  MERRIMACK RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, NH & MA...................................................           200,000   The President, Senators Kennedy, Kerry
GI...............................  MIDDLE CREEK, CA...........................................................................           500,000   Senators Feinstein,Boxer
GI...............................  MIDDLE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, MD, VA, PA, WV, DC.........................................           175,000   Senators Mikulski, Cardin
GI...............................  MIDDLE POTOMAC RIVER--GREATER SENECA/MUDDY BRANCH, MD......................................           300,000   Senator Cardin
GI...............................  MILE POINT, FL.............................................................................            50,000   The President
GI...............................  MILL CREEK WATERSHED, DAVIDSON COUNTY, TN..................................................           100,000   The President
GI...............................  MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED, UMR LAKE ITASCA TO L&D..........................................;           350,000   Senators Coleman, Klobuchar
GI...............................  MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN, MN & SD.............................................................           350,000   Senator Coleman
GI...............................  MISSOURI RIVER DEGRADATION STUDY, KS.......................................................           588,000   The President, Senators Bond, Brownback,
                                                                                                                                                    Roberts
GI...............................  MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, UNITS L455 & R460-471, MO.....................................           300,000   Senator Bond
GI...............................  MISSOURI RIVER, ND, MT, SD, NE, IA, KS, MO.................................................         3,000,000   Senators Dorgan, Johnson, Baucus, Tester,
                                                                                                                                                    Conrad, Thune
GI...............................  MONTAUK POINT, NY..........................................................................           375,000   Senator Schumer
GI...............................  MONTPELIER, VT.............................................................................           750,000   Senator Leahy
GI...............................  NEUSE RIVER BASIN, NC......................................................................           200,000   The President
GI...............................  NEW JERSEY SHORE PROTECTION, HEREFORD TO CAPE MAY INLET....................................           154,000   Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
GI...............................  NEW JERSEY SHORELINE ALTERNATIVE LONG-TERM NOURISHMENT.....................................           150,000   Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
GI...............................  NEW RIVER, CLAYTOR LAKE, VA................................................................           150,000   Senators Warner, Webb
GI...............................  NORTH CAROLINA INTERNATIONAL PORT, NC......................................................           100,000   Senators Dole, Burr
GI...............................  NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, ASHAROKEN, NY..................................................           150,000   Senator Schumer
GI...............................  NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, BAYVILLE, NY...................................................           175,000   Senator Schumer
GI...............................  NUECES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, TX...........................................................           650,000   The President, Senator Hutchison
GI...............................  OHIO RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE STUDY, WV, KY, OH, PA.......................................           600,000   Senators Byrd, Voinovich
GI...............................  PAJARO RIVER, CA...........................................................................         1,000,000   Senators Feinstein,Boxer
GI...............................  PASSAIC RIVER MAIN STEM, NJ................................................................           250,000   Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
GI...............................  PASSAIC RIVER, HARRISON, NJ................................................................           297,000   Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
GI...............................  PEARL RIVER WATERSHED, MS..................................................................           250,000   Senators Cochran, Wicker
GI...............................  PECKMAN RIVER BASIN AND TRIBUTARIES, NJ....................................................           375,000   Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
GI...............................  PEORIA RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, IL..........................................................            50,000   Senator Durbin
GI...............................  PILGRIM LAKE, MA...........................................................................            96,000   The President
GI...............................  PINE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR.....................................................................           500,000   Senators Lincoln, Pryor
GI...............................  PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL.................................................................           550,000   The President, Senator Martinez
GI...............................  PORT OF IBERIA, LA.........................................................................         1,000,000   Senators Landrieu, Vitter
GI...............................  PORTSMOUTH HARBOR & PISCATAQUA RIVER, NH & ME..............................................            82,000   Senator Gregg
GI...............................  PRAIRIE DUPONT LEVEE, IL...................................................................           200,000   Senator Durbin
GI...............................  PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE MARINE HABITAT RESTORATION, WA.......................................         1,500,000   The President, Senators Murray, Cantwell
GI...............................  RAHWAY RIVER BASIN, NJ.....................................................................           300,000   Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
GI...............................  RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, HIGHLANDS, NJ..............................................           300,000   Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
GI...............................  RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, LEONARDO, NJ...............................................           100,000   Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
GI...............................  RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, UNION BEACH, NJ............................................           100,000   Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
GI...............................  RAYMONDVILLE DRAIN, TX.....................................................................           350,000   Senators Hutchison, Cornyn
GI...............................  RED CLAY CREEK, CHRISTINA RIVER WATERSHED, DE..............................................           300,000   Senators Biden, Carper
GI...............................  RED RIVER OF THE NORTH BASIN, MN, ND, SD & MANITOBA, CA....................................           500,000   Senator Dorgan, Coleman
GI...............................  REDWOOD CITY HARBOR, CA....................................................................           300,000   Senator Boxer
GI...............................  RILLITO RIVER, PIMA COUNTY, AZ.............................................................           275,000   The President
GI...............................  RIO GRANDE BASIN, NM, CO & TX..............................................................           500,000   Senators Domenici, Bingaman
GI...............................  RIO GRANDE BASIN, TX.......................................................................           100,000   The President
GI...............................  RIVER DES PERES, MO........................................................................           150,000   Senator Bond
GI...............................  RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAMP, CA..................................................................           200,000   Senator Feinstein
GI...............................  ROCK CREEK, KEEFER SLOUGH, CA..............................................................           200,000   Senator Feinstein
GI...............................  SABINE PASS TO GALVESTON BAY, TX...........................................................           400,000   Senator Cornyn
GI...............................  SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX.................................................................           500,000   Senator Hutchison
GI...............................  SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASINS COMPREHENSIVE STUDY, CA................................         1,000,000   Senators Feinstein,Boxer
GI...............................  SAC-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ISLANDS AND LEVEES, CA...............................................         2,000,000   The President, Senator Feinstein
GI...............................  SAN DIEGO COUNTY SAMP, CA..................................................................           250,000   Senator Feinstein
GI...............................  SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHORELINE, CA.............................................................           200,000   Senator Boxer
GI...............................  SAN JOAQUIN RB, WEST STANISLAUS COUNTY, ORESTIMBA CREE.....................................           400,000   Senator Feinstein
GI...............................  SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN (SJRB), FRAZIER CREEK/STRATHMO.....................................           200,000   Senator Feinstein
GI...............................  SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN (SJRB), LOWER SAN JOAQUIN RIVER....................................           600,000   Senator Feinstein
GI...............................  SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN (SJRB), WHITE RIVER/DRY CREEK......................................           125,000   Senator Feinstein
GI...............................  SAN PABLO BAY WATERSHED, CA................................................................           250,000   Senator Boxer
GI...............................  SANTA FE, NM...............................................................................            28,000   Senators Domenici, Bingaman
GI...............................  SARASOTA, LIDO KEY, FL.....................................................................           158,000   Senator Bill Nelson
GI...............................  SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA..............................................................           700,000   The President, Senator Chambliss
GI...............................  SAW MILL RIVER AT ELMSFORD/GREENBURGH, NY..................................................           250,000   Senator Schumer
GI...............................  SEARSPORT HARBOR, ME.......................................................................           157,000   Senators Snowe, Collins
GI...............................  SHREWSBURY RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NJ.......................................................           250,000   Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
GI...............................  SKAGIT RIVER, WA...........................................................................           505,000   Senators Murray, Cantwell
GI...............................  SKOKOMISH RIVER BASIN, WA..................................................................           375,000   Senators Murray, Cantwell
GI...............................  SOLANA-ENCINITAS SHORELINE, CA.............................................................           171,000   The President, Senators Feinstein, Boxer
GI...............................  SOUTH BOULDER CREEK, CO....................................................................           252,000   Senators Allard, Salazar
GI...............................  SOUTH FORK OF SOUTH BRANCH OF CHICAGO RIVER................................................           400,000   Senator Durbin
GI...............................  SOUTH RIVER, RARITAN RIVER BASIN, NJ.......................................................           375,000   Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
GI...............................  SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SHORELINE, CA..........................................................         1,400,000   Senators Feinstein,Boxer
GI...............................  SOUTH SHORE OF STATEN ISLAND, NY...........................................................           200,000   Senator Schumer
GI...............................  SOUTHEAST OKLAHOMA WATER RESOURCE STUDY, OK................................................           500,000   Senator Inhofe
GI...............................  SOUTHWEST COASTAL HURRICANE PROTECTION, LA.................................................         1,500,000   Senators Landrieu, Vitter
GI...............................  SOUTHWEST, ARKANSAS, AR....................................................................           327,000   Senators Lincoln, Pryor
GI...............................  SPARKS ARROYO COLONIA, EL PASO COUNTY, TX..................................................           150,000   Senators Hutchison, Cornyn
GI...............................  ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FL.......................................................................           250,000   Senator Bill Nelson
GI...............................  ST. CHARLES PARISH URBAN FLOOD CONTROL, LA.................................................           500,000   The President, Senators Landrieu, Vitter
GI...............................  ST. CLAIR RIVER AND LAKE ST. CLAIR MANAGEMENT PLAN, MI.....................................           200,000   Senators Levin, Stabenow
GI...............................  ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST URBAN FLOOD CONTROL, LA...............................................           250,000   Senator Landrieu
GI...............................  STONY BROOK, MILLSTONE RIVER BASIN, NJ.....................................................           250,000   Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
GI...............................  SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH, NC......................................................           386,000   Senators Dole, Burr
GI...............................  SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN LOW FLOW MANAGEMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION STUDY, MD, PA, &            300,000   Senators Mikulski, Cardin
                                    NY.
GI...............................  SUTTER COUNTY (Northern California Streams), CA............................................           339,000   The President, Senator Feinstein
GI...............................  TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING, CA AND NV.........................................................           125,000   Senators Reid, Feinstein, Ensign
GI...............................  TEN MILE RIVER, NY AND CT..................................................................           125,000   Senator Schumer
GI...............................  TOPEKA, KS.................................................................................           100,000   The President, Senators Brownback, Roberts
GI...............................  TRUCKEE MEADOWS, NV........................................................................         5,000,000   Senators Reid, Ensign
GI...............................  TYBEE ISLAND CHANNEL, GA...................................................................           250,000   The President, Senator Chambliss, Isakson
GI...............................  UPPER DELAWARE RIVER WATERSHED, NY.........................................................           300,000   Senator Schumer
GI...............................  UPPER MISS RIVER--ILLINOIS WW SYSTEM, IL, IA, MN, MO.......................................        10,000,000   Senators Harkin, Bond, Grassley, Coleman,
                                                                                                                                                    Klobuchar
GI...............................  UPPER MISS RVR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IL, IA, MO, MN & WI.....................................           220,000   Senators Durbin, Harkin, Bond, Grassley
GI...............................  UPPER OHIO NAVIGATION STUDY, PA............................................................         4,200,000   Senators Byrd, Specter, Casey
GI...............................  UPPER PENITENCIA CREEK, CA.................................................................           191,000   The President
GI...............................  UPPER RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER, VA (PHASE II)....................................................           200,000   Senators Warner, Webb
GI...............................  UPPER TURKEY CREEK, KS.....................................................................           150,000   Senator Brownback
GI...............................  VA SHLY-AY AKIMEL SALT RIVER RESTORATION, AZ...............................................           658,000   The President
GI...............................  VALDEZ HARBOR EXPANSION, AK................................................................           150,000   Senators Stevens, Murkowski
GI...............................  VICINITY AND WILOUGHBY SPIT, VA............................................................           200,000   Senators Warner, Webb
GI...............................  WAILUPE STREAM, OAHU, HI...................................................................           300,000   Senator Inouye
GI...............................  WALLA WALLA RIVER WATERSHED, OR & WA.......................................................           500,000   Senators Murray, Wyden, Smith, Cantwell
GI...............................  WALTON COUNTY, FL..........................................................................           591,000   Senators Bill Nelson, Martinez
GI...............................  WASHITA RIVER BASIN, OK....................................................................           250,000   Senator Inhofe
GI...............................  WATERTOWN, SD..............................................................................           450,000   Senators Johnson, Thune
GI...............................  WAUWATOSA, WI..............................................................................           200,000   Senator Kohl
GI...............................  WEST SHORE, LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN, LA.........................................................           900,000   Senators Landrieu, Vitter
GI...............................  WESTCHESTER COUNTY STREAMS, NY.............................................................           175,000   Senator Schumer
GI...............................  WESTERN LAKE ERIE BASIN, BLANCHARD RIVER WATERSHED, OH, IN, & MI...........................           250,000   Senator Voinovich
GI...............................  WESTERN LAKE ERIE BASIN, OH, IN, & MI......................................................           250,000   Senator Voinovich
GI...............................  WHITE RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, AR & MO...................................................           500,000   Senators Lincoln, Pryor
GI...............................  WHITE RIVER NAVIGATION TO BATESVILLE, AR...................................................           325,000   Senators Lincoln, Pryor
GI...............................  WILD RICE RIVER, RED RIVER OF THE NORTH BASIN, MN..........................................           271,000   The President, Senator Coleman
GI...............................  WILLAMETTE RIVER FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION, OR................................................           240,000   The President, Senators Wyden, Smith
GI...............................  YAKUTAT HARBOR, AK.........................................................................           700,000   The President
GI...............................  YELLOWSTONE RIVER CORRIDOR, MT.............................................................           500,000   The President, Senators Baucus, Tester
GI...............................  ACTIONS FOR CHANGE TO IMPROVE INVESTIGATIONS...............................................  .................  The President
GI...............................  COASTAL FIELD DATA COLLECTION..............................................................         5,600,000   The President
GI...............................      Coastal Data Information Program.......................................................        (1,000,000)  Senators Feinstein, Cantwell
GI...............................      Pacific Island Land Ocean Typhoon Experiment, HI.......................................        (1,000,000)  Senator Inouye
GI...............................      Surge and Wave Island Modeling Studies, HI.............................................        (1,200,000)  Senator Inouye
GI...............................      Wave Data Study........................................................................        (1,000,000)  Senators Biden, Carper
GI...............................  COMMITTEE ON MARINE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS.................................................           100,000   The President
GI...............................  ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STUDIES.................................................................            75,000   The President
GI...............................  FEME/MAP MOD COORDINATION..................................................................         1,500,000   The President
GI...............................  FLOOD DAMAGE DATA PROGRAM..................................................................           220,000   The President
GI...............................  FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES............................................................        11,000,000   The President
GI...............................      City of Gretna, LA (GIS)...............................................................          (254,000)  Senator Landrieu
GI...............................      East Baton Rouge Parish, LA (GIS)......................................................          (400,000)  Senators Landrieu, Vitter
GI...............................      Hurricane Evacuation Studies, Hawaii...................................................        (1,000,000)  Senator Inouye
GI...............................      Iowa Multi-State Dam Safety Analyses, Iowa.............................................           (37,000)  Senator Grassley
GI...............................      Kekaha Flood Study, HI.................................................................          (100,000)  Senators Inouye, Akaka
GI...............................      Little Sioux Watershed, IA.............................................................           (30,000)  Senator Grassley
GI...............................      Livingston Parish, LA (GIS)............................................................          (735,000)  Senators Landrieu, Vitter
GI...............................      Mon-Maq Dam Removal Study & Local Floodplain Master Planning, Monticello, IA...........          (100,000)  Senator Grassley
GI...............................      Papillion Creek Watershed, Flood Plain Mapping, Nebraska...............................          (500,000)  Senators Ben Nelson, Hagel
GI...............................      Southeastern, PA.......................................................................          (300,000)  Senators Specter, Casey
