20–754

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 1st Session 109–80

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND 

RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATION BILL, 2006

MAY 13, 2005.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina, from the Committee on 

Appropriations, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 2361]

The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in 

explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for the 

Department of the Interior, Environmental Protection Agency, and 

Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006. 

The bill provides regular annual appropriations for the Department 

of the Interior (except the Bureau of Reclamation), the Environmental Protection Agency, and for other related agencies, including 

the Forest Service, the Indian Health Service, the Smithsonian Institution, and the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities. 

CONTENTS

Page number 

Bill Report 

Title I—Department of the Interior: 

Bureau of Land Management ............................................................ 2 9

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ........................................................... 10 21

National Park Service ......................................................................... 19 33

U.S. Geological Survey ....................................................................... 26 49

Minerals Management Service .......................................................... 29 54

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement ................. 31 58

Bureau of Indian Affairs .................................................................... 34 63 

Departmental Offices .......................................................................... 42 73

Department of the Interior General Provisions ................................ 50 85

2

Page number 

Bill Report 

Title II—Environmental Protection Agency: 

Science and Technology ...................................................................... 63 88

Environmental Programs Management ............................................ 64 95

Office of Inspector General ................................................................. 64 106

Buildings and Facilities ...................................................................... 65 109

Hazardous Substance Superfund ....................................................... 65 111

Leaking Underground Storage Tanks ............................................... 66 117

Oil Spill Response ............................................................................... 66 119

State and Tribal Assistance Grants .................................................. 66 121

Title III—Related Agencies: 

Forest Service, USDA ......................................................................... 74 127

Indian Health Service, DHHS ........................................................... 87 152

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences ..................... 95 157

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ......................... 96 158

Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental 

Quality .............................................................................................. 97 158

Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board ........................... 98 159

Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation ................................... 99 159

Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts 

Development .................................................................................... 100 160

Smithsonian Institution ..................................................................... 100 160

National Gallery of Art ....................................................................... 103 162

John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts ............................ 105 165

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars ........................ 105 167

National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities .................... 106 168

Commission of Fine Arts .................................................................... 108 172

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ....................................... 109 172

National Capital Planning Commission ............................................ 109 173

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum .................................... 109 173

Presidio Trust ...................................................................................... 110 174

White House Commission on the National Moment of Remembrance ............................................................................................... 110 174

Title IV—General Provisions .................................................................... 110 174

COMPARISON WITH BUDGET RESOLUTION

Section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–344), as amended, requires that the report accompanying a bill providing new budget 

authority contain a Statement detailing how the authority compares with the reports submitted under section 302 of the Act for 

the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for 

the fiscal year. This information follows:

[In millions of dollars] 

Sec. 302(b) This bill— 

Discretionary Mandatory Discretionary Mandatory 

Budget authority .................................................... 26,107 54 26,107 54 

Outlays ................................................................... 27,500 60 27,496 60

SUMMARY OF THE BILL

The Committee has conducted hearings on the programs and 

projects provided for in the Interior, Environment, and Related 

Agencies Appropriations bill for 2006. The hearings are contained 

in 9 published volumes totaling nearly 10,000 pages. 

3 

During the course of the hearings, testimony was taken at 10 

hearings on 8 days, not only from agencies which come under the 

jurisdiction of the Interior Subcommittee, but also, in written form, 

from Members of Congress, State and local government officials, 

and private citizens. 

The bill that is recommended for fiscal year 2006 has been developed after careful consideration of all the facts and details available to the Committee. 

BUDGET AUTHORITY RECOMMENDED IN BILL BY TITLE 

Activity Budget estimates, 

fiscal year 2006 

Committee bill, 

fiscal year 2006 

Committee bill 

compared with budget estimates 

Title I, Department of the Interior: New Budget (obligational) 

authority ............................................................................... $9,792,069,000 $9,808,693,000 +$16,624,000 

Title II, Environmental Protection Agency: New Budget 

(obligational) authority ......................................................... 7,520,600,000 7,708,027,000 +187,427,000 

Title III, related agencies: New Budget (obligational) authority .......................................................................................... 8,411,659,000 8,642,405,000 +230,746,000 

Grand total, New Budget (obligational) authority ...... 25,724,328,000 26,159,125,000 +434,797,000 

TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, AND RELATED AGENCIES

In addition to the amounts in the accompanying bill, which are 

reflected in the table above, permanent legislation authorizes the 

continuation of certain government activities without consideration 

by the Congress during the annual appropriations process. 