GI...............................  HYDROLOGIC STUDIES.........................................................................           250,000   The President
GI...............................  INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW....................................................................         1,000,000   The President
GI...............................  INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES................................................................           200,000   The President
GI...............................  NATIONAL SHORELINE STUDY...................................................................           375,000   The President
GI...............................  OTHER COORDINATION PROGRAMS................................................................         4,580,000   The President
GI...............................      Lake Tahoe Coordination................................................................          (500,000)  Senators Reid, Feinstein, Ensign
GI...............................  PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES..............................................................         8,750,000   The President
GI...............................      Asheville, NC..........................................................................           (50,000)  Senator Dole
GI...............................      Assessment of Bridges and Impacts on Flows and Flooding, Delaware County, NY...........          (150,000)  Senator Schumer
GI...............................      Bacon Creek, Sioux City, IA............................................................           (50,000)  Senator Grassley
GI...............................      Boyer River, Missouri Valley, IA.......................................................           (13,000)  Senator Grassley
GI...............................      Choctaw County Reservoir, MS...........................................................          (100,000)  Senator Wicker
GI...............................      Delaware Estuary Salinity Monitoring Study, Delaware & New Jersey......................          (200,000)  Senator Lautenberg, Menendez
GI...............................      Fife Lake Aquatic Weed Control, MI.....................................................          (300,000)  Senator Levin, Stabenow
GI...............................      Jones County Water Supply, MS..........................................................           (50,000)  Senator Wicker
GI...............................      Kansas River Basin Technical Assistance, Kansas........................................          (400,000)  Senator Brownback
GI...............................      Little Sioux Watershed, IA.............................................................           (30,000)  Senator Grassley
GI...............................      Mississippi Band of Choctaws, MS.......................................................           (50,000)  Senator Wicker
GI...............................  PLANNING SUPPORT PROGRAM...................................................................         3,100,000   The President, Senators Cochran, Schumer
GI...............................  PRECIPITATION STUDIES (NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE)...........................................           225,000   The President
GI...............................  REMOTE SENSING/GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM SUPPORT.....................................           150,000   The President
GI...............................  RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT...................................................................        28,000,000   The President, Senator Cochran
GI...............................      Submerged Aquatic Vegetation, Maryland.................................................        (1,000,000)  Senator Cardin
GI...............................  SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTERS...............................................            50,000   The President
GI...............................  STREAM GAGING (U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY).....................................................           600,000   The President
GI...............................  TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM......................................................................           350,000   The President
GI...............................  TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.................................................................         1,000,000   The President, Senators Domenici, Bingaman
GI...............................  TRI-SERVICE CADD/GIS TECHNOLOGY CENTER.....................................................           350,000   The President
GI...............................  WATER RESOURCES PRIORITIES STUDY...........................................................  .................  The President
CG...............................  ACEQUIAS IRRIGATION SYSTEM, NM.............................................................         2,400,000   Senators Domenici, Bingaman
CG...............................  AKUTAN HARBOR, AK..........................................................................         3,000,000   Senator Stevens
CG...............................  ALAMOGORDO, NM.............................................................................         4,200,000   The President, Senators Domenici, Bingaman
CG...............................  ALASKA COASTAL EROSION, AK.................................................................         4,500,000   Senators Stevens, Murkowski
CG...............................  AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (COMMON FEATURES), CA.............................................        13,000,000   The President, Senators Feinstein, Boxer
CG...............................  AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM MODIFICATIONS), CA....................................         9,000,000   The President, Senator Feinstein
CG...............................  AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM RAISE), CA............................................         2,000,000   Senators Feinstein, Boxer
CG...............................  ANACOSTIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (PHASE I), MD & DC.........................................            30,000   Senator Cardin
CG...............................  ANTELOPE CREEK, LINCOLN, NE................................................................         4,828,000   The President, Senators Ben Nelson, Hagel
CG...............................  ASSATEAGUE ISLAND, MD 1....................................................................         1,900,000   The President, Senators Mikulski, Cardin
CG...............................  ATLANTA (EI), GA...........................................................................         2,000,000   Senators Chambliss, Isakson
CG...............................  ATLANTIC COAST OF LONG ISLAND, LONG BEACH ISLAND, NY.......................................           100,000   Senator Schumer
CG...............................  ATLANTIC COAST OF MARYLAND, MD.............................................................           200,000   Senators Mikulski, Cardin
CG...............................  ATLANTIC COAST OF NYC, EAST ROCKAWAY INLET TO ROCKAWAY & JAMAICA BAY, NY...................           750,000   Senator Schumer
CG...............................  ATLANTIC COAST OF NYC, ROCKAWAY INLET TO NORTON POINT, NY..................................         3,800,000   Senator Schumer
CG...............................  BALTIMORE METROPOLITAN WATER RESOURCES, GWYNNS FALLS, MD...................................           500,000   Senators Mikulski, Cardin
CG...............................  BARNEGAT INLET TO LITTLE EGG HARBOR (NJ SHORE PROTECTION), NJ..............................        11,700,000   The President, Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
CG...............................  BIG SIOUX RIVER, SIOUX FALLS, SD...........................................................         4,000,000   Senators Johnson, Thune
CG...............................  BLUE RIVER BASIN, KANSAS CITY, MO..........................................................         2,000,000   Senator Bond
CG...............................  BLUE RIVER CHANNEL, KANSAS CITY, MO........................................................         1,700,000   The President, Senator Bond
CG...............................  BLUESTONE LAKE (DAM SAFETY ASSURANCE), WV..................................................        12,000,000   The President, Senator Byrd
CG...............................  BRAYS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX...................................................................         5,382,000   The President, Senator Cornyn
CG...............................  BRECKENRIDGE, MN...........................................................................         2,877,000   Senators Dorgan, Coleman, Klobuchar
CG...............................  BREVARD COUNTY (MID REACH), FL.............................................................           500,000   Senators Bill Nelson, Martinez
CG...............................  BRIDGEPORT ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, CT................................................           500,000   Senators Dodd, Lieberman
CG...............................  BRIGANTINE INLET TO GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET (ABSECON), NJ...................................         3,000,000   Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
CG...............................  BRIGANTINE INLET TO GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET, BRIGANTINE, NJ.................................            80,000   Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
CG...............................  BRUNSWICK COUNTY BEACHES, NC (Ocean Isle)..................................................           250,000   Senators Dole, Burr
CG...............................  BURLINGTON HARBOR, VT......................................................................           500,000   Senator Leahy
CG...............................  CALFED LEVEE STABILITY PROGRAM.............................................................         5,000,000   Senator Feinstein
CG...............................  CANTON LAKE (DAM SAFETY), OK...............................................................        21,200,000   The President
CG...............................  CAPE MAY INLET TO LOWER TOWNSHIP, NJ 1.....................................................         2,500,000   Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
CG...............................  CEDAR HAMMOCK, WARES CREEK, FL.............................................................         2,773,000   The President, Senator, Martinez
CG...............................  CENTER HILL DAM (SEEPAGE CONTROL), TN......................................................        53,400,000   The President, Alexander, Corker
CG...............................  CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL...........................................................        95,188,000   The President, Senators Bill Nelson, Martinez
CG...............................  CENTRAL CITY, FORT WORTH, UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TX....................................           500,000   Senators Hutchison, Cornyn
CG...............................  CENTRAL NEW MEXICO, NM.....................................................................         5,000,000   Senators Domenici, Bingaman
CG...............................  CHAIN OF ROCKS CANAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER (DEF CORR), IL.....................................         2,500,000   The President, Senator Durbin
CG...............................  CHARLESTOWN, MD............................................................................            50,000   Senator Mikulski
CG...............................  CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND PROTECTION, MD, VA & PA.......................         2,500,000   Senators Mikulski, Cardin, Warner, Webb
CG...............................  CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD & VA....................................................         2,000,000   Senators Mikulski, Cardin, Warner, Webb
CG...............................  CHESTERFIELD, MO...........................................................................         3,000,000   Senator Bond
CG...............................  CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUX, SD..........................................         4,000,000   Senators Johnson, Thune
CG...............................  CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL, DISPERSAL BARRIER, IL.....................................         5,750,000   The President, Senators Durbin, Levin,
                                                                                                                                                    Stabenow, Coleman, Voinovich, Brown, Kohl
CG...............................  CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL, SECOND BARRIER, IL........................................           500,000   The President, Senators Durbin, Levin,
                                                                                                                                                    Stabenow, Coleman, Voinovich, Brown, Kohl
CG...............................  CHICAGO SHORELINE, IL......................................................................         4,000,000   The President, Senator Durbin
CG...............................  CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TENNESSEE RIVER, TN......................................................        42,000,000   The President, Alexander, Corker
CG...............................  CHIEF JOSEPH DAM GAS ABATEMENT, WA 1.......................................................         2,500,000   The President, Senator Murray
CG...............................  CLEARWATER LAKE (SEEPAGE CONTROL), MO......................................................        25,000,000   The President
CG...............................  COLUMBIA RIVER CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS, OR & WA...............................................        36,000,000   The President, Senators Murray, Crapo, Wyden,
                                                                                                                                                    Smith, Cantwell
CG...............................  COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR & ID 1..............................................        92,000,000   The President, Senator Murray
CG...............................  COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY FISHING ACCESS SITES, OR & WA........................................         2,455,000   The President, Senators Murray, Wyden, Smith,
                                                                                                                                                    Cantwell
CG...............................  COMITE RIVER, LA...........................................................................        10,000,000   Senators Landrieu, Vitter
CG...............................  CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX............................................................         2,000,000   Senators Hutchison, Cornyn
CG...............................  CROOKSTON, MN..............................................................................           300,000   The President, Senator Klobuchar
CG...............................  CUMBERLAND, MD.............................................................................           200,000   Senators Mikulski, Cardin
CG...............................  DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, TRINITY RIVER PROJECT, TX.......................................        13,000,000   Senators Hutchison, Cornyn
CG...............................  DAVENPORT, IA..............................................................................         4,850,000   Senators Harkin, Grassley
CG...............................  DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, ROOSEVELT INLET TO LEWES BEACH, DE 1...............................           350,000   The President
CG...............................  DELAWARE COAST PROTECTION, DE..............................................................           390,000   Senators Biden, Carper
CG...............................  DELAWARE RIVER MAIN CHANNEL DEEPENING, NJ, PA & DE.........................................         5,000,000   Senators Specter, Casey
CG...............................  DES MOINES AND RACCOON RIVERS, IA..........................................................         5,000,000   Senators Harkin, Grassley
CG...............................  DES MOINES RECREATION RIVER AND GREENBELT, IA..............................................         3,900,000   Senators Harkin, Grassley
CG...............................  DES PLAINES RIVER, IL......................................................................         8,000,000   The President, Senator Durbin
CG...............................  DESOTO COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER SYSTEM, MS...............................................         4,860,000   Senators Cochran, Wicker
CG...............................  DUWAMISH AND GREEN RIVER BASIN, WA.........................................................         3,000,000   Senators Murray, Cantwell
CG...............................  EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LA (FC)...........................................................         2,000,000   Senator Landrieu
CG...............................  EAST ST LOUIS AND VICINITY, IL.............................................................           375,000   Senator Durbin
CG...............................  EAST ST LOUIS, IL..........................................................................         1,207,000   The President, Senator Durbin
CG...............................  ELK CREEK LAKE, OR.........................................................................         3,120,000   The President
CG...............................  EMSWORTH L&D;, OHIO RIVER (STATIC INSTABILITY CORRECTION), PA...............................        25,800,000   The President, Senators Specter, Casey
CG...............................  EVERGLADES AND S. FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL........................................         3,797,000   The President, Senators Bill Nelson, Martinez
CG...............................  FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY.......................................................           500,000   The President
CG...............................  FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, NY.....................................................         2,150,000   Senator Schumer
CG...............................  FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS, FL................................................         2,200,000   Senators Bill Nelson, Martinez
CG...............................  FOLLY BEACH, SC 1..........................................................................            35,000   The President
CG...............................  FT. PECK CABIN CONVEYANCE, MT..............................................................         1,500,000   Senators Baucus, Tester
CG...............................  GARRISON DAM AND POWER PLANT (REPLACEMENT), ND.............................................         3,500,000   The President
CG...............................  GENESEE COUNTY, MI.........................................................................           600,000   Senators Levin, Stabenow
CG...............................  GRAYS LANDING LOCK AND DAM, MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA..........................................           600,000   The President
CG...............................  GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET TO PECK BEACH (OCEAN CITY), NJ......................................         3,000,000   Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
CG...............................  GREAT EGG HARBOR TO TOWNSENDS INLET, NJ....................................................           250,000   Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
CG...............................  GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, MI..........................................         2,500,000   Senators Levin, Stabenow, Coleman, Voinovich
CG...............................  GREENBRIER RIVER BASIN, WV.................................................................         1,500,000   Senator Byrd
CG...............................  GUADALUPE RIVER, CA........................................................................         5,000,000   Senator Feinstein
CG...............................  HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS, NJ.................................................................           100,000   Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
CG...............................  HAINES BOAT HARBOR, AK.....................................................................         1,000,000   Senator Stevens
CG...............................  HAMILTON AIRFIELD WETLANDS RESTORATION, CA.................................................         4,900,000   The President, Senators Feinstein, Boxer
CG...............................  HARBOR/SOUTH BAY WATER RECYCLING STUDY, LOS ANGELES, CA....................................         3,000,000   Senators Feinstein, Boxer
CG...............................  HERBERT HOOVER DIKE (SEEPAGE CONTROL) , FL.................................................        77,400,000   The President, Senators Bill Nelson, Martinez
CG...............................  HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX...................................................................           500,000   The President, Senator Cornyn
CG...............................  HOUSTON-GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS, TX..................................................        19,700,000   The President, Senator Hutchison
CG...............................  HOWARD HANSON DAM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, WA 1..............................................        15,000,000   The President, Senator Murray
CG...............................  IAO STREAMS, HI............................................................................           500,000   Senators Inouye, Akaka
CG...............................  ILLINOIS WATERWAY, LOCKPORT LOCK AND DAM (REPLACEMENT), IL.................................        28,600,000   The President
CG...............................  INDIANA HARBOR (CONFINED DISPOSAL FACILITY), IN 1..........................................         8,385,000   The President
CG...............................  INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL LOCK REPLACEMENT, LA.........................................         2,000,000   Senators Landrieu, Vitter
CG...............................  ISLAND CREEK BASIN IN AND AROUND LOGAN, WV.................................................           200,000   Senator Byrd
CG...............................  J. BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA...........................................................         8,500,000   The President, Senators Landrieu, Vitter
CG...............................  JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL....................................................................         3,500,000   Senators Bill Nelson, Martinez
CG...............................  JAMES RIVER DEEPWATER TURNING BASIN, VA....................................................         1,763,000   Senator Warner, Webb
CG...............................  JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR (REPLACEMENT), VA & NC.......................................        14,000,000   The President
CG...............................  JOHNSON CREEK, UPPER TRINITY BASIN, ARLINGTON, TX..........................................         2,000,000   Senators Hutchison, Cornyn
CG...............................  JOSEPH G MINISH HISTORIC WATERFRONT PARK, NJ...............................................         4,000,000   Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
CG...............................  KAWEAH RIVER, CA...........................................................................         1,000,000   The President
CG...............................  KENTUCKY LOCK AND DAM, TENNESSEE RIVER, KY.................................................        22,330,000   The President, Senator McConnell
CG...............................  KISSIMMEE RIVER, FL........................................................................        31,015,000   The President, Senators Bill Nelson, Martinez
CG...............................  LACKAWANNA RIVER, SCRANTON, PA.............................................................         4,782,000   Senators Specter, Casey
CG...............................  LAKE CHAMPLAIN WATERSHED INITIATE, VT......................................................         2,000,000   Senator Leahy
CG...............................  LAKE SAKAKAWEA PROJECT, ND.................................................................        17,048,000   Senator Dorgan
CG...............................  LAKE WORTH SAND TRANSFER PLANT, FL 1.......................................................         1,000,000   Senator Bill Nelson
CG...............................  LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LA (CG)...........................................................         2,500,000   Senators Landrieu, Vitter
CG...............................  LEVISA AND TUG FORKS AND UPPER CUMBERLAND RIVER, WV, VA & KY...............................        16,500,000   Senators Byrd, Warner, Webb
CG...............................  LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, IN...................................................................         8,000,000   The President
CG...............................  LLAGAS CREEK, CA...........................................................................           400,000   Senators Feinstein, Boxer
CG...............................  LOCK & DAM 27, MISSISSIPPI RIVER (REHABILITATION), IL 1....................................         2,598,000   The President, Senators Durbin, Bond
CG...............................  LOCK AND DAM 11, MISSISSIPPI RIVER (MAJOR REHAB), IA 1.....................................         2,750,000   The President, Senators Harkin, Grassley
CG...............................  LOCK AND DAM 3, MISSISSIPPI RIVER (MAJOR REHAB) , MN.......................................         2,000,000   Senator Coleman
CG...............................  LOCKS AND DAMS 2, 3, AND 4, MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA..........................................        19,050,000   The President, Senators Specter, Casey
CG...............................  LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA.......................................................         5,700,000   The President
CG...............................  LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAY POINT, NJ 1...............................................           150,000   Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
CG...............................  LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR & WA........................................         1,500,000   The President, Senator Murray
CG...............................  LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA..........................................................  .................  The President, Senator Murray
CG...............................  LOWER MUD RIVER, MILTON, WV................................................................         1,050,000   Senator Byrd
CG...............................  LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH & WILDLIFE COMPENSATION, WA, OR 1...................................         1,500,000   The President
CG...............................  LYNCHBURG CSO, VA..........................................................................           300,000   Senator Warner, Webb
CG...............................  MARKLAND LOCKS & DAM, KY & IL 1............................................................        10,600,000   The President
CG...............................  MARMET LOCK, KANAWHA RIVER, WV.............................................................         9,000,000   The President, Senator Byrd
CG...............................  MCALPINE LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, KY & IN................................................         6,270,000   The President, Senator McConnell
CG...............................  MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS, IL.........................................................        34,000,000   The President, Senator Durbin
CG...............................  METROPOLITAN REGION OF CINCINNATI, DUCK CREEK, OH..........................................         4,000,000   The President, Senator Brown
CG...............................  MIAMI HARBOR CHANNEL DEEPENING, FL.........................................................           500,000   Senator Martinez
CG...............................  MIDDLE RIO GRANDE FLOOD PROTECTION, BERNALILLO TO BELEN, NM................................           800,000   Senators Domenici, Bingaman
CG...............................  MIDDLE RIO GRANDE RESTORATION, NM..........................................................        24,016,000   Senators Domenici, Bingaman
CG...............................  MID-VALLEY AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA...................................................         1,500,000   Senator Feinstein
CG...............................  MILWAUKEE HARBOR CDF EXPANSION, WI.........................................................         1,600,000   Senator Kohl
CG...............................  MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS (REG WORKS), MO.....................................         5,011,000   The President, Senator Bond
CG...............................  MISSISSIPPI ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, MS...............................................        18,000,000   Senators Cochran, Wicker
CG...............................  MISSOURI & MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVERS ENHANCEMENT, MO.......................................         1,500,000   Senators Harkin, Grassley, Hagel
CG...............................  MISSOURI NATIONAL RECREATIONAL RIVER, NE & SD..............................................         1,000,000   Senator Hagel
CG...............................  MISSOURI R FISH AND WILDLIFE RECOVERY, IA,KS,MO,MT,NE & ND 1...............................        70,000,000   The President, Senators Harkin, Grassley,
                                                                                                                                                    Baucus, Tester
CG...............................  MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM (L-385), MO, IA, NE & KS.......................................         2,600,000   Senator Bond
CG...............................  MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, ND.............................................................         1,000,000   Senator Conrad
CG...............................  MOBILE HARBOR TURNING BASIN, AL............................................................         3,400,000   Senators Shelby, Sessions
CG...............................  MT ST HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA..........................................................         4,410,000   The President, Senator Murray
CG...............................  MUD MOUNTAIN DAM (FISH PASSAGE), WA........................................................         1,000,000   The President, Senator Murray
CG...............................  MUDDY RIVER, MA............................................................................         5,000,000   The President, Senators Kennedy, Kerry
CG...............................  MURRIETA CREEK, CA.........................................................................         5,000,000   Senators Feinstein, Boxer
CG...............................  NAPA RIVER, CA.............................................................................        11,000,000   The President, Senators Feinstein, Boxer
CG...............................  NEGAUNEE, MI...............................................................................           500,000   Senators Levin, Stabenow
CG...............................  NEW MEXICO (Environmental Infrastructure), NM..............................................         7,000,000   Senators Domenici, Bingaman
CG...............................  NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY & NJ....................................................        85,000,000   The President, Senators Lautenberg, Menendez,
                                                                                                                                                    Schumer
CG...............................  NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED, NY................................................................         1,000,000   Senator Schumer
CG...............................  NOGALES WASH, AZ (Chula Vista).............................................................         3,000,000   Senator Kyl
CG...............................  NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS (DEEPENING), VA................................................         1,000,000   Senator Warner, Webb
CG...............................  NORTH DAKOTA ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, ND..............................................        10,000,000   Senator Dorgan
CG...............................  NUTWOOD DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICT, IL....................................................           300,000   Senator Durbin
CG...............................  OAKLAND HARBOR (50 FOOT PROJECT), CA.......................................................        24,000,000   The President, Senators Feinstein, Boxer
CG...............................  OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL & KY.................................................       114,000,000   The President, Senator McConnell
CG...............................  OUACHITA RIVER LEVEES, LA..................................................................         1,600,000   Senators Landrieu, Vitter
CG...............................  OZARK-JETA TAYLOR POWERHOUSE (MAJOR REHAB), AR.............................................        17,300,000   The President, Senators Lincoln, Pryor
CG...............................  PANAMA CITY BEACHES, FL....................................................................         1,000,000   Senator Bill Nelson
CG...............................  PASSAIC RIVER PRESERVATION OF NATURAL STORAGE AREAS, NJ....................................         1,500,000   Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
CG...............................  PERRY CREEK, IA............................................................................         3,800,000   Senators Harkin, Grassley
CG...............................  PETALUMA RIVER FLOOD CONTROL, CA...........................................................           350,000   Senators Feinstein, Boxer
CG...............................  PINHOOK CREEK, HUNTSVILLE, AL..............................................................         1,400,000   Senator Shelby
CG...............................  POINT MARION, LOCK AND DAM8, MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA & WV....................................           150,000   The President
CG...............................  POPLAR ISLAND, MD 1........................................................................        12,000,000   The President, Senators Mikulski, Cardin
CG...............................  PORT OF LOS ANGELES HARBOR MAIN CHANNEL DEEPENING, CA......................................           885,000   Senator Feinstein
CG...............................  PORTUGUES AND BUCANA RIVERS, PR............................................................        43,000,000   The President
CG...............................  PRESQUE ISLE PENINSULA (PERMANENT), PA.....................................................         1,000,000   Senators Specter, Casey
CG...............................  PUGET SOUND AND ADJACENT WATERS RESTORATION, WA............................................           621,000   Senators Murray, Cantwell
CG...............................  RAMAPO AND MAHWAH RIVERS, MAHWAH, NJ AND SUFFERN, NY.......................................           500,000   Senators Lautenberg, Menendez, Schumer
CG...............................  RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, PORT MONMOUTH, NJ..........................................         2,000,000   Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
CG...............................  RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK SUB-BASIN, NJ.............................................        10,000,000   The President, Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
CG...............................  RED RIVER BASIN CHLORIDE CONTROL, TX & OK..................................................         1,500,000   Senator Inhofe
CG...............................  RED RIVER BELOW DENISON DAM AR, LA & TX....................................................         2,500,000   Senators Landrieu, Lincoln, Pryor, Vitter
CG...............................  RED RIVER EMERGENCY BANK PROTECTION, AR & LA...............................................         4,000,000   Senators Landrieu, Lincoln, Pryor, Vitter
CG...............................  RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA & SC....................................................         1,450,000   The President
CG...............................  RICHMOND CSO, VA...........................................................................           300,000   Senator Warner, Webb
CG...............................  RIO DE FLAG FLAGSTAFF, AZ..................................................................         3,000,000   Senator Kyl
CG...............................  RIO GRANDE FLOODWAY, SAN ACACIA TO BOSQUE DEL APACHE, NM...................................           800,000   The President, Senators Domenici, Bingaman
CG...............................  RIO PUERTO NUEVO, PR.......................................................................        12,000,000   The President
CG...............................  ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, HEADWATERS AREA, VA.............................................         1,075,000   The President, Senator Warner, Webb
CG...............................  ROBERT C BYRD LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, WV & OH...........................................         1,000,000   The President
CG...............................  RURAL IDAHO, ID............................................................................         4,000,000   Senators Craig, Crapo
CG...............................  RURAL MONTANA, MT..........................................................................         5,000,000   Senators Baucus, Tester
CG...............................  RURAL UTAH, UT (EI)........................................................................        12,000,000   Senators Bennett, Hatch
CG...............................  RURAL, NV (EI).............................................................................        18,000,000   Senators Reid, Ensign
CG...............................  SACRAMENTO DEEPWATER SHIP CHANNEL, CA......................................................           900,000   The President, Senator Feinstein
CG...............................  SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION PROJECT, CA...............................................        23,968,000   The President, Senators Feinstein, Boxer
CG...............................  SACRAMENTO RIVER FLOOD CONTROL, GRR, CA....................................................           500,000   Senator Feinstein
CG...............................  SACRAMENTO RIVER, GLENN-COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, CA.....................................           500,000   Senators Feinstein, Boxer
CG...............................  SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, TX........................................................        10,000,000   Senators Hutchison, Cornyn
CG...............................  SAN FRANCISCO BAY TO STOCKTON, CA..........................................................         1,000,000   Senators Feinstein, Boxer
CG...............................  SAN LUIS REY RIVER, CA.....................................................................           750,000   Senator Feinstein
CG...............................  SAN RAMON VALLEY RECYCLED WATER, CA........................................................         3,500,000   Senator Feinstein
CG...............................  SAND CREEK WATERSHED, SAUNDERS COUNTY, NE..................................................         2,400,000   Senators Ben Nelson, Hagel
CG...............................  SANDY HOOK TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ...........................................................         2,000,000   Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
CG...............................  SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA...............................................................        14,000,000   The President, Senators Feinstein, Boxer
CG...............................  SANTA MARIA RIVER, CA......................................................................         6,000,000   Senators Feinstein, Boxer
CG...............................  SAULT STE MARIE, MI........................................................................         2,000,000   Senators Levin, Stabenow
CG...............................  SEWARD HARBOR BREAKWATER EXTENSION.........................................................         1,000,000   Senator Stevens
CG...............................  SHOALWATER BAY SHORELINE, WA...............................................................         2,000,000   Senator Murray
CG...............................  SIMS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX....................................................................        21,465,000   The President, Senator Cornyn
CG...............................  SOUTH SACRAMENTO COUNTY STREAMS, CA........................................................        12,000,000   The President, Senators Feinstein, Boxer
CG...............................  SOUTHWEST VALLEY ALBUQUERQUE, NM...........................................................         8,000,000   Senators Domenici, Bingaman
CG...............................  ST LOUIS FLOOD PROTECTION, MO..............................................................         3,750,000   The President, Senator Bond
CG...............................  ST PAUL HARBOR, AK.........................................................................         2,000,000   Senator Stevens
CG...............................  ST. LUCIE INLET, FL........................................................................         4,000,000   The President, Senators Bill Nelson, Martinez
CG...............................  STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV.................................................................           900,000   The President
CG...............................  SUCCESS DAM, TULE RIVER (DAM SAFETY), CA...................................................         8,000,000   The President, Senators Feinstein, Boxer
CG...............................  SUCCESS DAM, TULE RIVER (ENLARGEMENT), CA..................................................           500,000   Senator Feinstein
CG...............................  SWOPE PARK INDUSTRIAL AREA, KANSAS CITY, MO................................................         2,000,000   Senator Bond
CG...............................  TAHOE BASIN RESTORATION, CA................................................................         3,000,000   Senators Reid, Feinstein, Ensign
CG...............................  TAMPA HARBOR, FL...........................................................................           500,000   Senators Bill Nelson, Martinez
CG...............................  TEXAS CITY CHANNEL, TX.....................................................................         3,000,000   Senator Hutchison
CG...............................  TOWNSENDS INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET, NJ......................................................         3,000,000   Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
CG...............................  TRES RIOS, AZ..............................................................................         3,000,000   Senator Kyl
CG...............................  TURKEY CREEK BASIN, KS & MO................................................................        10,000,000   The President, Senators Bond, Roberts
CG...............................  TUSCALOOSA, AL.............................................................................         7,500,000   Senator Shelby
CG...............................  TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS (DAM SAFETY).........................................................        23,800,000   The President, Senators Brownback, Roberts
CG...............................  UNALASKA, AK...............................................................................         6,000,000   Senators Stevens, Murkowski
CG...............................  UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER, CA..................................................................         5,000,000   Senators Feinstein, Boxer
CG...............................  UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION, IL, IA, MN, MO & WI...................................        18,000,000   The President, Senators Harkin, Grassley,
                                                                                                                                                    Coleman
CG...............................  UPPER NEWPORT BAY, CA......................................................................         3,000,000   Senator Feinstein
CG...............................  VIRGINIA BEACH (HURRICANE PROTECTION), VA..................................................         3,000,000   Senator Warner, Webb
CG...............................  WEST SACRAMENTO, CA........................................................................         2,000,000   Senators Feinstein, Boxer
CG...............................  WESTERN SARPY COUNTY AND CLEAR CREEK, NE...................................................         3,000,000   Senators Ben Nelson, Hagel
CG...............................  WHITE RIVER MINIMUM FLOW, AR...............................................................         2,000,000   Senators Lincoln, Pryor
CG...............................  WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE CONTROL, OR 1.................................................         3,331,000   The President
CG...............................  WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC......................................................................         2,000,000   Senators Dole, Burr
CG...............................  WOLF CREEK (SEEPAGE CONTROL), KY...........................................................        57,000,000   The President, Senators McConnell, Alexander,
                                                                                                                                                    Corker
CG...............................  WOOD RIVER LEVEE, IL.......................................................................         3,700,000   The President, Senator Durbin
CG...............................  WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NC.....................................................................           300,000   Senators Dole, Burr
CG...............................  WYOMING VALLEY (LEVEE RAISING), PA.........................................................         3,000,000   Senators Specter, Casey
CG...............................  YUBA RIVER BASIN, CA.......................................................................         3,000,000   Senators Feinstein, Boxer
CG...............................  ABANDONED MINE RESTORATION.................................................................         1,000,000   Senators Feinstein, Boxer
CG...............................  AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL......................................................................         4,550,000   The President, Senators Leahy, Schumer, Dole
CG...............................  DAM SAFETY AND SEEPAGE/STABILITY CORRECTION PROGRAM........................................        48,650,000   The President
CG...............................  Dam Safety Assurance Studies...............................................................  .................  .............................................