Details of these activities are listed in tables at the end of this 

report. In fiscal year 2005, these activities are estimated to total 

$3,568,891,000. The estimate for fiscal year 2006 is $3,658,910,000. 

The following table reflects the total budget (obligational) authority contained both in this bill and in permanent appropriations for 

fiscal years 2005 and 2006. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, AND RELATED AGENCIES 

TOTAL BUDGET AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEARS 2005–2006 

Item Fiscal year 2005 Fiscal year 2006 Change 

Interior, Environment, and related agencies appropriations 

bill ........................................................................................ $26,982,234,000 $26,159,125,000 ¥$823,109,000 

Permanent appropriations, Federal funds ................................ 2,985,066,000 3,047,966,000 +62,900,000 

Permanent appropriations, trust funds .................................... 583,825,000 610,944,000 +27,119,000 

Total budget authority ................................................. 30,551,125,000 29,818,035,000 ¥733,090,000 

REVENUE GENERATED BY AGENCIES IN BILL

The following tabulation indicates total new obligational authority to date for fiscal years 2004 and 2005, and the amount recommended in the bill for fiscal year 2006. It compares receipts generated by activities in this bill on an actual basis for fiscal year 

2004 and on an estimated basis for fiscal years 2005 and 2006. The 

programs in this bill are estimated to generate $13.9 billion in revenues for the Federal Government in fiscal year 2006. Therefore, 

the expenditures in this bill will contribute to economic stability 

rather than inflation. 

4 

Item 

Fiscal year—

2004 2005 2006 

New obligational authority ........................................................ $27,316,209,000 $26,982,234,000 $26,159,125,000 

Receipts: 

Department of the Interior ............................................... 9,643,359,000 12,497,212,000 13,418,547,000 

Forest Service ................................................................... 445,533,000 439,106,000 447,050,000 

Total receipts ............................................................... 10,088,892,000 12,936,318,000 13,865,597,000 

APPLICATION OF GENERAL REDUCTIONS

The level at which sequestration reductions shall be taken pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 

1985, if such reductions are required in fiscal year 2006, is defined 

by the Committee as follows: 

As provided for by section 256(1)(2) of Public Law 99–177, as 

amended, and for the purpose of a Presidential Order issued pursuant to section 254 of said Act, the term ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ for items under the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Subcommittees on the Department of the Interior, Environmental Protection Agency, and Related Agencies of the House of Representatives and the Senate is defined as (1) any item specifically identified in tables or written material set forth in the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, or accompanying 

committee reports or the conference report and accompanying joint 

explanatory statement of the managers of the committee of conference; (2) any Government-owned or Government-operated facility; and (3) management units, such as National parks, National 

forests, National fish hatcheries, National wildlife refuges, research 

units, regional, State and other administrative units and the like, 

for which funds are provided in fiscal year 2006. 

The Committee emphasizes that any item for which a specific 

dollar amount is mentioned in any accompanying report, including 

all increases over the budget estimate approved by the Committee, 

shall be subject to a percentage reduction no greater or less than 

the percentage reduction applied to all domestic discretionary accounts. 

FEDERAL FUNDING OF INDIAN PROGRAMS

The Committee recommends appropriations of new budget au- thority aggregating $5.9 billion for Indian programs in fiscal year 

2006. This is an increase of $108 million above the budget request 

and an increase of $108 million above the amount appropriated for 

fiscal year 2005. Spending for Indian services by the Federal Government in total is included in the following table. 