CG...............................      Cherry Creek Dam, CO...................................................................  .................  The President
CG...............................      Dworshak Dam, ID.......................................................................  .................  The President
CG...............................      Isabella Dam, CA.......................................................................  .................  The President, Senator Feinstein
CG...............................      John Day Lock and Dam, OR & WA.........................................................  .................  The President
CG...............................      Martis Creek Dam, CA & NV..............................................................  .................  The President, Senator Ensign
CG...............................      Mississippi Lock and Dam 25, MO........................................................  .................  The President
CG...............................  Seepage/Stability Correction Major Rehabilitation Studies..................................  .................  .............................................
CG...............................      Addicks Dam, Buffalo Bayou, TX.........................................................  .................  The President
CG...............................      Ball Mountain Dam, VT..................................................................  .................  The President
CG...............................      Beach City Dam, OH.....................................................................  .................  The President
CG...............................      Bolivar Dam, OH........................................................................  .................  The President
CG...............................      East Branch Dam, Clarion River, PA.....................................................  .................  The President
CG...............................      Green River Lake Dam, KY...............................................................  .................  The President
CG...............................      Hidden Dam, CA.........................................................................  .................  The President
CG...............................      Hop Brook Dam, CT......................................................................  .................  The President
CG...............................      J. Edward Roush Dam, KY................................................................  .................  The President
CG...............................      Keystone lake Dam, OK..................................................................  .................  The President
CG...............................      Lake Shelbyville Dam, IL...............................................................  .................  The President
CG...............................      Lewisville Dam, TX.....................................................................  .................  The President
CG...............................      Mansfield Hollow Dam, CT...............................................................  .................  The President
CG...............................      Mohawk Dam, OH.........................................................................  .................  The President
CG...............................      Montgomery Locks and Dam, PA...........................................................  .................  The President
CG...............................      Nolin Lake dam, KY.....................................................................  .................  The President
CG...............................      Rough River Lake Dam, KY...............................................................  .................  The President
CG...............................      Salamonie Lake Dam, KY.................................................................  .................  The President
CG...............................      Whittier Narrows Dam, CA...............................................................  .................  The President
CG...............................      Zoar Levee (Dover Dam), OH.............................................................  .................  The President
CG...............................  DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROGRAM (DMDF)........................................         8,965,000   The President
CG...............................      Charleston Harbor, SC 1................................................................  .................  The President, Senator Graham
CG...............................      Green Bay Harbor, WI 1.................................................................  .................  The President, Senator Kohl
CG...............................      Rouge River, MI 1......................................................................  .................  The President, Senators Levin, Stabenow
CG...............................      Savannah Harbor, GA 1..................................................................  .................  The President
CG...............................  EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION FUND................................................................        21,000,000   The President
CG...............................  ESTUARY RESTORATION PROGRAM (PUBLIC LAW 106-457)...........................................         1,000,000   The President
CG...............................  INLAND WATERWAYS USER BOARD (BOARD EXPENSES)...............................................            50,000   The President
CG...............................  INLAND WATERWAYS USER BOARD (COE EXP)......................................................           250,000   The President
CG...............................  SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM..............................           875,000   Inouye
CG...............................  CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM.............................................................  .................  .............................................
Section 14.......................  EMERGENCY STREAMBANK AND SHORELINE PROTECTION (SECTION 14).................................        10,000,000   The President
Section 208......................  SNAGGING AND CLEARING (SECTION 208)........................................................           500,000   The President
Section 208......................      Blackwell Lake, Blackwell, OK..........................................................  .................  The President
Section 208......................      Muscatatuck River Log Jam, Scott County, IN............................................  .................  The President
Section 208......................      Oran, MO...............................................................................  .................  The President
Section 103......................  SHORE PROTECTION (SECTION 103).............................................................         7,500,000   The President
Section 103......................      Athol Springs, Lake Erie, NY...........................................................  .................  The President
Section 103......................      Bay Farm Dike, CA......................................................................  .................  Senator Feinstein
Section 103......................      Chesapeake Bay Shoreline, Hampton, VA..................................................  .................  The President
Section 103......................      Ft. San Geronimo, PR...................................................................  .................  The President
Section 103......................      Lake Erie at Painesville, OH...........................................................  .................  The President
Section 103......................      Lasalle Park, Buffalo, NY..............................................................  .................  The President
Section 103......................      Lincoln Park Beach, Seattle, WA........................................................  .................  The President
Section 103......................      Old Lakeshore Road, NY.................................................................  .................  The President
Section 103......................      Philadelphia Shipyard Sea Wall, Philadelphia, PA.......................................  .................  The President
Section 103......................      Pismo Beach, CA........................................................................  .................  Senator Feinstein
Section 103......................      Unalakleet Storm Damage Reduction, Unalakleet, AK......................................  .................  The President, Senator Stevens
Section 103......................      Veteran's Drive Shoreline, St. Thomas, USVI............................................  .................  The President
Section 107......................  NAVIGATION PROGRAM (SECTION 107)...........................................................  .................  The President
Section 107......................      Bass Harbor, ME........................................................................  .................  Snowe, Collins
Section 107......................      Charlestown Breachway and Inlet, RI....................................................  .................  The President
Section 107......................      Fairless Hills Turning Basin, PA.......................................................  .................  Senators Specter, Casey
Section 107......................      Grand Marais Harbor of Refuge, MN......................................................  .................  Senator Coleman
Section 107......................      Hampton Harbor, NH.....................................................................  .................  Senator Gregg
Section 107......................      Mackinac Isle, Harbor Breakwall, MI....................................................  .................  The President
Section 107......................      McQuade Road Harbor of Refuge, Duluth, MN..............................................  .................  Senators Coleman, Klobuchar
Section 107......................      Nassawadox Creek, VA...................................................................  .................  The President
Section 107......................      North Kohala Navigation Improvements, HI...............................................  .................  Senators Inouye, Akaka
Section 107......................      Northwest Tennessee Harbor, TN.........................................................  .................  Senators Alexander, Corker
Section 107......................      Northwestern Michigan, Traverse City, MI...............................................  .................  Senators Levin, Stabenow
Section 107......................      Ontonagon Channel Extension, MI........................................................  .................  Senators Levin, Stabenow
Section 107......................      Ottawa River Navigation, Toledo, OH....................................................  .................  Senator Voinovich
Section 107......................      Port Fourchon Extension, Lafourche Parish, LA..........................................  .................  Senators Landrieu, Vitter
Section 107......................      Round Pond, Bristol, ME................................................................  .................  Snowe, Collins
Section 107......................      Savoonga Harbor, AK....................................................................  .................  The President
Section 107......................      St. Jerome Creek, MD...................................................................  .................  Senator Cardin
Section 111......................  MITIGATION OF SHORE DAMAGES (SECTION 111) 1................................................        10,000,000   The President
Section 111......................      Camp Ellis Restoration Project, ME.....................................................  .................  The President, Senators Snowe, Collins
Section 111......................      Fairport Harbor, OH....................................................................  .................  The President, Senator Voinovich
Section 111......................      Mattituck Harbor, NY...................................................................  .................  The President, Senator Schumer
Section 111......................      Mobile Pass, AL........................................................................  .................  The President
Section 111......................      Tybee Island Channel Impacts, GA.......................................................  .................  The President
Section 111......................      Vermillion, OH.........................................................................  .................  The President
Sections 204, 207, 933...........  BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL (SECTION 204, 207, 933) 1..............................         7,187,000   The President
Sections 204, 207, 933...........      21st Avenue West Channel, Duluth, MN...................................................  .................  The President
Sections 204, 207, 933...........      Atchafalaya River, Shell Island, St. Mary Parish, LA...................................  .................  Senator Landrieu
Sections 204, 207, 933...........      Barataria Bay Waterway, LA.............................................................  .................  Senators Landrieu, Vitter
Sections 204, 207, 933...........      Blackhawk Bottoms, IA..................................................................  .................  The President, Senators Harkin, Grassley
Sections 204, 207, 933...........      Calcasieu River, Cameron Parish, LA....................................................  .................  The President, Senators Landrieu, Vitter
Sections 204, 207, 933...........      Isle Aux Herbes, AL....................................................................  .................  The President
Sections 204, 207, 933...........      Maumee Bay Restoration, OH.............................................................  .................  The President
Sections 204, 207, 933...........      Newburyport Harbor, MA.................................................................  .................  Senators Kennedy, Kerry
Sections 204, 207, 933...........      Restoration of the Cat Islands Chain, Green Bay, WI....................................  .................  The President, Senator Kohl
Sections 204, 207, 933...........      Shell Island Pass, LA..................................................................  .................  The President
Sections 204, 207, 933...........      Wanchese Marsh Creation, NC............................................................  .................  The President
Sections 204, 207, 933...........      Wynn Road, Oregon, OH..................................................................  .................  The President
Section 205......................  FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 205).......................................................        43,123,000   The President
Section 205......................      Ada, MN................................................................................  .................  Senators Coleman, Klobuchar
Section 205......................      Assunpink Creek, Hamiliton Township, Mercer County, NJ.................................  .................  Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
Section 205......................      Bayou Choupique, St Mary Parish, LA....................................................  .................  Senators Landrieu, Vitter
Section 205......................      Bayou Queue de Tortue, Vermillion Parish, LA...........................................  .................  Senators Landrieu, Vitter
Section 205......................      Beaver Creek & Tribs, Bristol, TN......................................................  .................  The President, Senator Alexander
Section 205......................      Blacksnake Creek, St. Joseph, MO.......................................................  .................  The President, Senator Bond
Section 205......................      Concordia, KS..........................................................................  .................  Senators Brownback, Roberts
Section 205......................      Cosgrove Creek, Calaveras County, CA...................................................  .................  Senator Feinstein
Section 205......................      Crosscreek, Rossville, KS..............................................................  .................  Senators Brownback, Roberts
Section 205......................      Duck Creek Flood Warning System, OH....................................................  .................  The President
Section 205......................      Elkton, MD.............................................................................  .................  Senator Mikulski
Section 205......................      Eureka Creek, Mannhattan, KS...........................................................  .................  Senator Brownback
Section 205......................      Findley, OH............................................................................  .................  Senators Voinovich, Brown
Section 205......................      Granite Falls, MN......................................................................  .................  Senators Coleman, Klobuchar
Section 205......................      Hatch, NM..............................................................................  .................  Senators Domenici, Bingaman
Section 205......................      Hopkinsville, Little River, KY.........................................................  .................  Senator McConnell
Section 205......................      Independence, OH.......................................................................  .................  Senator Voinovich
Section 205......................      Indian/Dry Creek Cedar Rapids, IA......................................................  .................  Senators Harkin, Grassley
Section 205......................      Jackson Brook, Morris County, NJ.......................................................  .................  Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
Section 205......................      Jewett Brook, Laconia, NH..............................................................          (100,000)  Senator Gregg
Section 205......................      Keopu-Hienaloli Strm, HI...............................................................  .................  The President
Section 205......................      Kings Point, Warren County, MS.........................................................  .................  Senators Cochran, Wicker
Section 205......................      Kuliouou Stream, Oahu, HI..............................................................  .................  Senator Inouye
Section 205......................      Las Gallinas Creek/Santa Venetia Levee, CA.............................................  .................  Senator Feinstein
Section 205......................      Little Mill Creek, Elsemere, DE........................................................  .................  Senator Salazar
Section 205......................      Little River Diversion, Dutchtown, MO..................................................  .................  The President, Senator Bond
Section 205......................      Livingston, MT.........................................................................  .................  The President
Section 205......................      Mad Creek, Muscatine, IA...............................................................  .................  The President, Senators Harkin, Grassley
Section 205......................      McKinney Bayou, Tunica County, MS......................................................  .................  Senators Cochran, Wicker
Section 205......................      Mill Brook, Highland Park, NJ..........................................................  .................  Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
Section 205......................      Montevideo, MN.........................................................................  .................  Senator Coleman
Section 205......................      North River, Peabody, MA...............................................................  .................  Senators Kennedy, Kerry
Section 205......................      Oak Creek, Florence, Colorado..........................................................  .................  Senators Allard, Salazar
Section 205......................      Pailet Basin, Barataria, LA............................................................  .................  Senator Vitter
Section 205......................      Palai Stream, Hawaii, HI...............................................................  .................  Senators Inouye, Akaka
Section 205......................      Pecan Creek, Gainesville, TX...........................................................  .................  The President, Senator Hutchison
Section 205......................      Pennsville, NJ.........................................................................  .................  Senator Lautenberg
Section 205......................      Pennsylvania Avenue Improvement Project, Bethany Beach, DE.............................  .................  Senators Biden, Carper
Section 205......................      Philadelphia Shipyard Sea Wall, Philadelphia, PA.......................................  .................  Senator Casey
Section 205......................      Platte River, Fremont, NE..............................................................  .................  The President, Senators Ben Nelson, Hagel
Section 205......................      Platte River, Schuyler, NE.............................................................  .................  Senators Ben Nelson, Hagel
Section 205......................      Poplar Brook, Deal and Ocean Township, NJ..............................................  .................  Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
Section 205......................      Randolph, NE (Middle Logan Creek)......................................................  .................  Senator Hagel
Section 205......................      Red Oak Creek, Red Oak, IA.............................................................  .................  Senator Grassley
Section 205......................      Rio Descalabrado, PR...................................................................  .................  The President
Section 205......................      Rio Guamani-Guaya, PR..................................................................  .................  The President
Section 205......................      Salisbury, MA..........................................................................  .................  The President, Senators Kennedy, Kerry
Section 205......................      Swannanoa River Watershed, NC..........................................................  .................  Senator Dole
Section 205......................      Town of Carencro, Lafayette Parish, LA.................................................  .................  Senators Landrieu, Vitter
Section 205......................      Turkey Creek, Ben Hill County, GA......................................................  .................  Senators Biden, Carper
Section 205......................      Upper Passaic River and Tributaries, Long Hill Township, NJ............................  .................  Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
Section 205......................      Wahpeton, ND...........................................................................  .................  Senator Dorgan
Section 205......................      Wailele Strm, Oahu, HI.................................................................  .................  The President
Section 205......................      White Slough, CA.......................................................................  .................  The President
Section 205......................      Winnebago River, Mason City, IA........................................................  .................  Senator Grassley
Section 205......................      WV Statewide Flood Warning System, WV..................................................  .................  The President, Senator Byrd
Section 205......................      Wynne, AR..............................................................................  .................  Senators Lincoln, Pryor
Section 206......................  AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (SECTION 206)................................................        25,000,000   The President
Section 206......................      Arkansas River Habitat Restoration Project, CO.........................................  .................  The President
Section 206......................      Arrowhead Creek, OR....................................................................  .................  Senators Wyden, Smith
Section 206......................      Asheville-Buncomb County, NC...........................................................  .................  Senator Dole
Section 206......................      Beaver Creek, OR.......................................................................  .................  Senators Wyden, Smith
Section 206......................      Blue Hole Lake State Park, NM..........................................................  .................  Senators Domenici, Bingaman
Section 206......................      Blue River, CO.........................................................................  .................  The President, Senator Salazar
Section 206......................      Bottomless Lakes State Park, NM........................................................  .................  Senators Domenici, Bingaman
Section 206......................      Brownsville Branch, AR.................................................................  .................  Senators Lincoln, Pryor
Section 206......................      Buras Marina, LA.......................................................................  .................  Senator Landrieu
Section 206......................      Camp Creek-Zumwalt Prairie, OR.........................................................  .................  Senators Wyden, Smith
Section 206......................      Carpenter Creek, WA....................................................................  .................  The President
Section 206......................      Chariton River/Rathbun Lake, IA........................................................  .................  Senators Harkin, Grassley
Section 206......................      Chattahoochee Fall-Line Ecosystem Restoration, GA......................................  .................  Senators Shelby, Chambliss, Isakson
Section 206......................      Christine and Hickson Dams, ND.........................................................  .................  The President, Senator Dorgan
Section 206......................      Codorus Creek Watershed Restoration, PA................................................  .................  Senator Casey
Section 206......................      Concord Streams Restoration, NC........................................................  .................  The President, Senator Dole
Section 206......................      Deep Run/Tiber Hudson, Howard County, MD...............................................  .................  Senators Mikulski, Cardin
Section 206......................      Dents Run, Elk County, PA..............................................................  .................  The President, Senator Casey
Section 206......................      Dog Island Shoals, MD..................................................................  .................  Senator Cardin
Section 206......................      Drayton Dam, ND........................................................................  .................  The President, Senators Dorgan, Coleman
Section 206......................      Duck Creek, Davenport, IA..............................................................  .................  Senator Grassley
Section 206......................      Emiquon Preserve, Fulton County, IL....................................................  .................  Senator Durbin
Section 206......................      Eugene Delta Ponds, OR.................................................................  .................  The President, Senators Wyden, Smith
Section 206......................      Eugene Field, IL.......................................................................  .................  The President
Section 206......................      Gerritsen Creek, Brooklyn, NY..........................................................  .................  Senator Schumer
Section 206......................      Goose Creek, Boulder, CO...............................................................  .................  The President, Senator Salazar
Section 206......................      Greenbury Point, MD....................................................................  .................  Senator Cardin
Section 206......................      Heron Haven, NE........................................................................  .................  Senator Hagel
Section 206......................      Hoffman Dam, IL........................................................................  .................  The President
Section 206......................      Incline and Third Creeks, NV...........................................................  .................  Senator Ensign
Section 206......................      Jackson Creek, GA......................................................................  .................  The President
Section 206......................      Janes-Wallace Memorial Dam, Santa Rosa, NM.............................................  .................  Senators Domenici, Bingaman
Section 206......................      Kings Park, NY.........................................................................  .................  Senator Schumer
Section 206......................      Lake Killarney, Louisiana State Penitentiary, LA.......................................  .................  Senator Landrieu
Section 206......................      Lake Verret, Assumption Parish, LA.....................................................  .................  Senators Landrieu, Vitter
Section 206......................      Lower Boulder Creek, CO................................................................  .................  Senator Salazar
Section 206......................      Lower Hempstead Harbor, NY.............................................................  .................  Senator Schumer
Section 206......................      Mandeville Ecosystem Restoration, LA...................................................  .................  Senator Vitter
Section 206......................      Manhasset Bay, NY......................................................................  .................  Senator Schumer
Section 206......................      Marion Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, MI...............................................  .................  Senators Levin, Stabenow
Section 206......................      Milford Pond, Milford, MA..............................................................  .................  Senators Kennedy, Kerry
Section 206......................      Mokuhinia/Mokuula Restoration, HI......................................................  .................  Senators, Inouye, Akaka
Section 206......................      Mud Creek, Great South Bay, NY.........................................................  .................  Senator Schumer
Section 206......................      Musconetcong River Dam Removals, NJ....................................................  .................  Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
Section 206......................      North Beach Wetland Restoration, MD....................................................  .................  Senators Mikulski, Cardin
Section 206......................      North Fork Gunnison River, CO..........................................................  .................  Senator Salazar
Section 206......................      Northport Harbor, Huntington, NY.......................................................  .................  Senator Schumer
Section 206......................      Northwest Branch Anacostia River, MD...................................................  .................  The President, Senators Mikulski, Cardin
Section 206......................      Ogden River Restoration, UT............................................................  .................  Senator Bennett
Section 206......................      Olentangy 5th Avenue Dam, OH...........................................................  .................  Senator Voinovich
Section 206......................      Orland Park, IL........................................................................  .................  The President
Section 206......................      Painter Creek, MN......................................................................  .................  Senators Coleman, Klobuchar
Section 206......................      Pennsville, Salem County, NJ...........................................................  .................  Senator Menendez
Section 206......................      Pleasure Island, MD....................................................................  .................  Senator Cardin
Section 206......................      Rancocas Creek Fish Passage Restoration Project, NJ....................................  .................  Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
Section 206......................      Rose Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project, FL.............................................  .................  The President
Section 206......................      Soundview Park, Bronx, NY..............................................................  .................  Senator Schumer
Section 206......................      Spring Lake, San Marcos, TX............................................................  .................  Senator Hutchison
Section 206......................      Springfield Mill Race Stabilization and Protection, OR.................................  .................  Senators Wyden, Smith
Section 206......................      Squaw Creek, (Round Lake Drain), IL....................................................  .................  Senator Durbin
Section 206......................      St. Helena-Napa River, CA..............................................................  .................  The President
Section 206......................      Stephenville WWTP, Meridian, TX........................................................  .................  The President
Section 206......................      Storm Lake, IA.........................................................................  .................  The President, Senators Harkin, Grassley
Section 206......................      Sweetwater Reservoir Ecosystem Restoration, CA.........................................  .................  Senator Feinstein
Section 206......................      Swift Creek Asbestos Sediment Management, WA...........................................  .................  Senator Cantwell
Section 206......................      Tamarisk Eradication, CO...............................................................  .................  Senator Salazar
Section 206......................      Tangier Island, Accomack County, VA....................................................  .................  Senators Warner, Webb
Section 206......................      University Lakes, Baton Rouge, LA......................................................  .................  Senators Landrieu, Vitter
Section 206......................      Upper York Creek, Dam Removal, CA......................................................  .................  Senator Feinstein
Section 206......................      Urieville Lake, MD.....................................................................  .................  Senator Cardin
Section 206......................      Ventura Marsh Habitat Restoration, Clear Lake, IA......................................  .................  The President, Senators Harkin, Grassley
Section 206......................      Vermillion River Ecosystem Restoration, LA.............................................  .................  Senator Vitter
Section 206......................      Western Branch, Patuxent River, MD.....................................................  .................  Senators Mikulski, Cardin
Section 206......................      Whitebreast Creek Watershed, IA........................................................  .................  Senator Grassley
Section 206......................      Wilson Bay Restoration, NC.............................................................  .................  The President
Section 206......................      Winneapaug Pond Restoration, RI........................................................  .................  Senators Reed, Whitehouse
Section 206......................      Wright's Creek, Dorchester Creek, MD...................................................  .................  Senator Cardin
Section 206......................      Zemurray Park Lake Restoration, Tangipahoa Parish, LA..................................  .................  Senator Vitter
Section 1135.....................  PROJECT MODS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (SECTION 1135).............................        25,000,000   The President
Section 1135.....................      Assunpink Creek, Trenton, NJ...........................................................  .................  Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
Section 1135.....................      Bayou Desiard, Monroe, LA..............................................................  .................  Senator Landrieu
Section 1135.....................      Belhaven Harbor, NC....................................................................  .................  Senator Dole
Section 1135.....................      Bloomington State Park, MO.............................................................  .................  The President
Section 1135.....................      Blue Valley Wetlands, Jackson, MO......................................................  .................  The President
Section 1135.....................      Braided Reach, WA......................................................................  .................  The President
Section 1135.....................      Duck Creek Conservation Area, Stoddard County, MO......................................  .................  The President
Section 1135.....................      Eagleland Ecosystem, TX................................................................  .................  The President
Section 1135.....................      Frazier/Whitehorse Oxbow Lake Weir, LA.................................................  .................  Senator Landrieu
Section 1135.....................      Gerritsen Creek, NY....................................................................  .................  The President
Section 1135.....................      Green River Dam Modifications, KY......................................................  .................  The President
Section 1135.....................      Indian Ridge Marsh, Chicago, IL........................................................  .................  The President
Section 1135.....................      Kanaha Pond Wildlife Sanctuary Restoration, HI.........................................  .................  The President
Section 1135.....................      Kaunakakai Stream Environmental Restoration, HI........................................  .................  The President, Senators Inouye, Akaka
Section 1135.....................      Lake Champlain Lamprey Barriers, VT....................................................  .................  Senator Leahy
Section 1135.....................      Lake Fausse Pointe, Iberia Parish, LA..................................................  .................  Senator Vitter
Section 1135.....................      Lake St. Joseph, Tensas Parish, LA.....................................................  .................  Senators Landrieu, Vitter
Section 1135.....................      Lake Whittington Weir, MS & AR.........................................................  .................  Senators Cochran, Wicker
Section 1135.....................      Las Cruces Dam Environmental Restoration, Dona Ana County, NM..........................  .................  Senators Domenici, Bingaman
Section 1135.....................      Lincoln Park West, Ecosystem Restoration Study, NJ.....................................  .................  Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
Section 1135.....................      Lower Assunpink Creek, NJ..............................................................  .................  Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
Section 1135.....................      Lower Cache Restoration, AR............................................................  .................  Senators Lincoln, Pryor
Section 1135.....................      Lower Columbia Slough, OR..............................................................  .................  The President, Senators Wyden, Smith
Section 1135.....................      Lower Kingman Island, DC...............................................................  .................  The President
Section 1135.....................      Millwood Lake, Grassy Lake, AR.........................................................  .................  Senators Lincoln, Pryor
Section 1135.....................      Mordecai Island Coastal Wetland Restoration, NJ........................................  .................  Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
Section 1135.....................      Morganza Fore-Bay Restoration, LA......................................................  .................  Senator Vitter
Section 1135.....................      Pine Mount Creek, NJ...................................................................  .................  Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
Section 1135.....................      Pond Creek Salt Marsh Restoration, Cape May County, NJ.................................  .................  Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
Section 1135.....................      Prison Farm, ND........................................................................  .................  The President, Senator Dorgan
Section 1135.....................      Pueblo of Santa Ana Aquatic Restoration, NM............................................  .................  Senator Bingaman
Section 1135.....................      Rathbun Lake, South Fork Restoration, IA...............................................  .................  Senators Harkin, Grassley
Section 1135.....................      Rock Creek at Boyle Park, Little Rock, AR..............................................  .................  Senators Lincoln, Pryor
Section 1135.....................      Route 66 Environmental Restoration, Albuquerque, NM....................................  .................  Senators Domenici, Bingaman
Section 1135.....................      Sand Hill River, MN....................................................................  .................  The President
Section 1135.....................      Shorty's Islands, WA...................................................................  .................  The President, Senators Murray, Cantwell
Section 1135.....................      Spring Creek, NY.......................................................................  .................  Senator Schumer
Section 1135.....................      Tappan Lake, OH........................................................................  .................  The President, Senator Inhofe
Section 1135.....................      Tujunga Wash Environmental Restoration, CA.............................................  .................  Senator Feinstein
Section 1135.....................      Village of Oyster, Northampton County, VA..............................................  .................  Senators Warner, Webb
MR&T--GI.........................;  ALEXANDRIA TO THE GULF, LA.................................................................           790,000   The President, Senators Landrieu, Vitter
MR&T--GI.........................;  ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM LAND STUDY, LA...........................................  .................  The President, Senators Landrieu, Vitter
MR&T--GI.........................;  BAYOU METO BASIN, AR.......................................................................            43,000   Senators Lincoln, Pryor
MR&T--GI.........................;  COLDWATER RIVER BASIN BELOW ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS.............................................           130,000   The President, Senators Cochran, Wicker
MR&T--GI.........................;  COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA.........................................................         1,430,000   The President, Senators Cochran, Landrieu,
                                                                                                                                                    Wicker
MR&T--GI.........................;  MEMPHIS METRO AREA, STORM WATER MGMT STUDY, TN.............................................            34,000   The President
MR&T--GI.........................;  MORGANZA TO THE GULF, LA...................................................................         6,000,000   Senators Landrieu, Vitter
MR&T--GI.........................;  QUIVER RIVER, MS...........................................................................           250,000   Senators Cochran, Wicker
MR&T--GI.........................;  SOUTHEAST ARKANSAS, AR.....................................................................           400,000   Senators Lincoln, Pryor
MR&T--GI.........................;  SPRING BAYOU, LA...........................................................................           300,000   Senators Landrieu, Vitter
MR&T--CG.........................;  ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA.....................................................         2,025,000   The President, Senators Landrieu, Vitter
MR&T--CG.........................;  ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA......................................................................        15,500,000   The President, Senators Landrieu, Vitter
MR&T--CG.........................;  CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN...........................................        50,200,000   The President, Senators Landrieu, Lincoln,
                                                                                                                                                    Pryor
MR&T--CG.........................;  CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, DIKES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN....................................  .................  The President
MR&T--CG.........................;  CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, REVETMENT OPERATIONS, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN.....................  .................  The President
MR&T--CG.........................;  GRAND PRAIRIE REGION, AR...................................................................         9,000,000   Senators Lincoln, Pryor
MR&T--CG.........................;  MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA...............................................................         3,933,000   The President, Senators Landrieu, Vitter
MR&T--CG.........................;  MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN......................................        63,823,000   The President, Senators Cochran, Landrieu,
                                                                                                                                                    Wicker, Bond, Lincoln, Pryor, Vitter
MR&T--CG.........................;  ST. FRANCIS RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, AR & MO.................................................         5,700,000   Senators Bond, Lincoln, Pryor
MR&T--CG.........................;  ST. JOHNS BAYOU AND NEW MADRID FLOODWAY, MO................................................           200,000   Senator Bond
MR&T--CG.........................;  YAZOO BASIN, BACKWATER LESS ROCKY BAYOU....................................................            50,000   Senators Cochran, Wicker
MR&T--CG.........................;  YAZOO BASIN--BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS.......................................................         2,275,000   Senators Cochran, Wicker
MR&T--CG.........................;  YAZOO BASIN--DELTA HEADWATERS PROJECT, MS..................................................        18,000,000   Senators Cochran, Wicker
MR&T--CG.........................;  YAZOO BASIN--MAIN STEM, MS.................................................................            25,000   Senators Cochran, Wicker
MR&T--CG.........................;  YAZOO BASIN--REFORMULATION UNIT, MS........................................................         2,800,000   Senators Cochran, Wicker
MR&T--CG.........................;  YAZOO BASIN--UPPER YAZOO PROJECTS, MS......................................................        14,000,000   Senators Cochran, Wicker
MR&T--CG.........................;  YAZOO BASIN--YAZOO BACKWATER, MS...........................................................         5,000,000   Senators Cochran, Wicker
MR&T--O;&M........................;  ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA.....................................................         2,117,000   The President, Senators Landrieu, Vitter
MR&T--O;&M........................;  ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA......................................................................         8,619,000   The President, Senators Landrieu, Vitter
MR&T--O;&M........................;  BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA........................................................           162,000   The President, Senators Landrieu, Vitter
MR&T--O;&M........................;  BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA.........................................................            42,000   The President, Senators Landrieu, Vitter
MR&T--O;&M........................;  BONNET CARRE, LA...........................................................................         2,346,000   The President, Senators Landrieu, Vitter
MR&T--O;&M........................;  CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN...........................................        70,000,000   The President, Senators Cochran, Landrieu,
                                                                                                                                                    Wicker
MR&T--O;&M........................;  GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS......................................................................           436,000   The President, Senators Cochran, Wicker