GOVERNMENT-WIDE FEDERAL FUNDING FOR NATIVE AMERICAN PROGRAMS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

FY 2004 

actual 

FY 2005 

enacted 

FY 2006 

Pres. bud 

Change 

from FY05 

Department of Agriculture ..................................................... 798,812 877,371 899,771 22,400 

Army Corps of Engineers ....................................................... 34,490 41,376 22,829 ¥18,547 

Department of Commerce ...................................................... 20,945 21,668 20,657 ¥1,011 

Department of Defense .......................................................... 18,000 18,000 0 ¥18,000 

Department of Education ....................................................... 2,438,510 2,524,650 2,550,101 25,451 

Department of Health & Human Services ............................. 4,263,144 4,359,999 4,456,322 96,323 

5 

GOVERNMENT-WIDE FEDERAL FUNDING FOR NATIVE AMERICAN PROGRAMS—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

FY 2004 

actual 

FY 2005 

enacted 

FY 2006 

Pres. bud 

Change 

from FY05 

Department of Housing & Urban Development ..................... 733,085 650,970 590,796 ¥60,174 

Department of the Interior ..................................................... 2,887,399 3,030,079 2,984,840 ¥45,239 

Department of Justice ............................................................ 234,594 232,016 245,185 13,169 

Department of Labor .............................................................. 69,602 69,032 68,488 ¥544 

Department of Transportation ............................................... 274,861 329,491 329,581 90 

Department of Veterans Affairs ............................................. 571 567 580 13 

Environmental Protection Agency .......................................... 243,895 239,004 205,560 ¥33,443 

Small Business Administration ............................................. 1,979 987 0 ¥987 

Smithsonian Institution .......................................................... 51,630 45,925 45,792 ¥133 

Department of the Treasury ................................................... 4,000 4,000 0 ¥4,000 

Other Agencies & Independent Agencies .............................. 96,924 101,594 39,582 ¥62,012 

Grand Total ............................................................... 12,172,441 12,546,729 12,460,084 ¥86,644 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives states 

that: 

Each report of a committee on a bill or joint resolution of a public 

character, shall include a statement citing the specific powers 

granted to the Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution. 

The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to report 

this legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America which states: ‘‘No money 

shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by law. * * * ’’

Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to this 

specific power granted by the Constitution. 

REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES

The Committee has revised the reprogramming guidelines to add 

an exception for certain Environmental Protection Agency grants 

(section 3(b)) and to delete certain instructions to the Forest Service dealing with boundary adjustments and transfer of funds. 

The following are the procedures governing reprogramming actions for programs and activities funded in the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act: 

1. Definition.—‘‘Reprogramming,’’ as defined in these procedures, 

includes the reallocation of funds from one budget activity to another. In cases where either Committee report displays an allocation of an appropriation below the activity level, that more detailed 

level shall be the basis for reprogramming. For construction accounts, a reprogramming constitutes the reallocation of funds from 

one construction project (identified in the justification or Committee report) to another. A reprogramming shall also consist of 

any significant departure from the program described in the agency’s budget justifications. This includes proposed reorganizations 

even without a change in funding. 

2. Guidelines for Reprogramming.—(a) A reprogramming should 

be made only when an unforeseen situation arises; and then only 

if postponement of the project or the activity until the next approVerDate Aug 04 2004 07:10 May 14, 2005 Jkt 021162 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR080.XXX HR080
6 

priation year would result in actual loss or damage. Mere convenience or desire should not be factors for consideration. 

(b) Any project or activity, which may be deferred through reprogramming, shall not later be accomplished by means of further 

reprogramming; but, instead, funds should again be sought for the 

deferred project or activity through the regular appropriations process. 

(c) Reprogramming should not be employed to initiate new programs or to change allocations specifically denied, limited or increased by the Congress in the Act or the report. In cases where 

unforeseen events or conditions are deemed to require such 

changes, proposals shall be submitted in advance to the Committee, regardless of amounts involved, and be fully explained and 

justified. 

(d) Reprogramming proposals submitted to the Committee for approval shall be considered approved 30 calendar days after receipt 

if the Committee has posed no objection. However, agencies will be 

expected to extend the approval deadline if specifically requested 

by either Committee. 

(e) Proposed changes to estimated working capital fund bills and 

estimated overhead charges, deductions, reserves or holdbacks, as 

such estimates were presented in annual budget justifications, 

shall be submitted through the reprogramming process. 