MR&T--O;&M........................;  HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR.........................................................           128,000   The President, Senators Lincoln, Pryor
MR&T--O;&M........................;  HICKMAN/MAGNOLIA BLUFF, KY.................................................................            60,000   Senator McConnell
MR&T--O;&M........................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR..........................................................           249,000   The President
MR&T--O;&M........................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL..........................................................           135,000   The President
MR&T--O;&M........................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY..........................................................            93,000   The President
MR&T--O;&M........................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA..........................................................         1,927,000   The President, Senator Landrieu
MR&T--O;&M........................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO..........................................................           185,000   The President
MR&T--O;&M........................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS..........................................................           101,000   The President
MR&T--O;&M........................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN..........................................................            81,000   The President
MR&T--O;&M........................;  LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, AR.......................................................           256,000   The President
MR&T--O;&M........................;  LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, AR.......................................................           161,000   The President
MR&T--O;&M........................;  LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, LA.....................................................            53,000   The President
MR&T--O;&M........................;  MAPPING....................................................................................         1,488,000   The President, Senator Landrieu
MR&T--O;&M........................;  MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, TN..........................................................         3,283,000   The President
MR&T--O;&M........................;  MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA...............................................................           578,000   The President, Senator Landrieu
MR&T--O;&M........................;  MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN......................................        16,368,000   The President, Senators Cochran, Landrieu,
                                                                                                                                                    Wicker, Bond, Lincoln, Pryor, Vitter
MR&T--O;&M........................;  OLD RIVER, LA..............................................................................        13,882,000   The President, Senators Landrieu, Vitter
MR&T--O;&M........................;  ST FRANCIS BASIN, AR & MO..................................................................         8,200,000   The President, Senators Bond, Lincoln, Pryor
MR&T--O;&M........................;  TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS, AR & LA.............................................         1,880,000   The President, Senators Landrieu, Lincoln,
                                                                                                                                                    Pryor, Vitter
MR&T--O;&M........................;  TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA......................................................         2,501,000   The President, Senators Landrieu, Vitter
MR&T--O;&M........................;  VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS.......................................................................           424,000   The President, Senator Wicker
MR&T--O;&M........................;  WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO........................................................................         4,567,000   The President, Senator Bond
MR&T--O;&M........................;  WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR..................................................................         1,000,000   The President, Senators Lincoln, Pryor
MR&T--O;&M........................;  YAZOO BASIN, ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS............................................................         6,673,000   The President, Senators Cochran, Wicker
MR&T--O;&M........................;  YAZOO BASIN, BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS.......................................................         1,500,000   The President, Senators Cochran, Wicker
MR&T--O;&M........................;  YAZOO BASIN, ENID LAKE, MS.................................................................         7,417,000   The President, Senators Cochran, Wicker
MR&T--O;&M........................;  YAZOO BASIN, GREENWOOD, MS.................................................................         1,650,000   The President, Senators Cochran, Wicker
MR&T--O;&M........................;  YAZOO BASIN, GRENADA LAKE, MS..............................................................         7,166,000   The President, Senators Cochran, Wicker
MR&T--O;&M........................;  YAZOO BASIN, MAIN STEM, MS.................................................................         2,237,000   The President, Senators Cochran, Wicker
MR&T--O;&M........................;  YAZOO BASIN, SARDIS LAKE, MS...............................................................         8,916,000   The President, Senators Cochran, Wicker
MR&T--O;&M........................;  YAZOO BASIN, TRIBUTARIES, MS...............................................................           925,000   The President, Senators Cochran, Wicker
MR&T--O;&M........................;  YAZOO BASIN, WILL M WHITTINGTON AUX CHAN, MS...............................................           285,000   The President
MR&T--O;&M........................;  YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS......................................................           442,000   The President, Senators Cochran, Wicker
MR&T--O;&M........................;  YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO CITY, MS................................................................           534,000   The President, Senators Cochran, Wicker
O&M..............................;  ABIQUIU DAM, NM............................................................................         2,220,000   The President, Senators Domenici, Bingaman
O&M..............................;  ABSECON INLET, NJ..........................................................................           265,000   Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
O&M..............................;  ALABAMA RIVER LAKES, AL....................................................................        15,672,000   The President, Senators Shelby, Sessions
O&M..............................;  ALABAMA--COOSA COMPREHENSIVE WATER STUDY, AL...............................................           375,000   The President
O&M..............................;  ALAMO LAKE, AZ.............................................................................         1,585,000   The President
O&M..............................;  ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID.......................................................................         1,539,000   The President
O&M..............................;  ALLATOONA LAKE, GA.........................................................................         6,016,000   The President
O&M..............................;  ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA........................................................................         6,578,000   The President
O&M..............................;  ALMOND LAKE, NY............................................................................           424,000   The President
O&M..............................;  ALPENA HARBOR, MI..........................................................................  .................  Senators Levin, Stabenow
O&M..............................;  ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH........................................................................         1,439,000   The President
O&M..............................;  ALVIN R BUSH DAM, PA.......................................................................           591,000   The President
O&M..............................;  ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK.......................................................................        17,601,000   The President
O&M..............................;  APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT RIVERS, GA, AL & FL..................................         3,418,000   The President, Senator Shelby
O&M..............................;  APPLEGATE LAKE, OR.........................................................................           904,000   The President
O&M..............................;  APPOMATTOX RIVER, VA.......................................................................           500,000   Senators Warner, Webb
O&M..............................;  AQUILLA LAKE, TX...........................................................................         1,354,000   The President
O&M..............................;  ARCADIA HARBOR, MI.........................................................................  .................  Senators Levin, Stabenow
O&M..............................;  ARCADIA LAKE, OK...........................................................................           472,000   The President, Senator Inhofe
O&M..............................;  ARECIBO HARBOR, PR.........................................................................           100,000   The President
O&M..............................;  ARKANSAS--RED RIVER BASINS CHLORIDE CONTROL--AREA VI.......................................         1,415,000   The President
O&M..............................;  ARKPORT DAM, NY............................................................................           225,000   The President
O&M..............................;  ASHTABULA HARBOR, OH.......................................................................         1,850,000   The President, Senator Voinovich
O&M..............................;  ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF AND BLACK, LA....................................         8,993,000   The President, Senators Landrieu, Vitter
O&M..............................;  ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GA.........................................................         1,000,000   The President, Senators Chambliss, Isakson
O&M..............................;  ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NC.........................................................         2,000,000   The President, Senator Dole
O&M..............................;  ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC.........................................................         1,500,000   The President, Senator Graham
O&M..............................;  ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--ACC, VA....................................................         1,823,000   The President
O&M..............................;  ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--DSC, VA....................................................           967,000   The President
O&M..............................;  AU SABLE, MI...............................................................................  .................  Senators Levin, Stabenow
O&M..............................;  AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA..................................................................           215,000   The President
O&M..............................;  B EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC..........................................................         1,633,000   The President
O&M..............................;  BALL MOUNTAIN LAKE, VT.....................................................................           719,000   The President, Senator Leahy
O&M..............................;  BALTIMORE HARBOR (DRIFT REMOVAL), MD.......................................................           338,000   The President, Senators Mikulski, Cardin
O&M..............................;  BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 FOOT), MD................................................        16,193,000   The President, Senators Mikulski, Cardin
O&M..............................;  BARATARIA BAY WATERWAY, LA.................................................................           926,000   The President, Senators Landrieu, Vitter
O&M..............................;  BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI...................................................................           548,000   The President, Senator Inouye
O&M..............................;  BARBOUR TERMINAL CHANNEL, TX...............................................................         1,417,000   The President
O&M..............................;  BARDWELL LAKE, TX..........................................................................         2,162,000   The President
O&M..............................;  BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY & TN......................................................        10,255,000   The President
O&M..............................;  BARNEGAT INLET, NJ.........................................................................           225,000   The President, Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
O&M..............................;  BARRE FALLS DAM, MA........................................................................           580,000   The President
O&M..............................;  BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY......................................................................         5,969,000   The President, Senator McConnell
O&M..............................;  BAY PORT HARBOR, MI........................................................................  .................  Senators Levin, Stabenow
O&M..............................;  BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA.................................................................           809,000   The President, Senators Landrieu, Vitter
O&M..............................;  BAYOU LACOMBE, LA..........................................................................           450,000   Senators Landrieu, Vitter
O&M..............................;  BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP WATERWAY, LA............................................           724,000   The President, Senators Landrieu, Vitter
O&M..............................;  BAYOU PIERRE, LA...........................................................................            18,000   The President, Senator Landrieu
O&M..............................;  BAYOU SEGNETTE WATERWAY, LA................................................................           321,000   The President, Senators Landrieu, Vitter
O&M..............................;  BAYOU TECHE AND VERMILION RIVER, LA........................................................            14,000   The President, Senator Landrieu
O&M..............................;  BAYOU TECHE, LA............................................................................           209,000   The President, Senators Landrieu, Vitter
O&M..............................;  BAYPORT SHIP CHANNEL, TX...................................................................         3,122,000   The President
O&M..............................;  BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO........................................................................           332,000   The President
O&M..............................;  BEAVER LAKE, AR............................................................................         5,270,000   The President
O&M..............................;  BEECH FORK LAKE, WV........................................................................         2,500,000   The President, Senator Byrd
O&M..............................;  BELTON LAKE, TX............................................................................         3,567,000   The President
O&M..............................;  BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA........................................................................         1,311,000   The President
O&M..............................;  BENBROOK LAKE, TX..........................................................................         2,302,000   The President
O&M..............................;  BERLIN LAKE, OH............................................................................         4,867,000   The President
O&M..............................;  BIG BAY HARBOR, MI.........................................................................  .................  Senator Levin
O&M..............................;  BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD..............................................................         6,799,000   The President
O&M..............................;  BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY.......................................................................         1,250,000   The President
O&M..............................;  BIGSTONE LAKE WHETSTONE RIVER, MN & SD.....................................................           172,000   The President
O&M..............................;  BIRCH HILL DAM, MA.........................................................................           574,000   The President
O&M..............................;  BIRCH LAKE, OK.............................................................................           648,000   The President, Senator Inhofe
O&M..............................;  BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA.......................................................................         1,954,000   The President
O&M..............................;  BLACK RIVER (GOGEBIC), MI..................................................................  .................  Senators Levin, Stabenow
O&M..............................;  BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR, NY................................................         1,235,000   The President
O&M..............................;  BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT........................................................................           416,000   The President
O&M..............................;  BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL.....................................................        22,191,000   The President, Senators Shelby, Sessions
O&M..............................;  BLACKWATER DAM, NH.........................................................................           567,000   The President
O&M..............................;  BLAKELY MT DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR..........................................................         8,384,000   The President, Senators Lincoln, Pryor
O&M..............................;  BLOCK ISLAND HARBOR, RI (old Harbor).......................................................           500,000   The President, Senator Reed
O&M..............................;  BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA........................................................................         2,736,000   The President
O&M..............................;  BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR.....................................................................         1,427,000   The President
O&M..............................;  BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR........................................................................           427,000   The President
O&M..............................;  BLUESTONE LAKE, WV.........................................................................         1,508,000   The President
O&M..............................;  BOGUE INLET, NC............................................................................           400,000   Senator Dole
O&M..............................;  BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA...........................................................         9,691,000   The President
O&M..............................;  BOSTON HARBOR, MA..........................................................................         6,000,000   The President, Senators Kennedy, Kerry
O&M..............................;  BOWMAN--HALEY LAKE, ND.....................................................................           153,000   The President
O&M..............................;  BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TX...................................................................         3,259,000   The President, Senator Cornyn
O&M..............................;  BRIDGEPORT HARBOR DREDGING, CT.............................................................         2,000,000   Senators Dodd, Lieberman
O&M..............................;  BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK........................................................................         1,903,000   The President, Senator Inhofe
O&M..............................;  BRONX RIVER, NY............................................................................           250,000   The President, Senator Schumer
O&M..............................;  BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN........................................................................         1,649,000   The President
O&M..............................;  BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA.......................................................................         5,545,000   The President, Senators Chambliss, Isakson
O&M..............................;  BUCHANAN DAM, HV EASTMAN LAKE, CA..........................................................         1,820,000   The President
O&M..............................;  BUCKHORN LAKE, KY..........................................................................         2,433,000   The President
O&M..............................;  BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX..........................................................         1,723,000   The President
O&M..............................;  BUFFALO HARBOR, NY.........................................................................            50,000   The President
O&M..............................;  BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA.......................................................................           515,000   The President
O&M..............................;  BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GA......................................................         7,946,000   The President
O&M..............................;  BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR.......................................................................         7,367,000   The President
O&M..............................;  BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN..................................................................           160,000   The President
O&M..............................;  BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV........................................................................         1,973,000   The President
O&M..............................;  BUTTERMILK CHANNEL, NY.....................................................................           220,000   The President, Senator Schumer
O&M..............................;  CADDO LAKE, LA.............................................................................           181,000   The President, Senators Landrieu, Vitter
O&M..............................;  CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH......................................................................         2,149,000   The President
O&M..............................;  CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN.......................................................................         2,053,000   The President
O&M..............................;  CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA...............................................................        14,968,000   The President, Senators Landrieu, Vitter
O&M..............................;  CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL & IN..........................................................         4,780,000   The President
O&M..............................;  CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL.......................................................................         4,404,000   The President, Senators Bill Nelson, Martinez
O&M..............................;  CANTON LAKE, OK............................................................................         1,707,000   The President, Senator Inhofe
O&M..............................;  CANYON LAKE, TX............................................................................         3,686,000   The President
O&M..............................;  CAPE COD CANAL, MA.........................................................................        11,546,000   The President
O&M..............................;  CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC.......................................................           718,000   The President, Senator Dole
O&M..............................;  CARLYLE LAKE, IL...........................................................................         4,155,000   The President, Senator Durbin
O&M..............................;  CAROLINA BEACH INLET, NC...................................................................           600,000   Senator Dole
O&M..............................;  CARR CREEK LAKE, KY........................................................................         1,797,000   The President
O&M..............................;  CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA...................................................................         7,703,000   The President
O&M..............................;  CARUTHERSVILLE HARBOR, MO..................................................................           500,000   The President, Senator Bond
O&M..............................;  CASEVILLE HARBOR, MI.......................................................................  .................  Senators Levin, Stabenow
O&M..............................;  CAVE RUN LAKE, KY..........................................................................         1,098,000   The President
O&M..............................;  CECIL M HARDEN LAKE, IN....................................................................         1,226,000   The President
O&M..............................;  CENTER HILL LAKE, TN.......................................................................         7,021,000   The President
O&M..............................;  CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL...........................................................        13,234,000   The President
O&M..............................;  CHANNEL ISLANDS HARBOR, CA.................................................................         5,360,000   The President
O&M..............................;  CHANNEL TO PORT BOLIVAR, TX................................................................           348,000   The President
O&M..............................;  CHANNELS IN LAKE ST CLAIR, MI..............................................................           156,000   The President, Senators Levin, Stabenow
O&M..............................;  CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY STORAGE AREA, MA..............................................           291,000   The President
O&M..............................;  CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC......................................................................         9,947,000   The President, Senator Graham
O&M..............................;  CHARLEVOIX HARBOR, MI......................................................................           197,000   The President, Senators Levin, Stabenow
O&M..............................;  CHATFIELD LAKE, CO.........................................................................         1,509,000   The President, Senators Allard, Salazar
O&M..............................;  CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN..................................................................         6,829,000   The President
O&M..............................;  CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK......................................................................         2,225,000   The President
O&M..............................;  CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO......................................................................         1,203,000   The President, Senators Allard, Salazar
O&M..............................;  CHETCO RIVER, OR...........................................................................           574,000   The President, Senators Wyden, Smith
O&M..............................;  CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUX, SD..........................................         3,000,000   Senators Johnson, Thune
O&M..............................;  CHICAGO HARBOR, IL.........................................................................         2,015,000   The President
O&M..............................;  CHICAGO RIVER, IL..........................................................................           475,000   The President
O&M..............................;  CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TENNESSEE RIVER, TN......................................................         1,200,000   The President
O&M..............................;  CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA.......................................................................           785,000   The President
O&M..............................;  CHINCOTEAGUE HARBOR OF REFUGE, VA..........................................................           266,000   The President
O&M..............................;  CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA.....................................................................           207,000   The President
O&M..............................;  CLAIBORNE COUNTY PORT, MS..................................................................            60,000   The President, Senators Cochran, Wicker
O&M..............................;  CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE, MO................................................         6,449,000   The President, Senator Bond
O&M..............................;  CLARENCE J BROWN DAM, OH...................................................................         2,520,000   The President
O&M..............................;  CLEARWATER LAKE, MO........................................................................         2,825,000   The President, Senator Bond
O&M..............................;  CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH.......................................................................         6,710,000   The President, Senator Voinovich
O&M..............................;  CLINTON LAKE, KS...........................................................................         2,042,000   The President, Senators Brownback, Roberts
O&M..............................;  CLINTON RIVER, MI..........................................................................  .................  Senators Levin, Stabenow
O&M..............................;  COCHITI LAKE, NM...........................................................................         2,392,000   The President, Senators Domenici, Bingaman
O&M..............................;  COLD BROOK LAKE, SD........................................................................           303,000   The President
O&M..............................;  COLD SPRING INLET, NJ......................................................................           243,000   The President, Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
O&M..............................;  COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT...................................................................           547,000   The President
O&M..............................;  COLUMBIA & LWR WILLAMETTE R BLW VANCOUVER, WA & PORTLAND...................................        18,052,000   The President, Senators Murray, Wyden, Smith
O&M..............................;  COLUMBIA RIVER AT BAKER BAY, WA & OR.......................................................           500,000   The President, Senators Murray, Cantwell
O&M..............................;  COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR & WA.......................................................        15,125,000   The President, Senators Murray, Wyden, Smith
O&M..............................;  COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN CHINOOK AND SAND ISLAND, WA.........................................           500,000   The President, Senators Murray, Cantwell
O&M..............................;  COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA AND THE DALLES, OR....................................           640,000   The President
O&M..............................;  CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA......................................................................           232,000   The President
O&M..............................;  CONCHAS LAKE, NM...........................................................................         1,121,000   The President, Senators Domenici, Bingaman
O&M..............................;  CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA...................................................................         1,734,000   The President
O&M..............................;  CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH........................................................................           350,000   The President
O&M..............................;  COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC........................................................         4,685,000   The President, Senator Graham
O&M..............................;  COOS BAY, OR...............................................................................         4,769,000   The President, Senators Wyden, Smith
O&M..............................;  COPAN LAKE, OK.............................................................................           937,000   The President, Senator Inhofe
O&M..............................;  COQUILLE RIVER, OR.........................................................................           307,000   The President, Senators Wyden, Smith
O&M..............................;  CORALVILLE LAKE, IA........................................................................         2,887,000   The President, Senators Harkin, Grassley
O&M..............................;  CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN.........................................................         6,386,000   The President
O&M..............................;  CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX............................................................         3,398,000   The President
O&M..............................;  COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR.....................................................................           991,000   The President
O&M..............................;  COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD................................................................           223,000   The President
O&M..............................;  COUGAR LAKE, OR............................................................................         5,380,000   The President
O&M..............................;  COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS.....................................................................         1,328,000   The President, Senators Brownback, Roberts
O&M..............................;  COWANESQUE LAKE, PA........................................................................         1,847,000   The President
O&M..............................;  COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, CA......................................................         3,384,000   The President
O&M..............................;  CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA.....................................................................         2,530,000   The President
O&M..............................;  CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV............................................................            98,000   The President
O&M..............................;  CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA......................................................................           625,000   The President
O&M..............................;  DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN.......................................................................         6,262,000   The President
O&M..............................;  DANA POINT HARBOR, CA......................................................................           700,000   Senator Boxer
O&M..............................;  DARDANELLE LOCK AND DAM, AR................................................................         8,491,000   The President
O&M..............................;  DEER CREEK LAKE, OH........................................................................         1,359,000   The President
O&M..............................;  DEGRAY LAKE, AR............................................................................         6,317,000   The President, Senators Lincoln, Pryor
O&M..............................;  DELAWARE LAKE, OH..........................................................................         1,445,000   The President
O&M..............................;  DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ...............................................................            15,000   The President
O&M..............................;  DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE SEA, NJ, PA & DE.......................................        18,778,000   The President, Senators Specter, Lautenberg,
                                                                                                                                                    Menendez, Casey
O&M..............................;  DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO TRENTON, NJ............................................           750,000   The President, Senators Specter, Lautenberg,
                                                                                                                                                    Menendez
O&M..............................;  DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX...............................................................         6,393,000   The President, Senator Inhofe
O&M..............................;  DEPOE BAY, OR..............................................................................           124,000   The President, Senators Wyden, Smith
O&M..............................;  DEQUEEN LAKE, AR...........................................................................         1,286,000   The President
O&M..............................;  DETROIT LAKE, OR...........................................................................         2,564,000   The President
O&M..............................;  DETROIT RIVER, MI..........................................................................         5,327,000   The President, Senators Levin, Stabenow
O&M..............................;  DEWEY LAKE, KY.............................................................................         1,768,000   The President
O&M..............................;  DIERKS LAKE, AR............................................................................         1,354,000   The President
O&M..............................;  DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK......................................................................           840,000   The President
O&M..............................;  DILLON LAKE, OH............................................................................         1,454,000   The President
O&M..............................;  DISPOSAL AREA MONITORING, ME...............................................................         1,200,000   The President
O&M..............................;  DORENA LAKE, OR............................................................................           831,000   The President
O&M..............................;  DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND CHANNEL, CA..............................................         5,067,000   The President
O&M..............................;  DULUTH--SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN & WI...........................................................         4,929,000   The President
O&M..............................;  DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID.............................................................         2,404,000   The President
O&M..............................;  EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA.........................................................         2,179,000   The President
O&M..............................;  EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA....................................................................           398,000   The President
O&M..............................;  EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS.............................................................           135,000   The President
O&M..............................;  EAST LYNN LAKE, WV.........................................................................         2,044,000   The President
O&M..............................;  EAST RIVER, NY.............................................................................           500,000   The President, Senator Schumer
O&M..............................;  EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY....................................................................         4,220,000   The President
O&M..............................;  EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY.......................................................................           473,000   The President
O&M..............................;  EASTCHESTER CREEK, NY......................................................................           180,000   The President, Senator Schumer
O&M..............................;  EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI...................................................................           611,000   The President
O&M..............................;  EDIZ HOOK, WA..............................................................................            63,000   The President
O&M..............................;  EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH..................................................................           514,000   The President
O&M..............................;  EL DORADO LAKE, KS.........................................................................           569,000   The President, Senators Brownback, Roberts
O&M..............................;  ELK CITY LAKE, KS..........................................................................           734,000   The President, Senators Brownback, Roberts
O&M..............................;  ELKINS, WV.................................................................................            14,000   The President
O&M..............................;  ELVIS STAHR (HICKMAN) HARBOR, KY...........................................................            25,000   The President
O&M..............................;  ESCAMBIA AND CONECUH RIVERS, FL............................................................            25,000   The President
O&M..............................;  ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT, TX.................................................            38,000   The President
O&M..............................;  EUFAULA LAKE, OK...........................................................................         5,348,000   The President, Senator Inhofe
O&M..............................;  EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WA.....................................................         1,293,000   The President, Senator Murray
O&M..............................;  EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA, SBC RESERVATION PLAN, FL.....................................           400,000   The President
O&M..............................;  FAIRPORT HARBOR, OH........................................................................         2,026,000   The President
O&M..............................;  FALL CREEK LAKE, OR........................................................................         1,418,000   The President
O&M..............................;  FALL RIVER LAKE, KS........................................................................         1,284,000   The President, Senators Brownback, Roberts
O&M..............................;  FALLS LAKE, NC.............................................................................         1,683,000   The President
O&M..............................;  FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL..................................................................           203,000   The President
O&M..............................;  FARMINGTON DAM, CA.........................................................................           443,000   The President
O&M..............................;  FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR........................................................................         1,433,000   The President
O&M..............................;  FERNANDINA HARBOR, FL......................................................................         2,025,000   The President
O&M..............................;  FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O' THE PINES, TX.................................................         4,179,000   The President
O&M..............................;  FISHTRAP LAKE, KY..........................................................................         1,830,000   The President
O&M..............................;  FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY.................................................................           380,000   The President, Senator Schumer
O&M..............................;  FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK.......................................................................        10,218,000   The President, Senator Inhofe
O&M..............................;  FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS CASE, SD....................................................         7,328,000   The President
O&M..............................;  FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK.......................................................................           742,000   The President
O&M..............................;  FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA...............................................................           633,000   The President
O&M..............................;  FOX POINT HURRICANE BARRIER, RI............................................................           500,000   Senators Reed, Whitehouse
O&M..............................;  FOX RIVER, WI..............................................................................         3,775,000   The President, Senator Kohl
O&M..............................;  FRANCIS E WALTER DAM, PA...................................................................           774,000   The President, Senator Casey
O&M..............................;  FRANKFORT HARBOR, MI.......................................................................  .................  Senators Levin, Stabenow
O&M..............................;  FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH.....................................................................           619,000   The President
O&M..............................;  FREEPORT HARBOR, TX........................................................................         7,020,000   The President
O&M..............................;  FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA.......................................................................         1,848,000   The President, Senators Landrieu, Vitter
O&M..............................;  FT PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT...................................................................         4,444,000   The President
O&M..............................;  GALISTEO DAM, NM...........................................................................           423,000   The President, Senators Domenici, Bingaman
O&M..............................;  GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX...........................................................         6,022,000   The President
O&M..............................;  GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND...........................................................        11,789,000   The President, Senator Dorgan
O&M..............................;  GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA..........................................................         2,022,000   The President
O&M..............................;  GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK LAKE, NE & SD............................................         6,518,000   The President, Hagel
O&M..............................;  GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND RESERVOIR, PA.................................................           228,000   The President
O&M..............................;  GEORGETOWN HARBOR, SC......................................................................           690,000   The President, Senator Graham
O&M..............................;  GILLHAM LAKE, AR...........................................................................         1,156,000   The President
O&M..............................;  GIWW, CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX..............................................................         2,706,000   The President
O&M..............................;  GIWW, CHOCOLATE BAYOU, TX..................................................................         2,926,000   The President
O&M..............................;  GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI.....................................................................         1,312,000   The President, Senators Levin, Stabenow
O&M..............................;  GRAND MARAIS HARBOR, MI....................................................................  .................  Senators Levin, Stabenow
O&M..............................;  GRAND TRAVERSE BAY HARBOR, MI..............................................................  .................  Senators Levin, Stabenow
O&M..............................;  GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX...................................................................         2,225,000   The President
O&M..............................;  GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX.........................................................................         2,900,000   The President
O&M..............................;  GRAYS HARBOR AND CHEHALIS RIVER, WA........................................................         9,180,000   The President
O&M..............................;  GRAYS REEF PASSAGE, MI.....................................................................           180,000   The President, Senators Levin, Stabenow
O&M..............................;  GRAYSON LAKE, KY...........................................................................         1,445,000   The President
O&M..............................;  GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK.................................................................           256,000   The President, Senator Inhofe
O&M..............................;  GREAT SALT POND, BLOCK ISLAND, RI (new Harbor).............................................           250,000   Senator Reed
O&M..............................;  GREAT SOUTH BAY, NY........................................................................            80,000   The President
O&M..............................;  GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY................................................................         3,698,000   The President, Senator McConnell
O&M..............................;  GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI.......................................................................         5,394,000   The President, Senator Kohl
O&M..............................;  GREEN PETER--FOSTER LAKES, OR..............................................................         2,323,000   The President
O&M..............................;  GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY.......................................................................         4,942,000   The President
O&M..............................;  GREENS BAYOU, TX...........................................................................           850,000   The President
O&M..............................;  GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR......................................................................         6,861,000   The President
O&M..............................;  GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL.............................................................         5,230,000   The President, Senators Shelby, Sessions
O&M..............................;  GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA.............................................................        17,769,000   The President, Senators Landrieu, Vitter,
                                                                                                                                                    Wicker
O&M..............................;  GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX.............................................................        31,874,000   The President, Senator Hutchison
O&M..............................;  GULFPORT HARBOR, MS........................................................................        10,000,000   The President, Senators Cochran, Wicker
O&M..............................;  HALEIWA HARBOR, OAHU, HI...................................................................         1,000,000   Senator Inouye
O&M..............................;  HAMPTON RDS, NORFOLK & NEWPORT NEWS HBR, VA (DRIFT REMOVAL)................................         1,108,000   The President
O&M..............................;  HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT.....................................................................           338,000   The President
O&M..............................;  HARBOR OF REFUGE, LEWES, DE................................................................           500,000   Senators Biden, Carper
O&M..............................;  HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE.....................................................................         1,786,000   The President, Senators Ben Nelson, Hagel
O&M..............................;  HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO.......................................................         8,863,000   The President, Senator Bond
O&M..............................;  HARTWELL LAKE, GA & SC.....................................................................        12,188,000   The President
O&M..............................;  HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR.........................................................           400,000   The President, Senators Lincoln, Pryor
O&M..............................;  HERRING BAY AND ROCKHOLD, MD...............................................................           500,000   Senators Mikulski, Cardin
O&M..............................;  HEYBURN LAKE, OK...........................................................................           555,000   The President, Senator Inhofe
O&M..............................;  HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA...............................................................         1,786,000   The President
O&M..............................;  HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR.......................................................................         1,292,000   The President
O&M..............................;  HILLSDALE LAKE, KS.........................................................................           764,000   The President, Senators Brownback, Roberts
O&M..............................;  HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA.....................................................................           503,000   The President
O&M..............................;  HOLLAND HARBOR, MI.........................................................................           588,000   The President, Senators Levin, Stabenow
O&M..............................;  HOMER HARBOR, AK...........................................................................           620,000   The President
O&M..............................;  HOMME LAKE, ND.............................................................................           293,000   The President, Senator Dorgan
O&M..............................;  HONGA RIVER AND TAR BAY, MD................................................................           500,000   Senators Mikulski, Cardin
O&M..............................;  HOP BROOK LAKE, CT.........................................................................           919,000   The President
O&M..............................;  HOPKINTON--EVERETT LAKES, NH...............................................................         1,081,000   The President
O&M..............................;  HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX.......................................................................         1,479,000   The President
O&M..............................;  HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA.................................................................         1,000,000   The President, Senators Landrieu, Vitter
O&M..............................;  HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX...................................................................        14,854,000   The President, Senators Hutchison, Cornyn
O&M..............................;  HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA......................................................................         2,627,000   The President
O&M..............................;  HUDSON RIVER (MAINT), NY...................................................................         1,125,000   The President
O&M..............................;  HUDSON RIVER (O&C;), NY.....................................................................         1,525,000   The President
O&M..............................;  HUDSON RIVER CHANNEL, NY...................................................................           500,000   The President, Senator Schumer
O&M..............................;  HUGO LAKE, OK..............................................................................         1,493,000   The President, Senator Inhofe
O&M..............................;  HULAH LAKE, OK.............................................................................           476,000   The President, Senator Inhofe
O&M..............................;  HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA................................................................         5,144,000   The President, Senator Feinstein
O&M..............................;  HURON HARBOR, OH...........................................................................         1,530,000   The President
O&M..............................;  ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA................................................................         4,982,000   The President
O&M..............................;  ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVR PORTION), IL & IN...................................................        36,287,000   The President
O&M..............................;  ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVS PORTION), IL & IN...................................................         1,834,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INDIAN RIVER INLET AND BAY, SUSSEX COUNTY, DE..............................................           500,000   Senators Biden, Carper
O&M..............................;  INDIANA HARBOR, IN.........................................................................         3,138,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INLAND ROUTE, MI...........................................................................  .................  Senators Levin, Stabenow
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, GA.........................................            63,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, IL.........................................            65,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, OR.........................................            33,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, WA.........................................            70,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK..........................................................         1,058,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AL..........................................................            60,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR..........................................................           508,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ..........................................................            98,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA..........................................................         3,822,000   The President, Senator Feinstein
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO..........................................................           457,000   The President, Senator Salazar
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CT..........................................................           316,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DC25........................................................            62,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL..........................................................           300,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA..........................................................           142,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI..........................................................           659,000   The President, Senator Inouye
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA..........................................................         1,183,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID..........................................................           334,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL..........................................................         2,342,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN..........................................................           635,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KS..........................................................           177,000   The President, Senators Brownback, Roberts
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY..........................................................           554,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA..........................................................         1,814,000   The President, Senator Vitter
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA..........................................................           381,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD..........................................................            89,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ME..........................................................            29,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI..........................................................           230,000   The President, Senators Levin, Stabenow
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN..........................................................           623,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO..........................................................         1,688,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS..........................................................           223,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MT..........................................................            54,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC..........................................................           250,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND..........................................................           360,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NE..........................................................           508,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NH..........................................................            37,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NJ..........................................................           253,000   The President, Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM..........................................................           811,000   The President, Senators Domenici, Bingaman
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV..........................................................           127,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY..........................................................         1,031,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH..........................................................           452,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OK..........................................................           177,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR..........................................................           413,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA..........................................................           592,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, RI..........................................................            43,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC..........................................................            65,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SD..........................................................            49,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN..........................................................            85,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX..........................................................         1,936,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT..........................................................            75,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA..........................................................           226,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VT..........................................................            70,000   The President, Senator Leahy
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA..........................................................           623,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WI..........................................................           125,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV..........................................................           255,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WY..........................................................            34,000   The President
O&M..............................;  INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, CALOOSAHATCHEE R TO ANCLOTE R, FL...................................         1,000,000   Senators Bill Nelson, Martinez
O&M..............................;  INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE R TO CHESAPEAKE BAY, DE....................................        14,065,000   Mikulski, Biden, Carper, Cardin
O&M..............................;  INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI, FL...........................................         2,500,000   The President, Senators Bill Nelson, Martinez
O&M..............................;  INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, REHOBOTH BAY TO DELAWARE BAY, DE....................................            40,000   The President
O&M..............................;  ISABELLA LAKE, CA..........................................................................         1,404,000   The President
O&M..............................;  J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA............................................................        10,555,000   The President, Senators Landrieu, Vitter
O&M..............................;  J EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN....................................................................         2,842,000   The President
O&M..............................;  J PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN.......................................................         4,602,000   The President
O&M..............................;  J STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA & SC.............................................................        11,066,000   The President
O&M..............................;  JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY....................................................................           326,000   The President
O&M..............................;  JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL....................................................................         6,000,000   The President, Senator Martinez
O&M..............................;  JAMAICA BAY, NY............................................................................           250,000   The President, Senator Schumer
O&M..............................;  JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA....................................................................         3,667,000   The President
O&M..............................;  JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM.......................................................................           684,000   The President, Senators Domenici, Bingaman
O&M..............................;  JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD & WV............................................................         1,713,000   The President, Senator Mikulski
O&M..............................;  JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX.......................................................................         2,001,000   The President
O&M..............................;  JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE SEMINOLE, FL, AL & GA......................................         9,165,000   The President
O&M..............................;  JOE POOL LAKE, TX..........................................................................         1,771,000   The President
O&M..............................;  JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA.............................................................         7,049,000   The President, Senator Murray
O&M..............................;  JOHN H KERR LAKE, VA & NC..................................................................        11,571,000   The President
O&M..............................;  JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO..................................................................         2,418,000   The President, Senator Salazar
O&M..............................;  JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS.........................................................         1,042,000   The President, Senators Brownback, Roberts
O&M..............................;  JOHN W FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA.....................................................         1,938,000   The President
O&M..............................;  JOHNSTOWN, PA..............................................................................         2,255,000   The President
O&M..............................;  JONES INLET, NY............................................................................           350,000   The President
O&M..............................;  KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV...........................................................         9,380,000   The President
O&M..............................;  KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS.........................................................................         1,418,000   The President, Senators Brownback, Roberts
O&M..............................;  KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL.............................................................         1,903,000   The President
O&M..............................;  KAW LAKE, OK...............................................................................         2,574,000   The President, Senator Inhofe
O&M..............................;  KENTUCKY RIVER, KY.........................................................................            10,000   The President
O&M..............................;  KEWEENAW WATERWAY, MI......................................................................            86,000   The President, Senators Levin, Stabenow
O&M..............................;  KEYSTONE LAKE, OK..........................................................................         6,073,000   The President, Senator Inhofe
O&M..............................;  KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PA.....................................................         2,493,000   The President
O&M..............................;  KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA........................................................................           526,000   The President
O&M..............................;  LAC LA BELLE HARBOR, MI....................................................................  .................  Senators Levin, Stabenow
O&M..............................;  LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA RIVER, MN...................................................           431,000   The President
O&M..............................;  LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND........................................................         1,742,000   The President, Senator Dorgan
O&M..............................;  LAKE KEMP, TX..............................................................................           214,000   The President
O&M..............................;  LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL................................................................           860,000   The President
O&M..............................;  LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR, NY....................................................................           700,000   The President
O&M..............................;  LAKE PROVIDENCE HARBOR, LA.................................................................           440,000   The President, Senators Landrieu, Vitter
O&M..............................;  LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL.......................................................................         4,761,000   The President, Senator Durbin
O&M..............................;  LAKE TRAVERSE, SD & MN.....................................................................           403,000   The President
O&M..............................;  LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA.............................................................         7,554,000   The President, Senator Murray
O&M..............................;  LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY......................................................................         1,748,000   The President
O&M..............................;  LAVON LAKE, TX.............................................................................         3,065,000   The President
O&M..............................;  LELAND HARBOR, MI..........................................................................  .................  Senators Levin, Stabenow
O&M..............................;  LES CHENEAUX ISLAND CHANNELS, MI...........................................................  .................  Senators Levin, Stabenow
O&M..............................;  LEWISVILLE DAM, TX.........................................................................         4,110,000   The President
O&M..............................;  LEXINGTON HARBOR, MI.