3. Criteria and Exceptions.—Any proposed reprogramming must 

be submitted to the Committee in writing prior to implementation 

if it exceeds $500,000 annually or results in an increase or decrease 

of more than 10 percent annually in affected programs, with the 

following exceptions: 

(a) With regard to the tribal priority allocations activity of the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Operations of Indian Programs account, 

there is no restriction on reprogrammings among the programs 

within this activity. However, the Bureau shall report on all 

reprogrammings made during the first six months of the fiscal year 

by no later than May 1 of each year, and shall provide a final report of all reprogrammings for the previous fiscal year by no later 

than November 1 of each year. 

(b) With regard to the Environmental Protection Agency, State 

and Tribal Assistance Grants account, reprogramming requests associated with States and Tribes applying for partnership grants do 

not need to be submitted to the Committee for approval should 

such grants exceed the normal reprogramming limitations. In addition, the Agency need not submit a request to move funds between 

wastewater and drinking water objectives for those grants targeted 

to specific communities. 

4. Quarterly Reports.—(a) All reprogrammings shall be reported 

to the Committee quarterly and shall include cumulative totals. (b) 

Any significant shifts of funding among object classifications also 

should be reported to the Committee. 

5. Administrative Overhead Accounts.—For all appropriations 

where costs of overhead administrative expenses are funded in part 

from ‘‘assessments’’ of various budget activities within an appropriation, the assessments shall be shown in justifications under the 

discussion of administrative expenses. 

6. Contingency Accounts.—For all appropriations where assessments are made against various budget activities or allocations for 

7 

contingencies, the Committee expects a full explanation, separate 

from the justifications. The explanation shall show the amount of 

the assessment, the activities assessed, and the purpose of the 

fund. The Committee expects reports each year detailing the use of 

these funds. In no case shall a fund be used to finance projects and 

activities disapproved or limited by Congress or to finance new permanent positions or to finance programs or activities that could be 

foreseen and included in the normal budget review process. Contingency funds shall not be used to initiate new programs. 

7. Declarations of Taking.—The Committee directs the Bureau of 

Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, and the Forest Service to seek Committee approval in advance of filing declarations of taking. 

8. Report Language.—Any limitation, directive, or earmarking 

contained in either the House or Senate report which is not contradicted by the other report nor specifically denied in the conference 

report shall be considered as having been approved by both Houses 

of Congress. 

9. Assessments.—No assessments shall be levied against any program, budget activity, subactivity, or project funded by the Interior, 

Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act unless such 

assessments and the basis therefore are presented to the Committees on Appropriations and are approved by such Committees, in 

compliance with these procedures. 

10. Land Acquisitions and Forest Legacy.—Lands shall not be acquired for more than the approved appraised value (as addressed 

in section 301(3) of Public Law 91–646) except for condemnations 

and declarations of taking, unless such acquisitions are submitted 

to the Committees on Appropriations for approval in compliance 

with these procedures. 

11. Land Exchanges.—Land exchanges, wherein the estimated 

value of the Federal lands to be exchanged is greater than 

$500,000, shall not be consummated until the Committees on Appropriations have had a 30-day period in which to examine the proposed exchange. 

12. Appropriations Structure.—The appropriation structure for 

any agency shall not be altered without advance approval of the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

FUNDING FIXED COSTS

The Committee commends the Administration for funding the 

full amount for anticipated pay cost and fixed cost increases for 

most bureaus and programs. The Committee has been concerned 

that the base operational capability of the programs funded in this 

bill has been declining due to unmet pay and fixed costs. The Committee urges the Administration to continue to include full uncontrollable costs in future budget submissions. 

ALLOCATING CONGRESSIONAL FUNDING PRIORITIES

The Committee continues to be concerned that the agencies funded by this Act are not following a standard methodology for allocating appropriated funds to the field where Congressional funding 

priorities are concerned. When Congressional instructions are provided, the Committee expects these instructions to be closely monVerDate Aug 04 2004 07:10 May 14, 2005 Jkt 021162 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR080.XXX HR080
8 

itored and followed. The Committee directs that earmarks for Congressional funding priorities be first allocated to the receiving 

units, and then all remaining funds should be allocated to the field 

based on established procedures. Field units or programs should 

not have their allocations reduced because of earmarks for Congressional priorities without direction from or advance approval of 

the Committee. 

FOCUSING ON CORE PROGRAMS

The Committee’s fiscal year 2006 budget recommendations reflect the necessity to stay within a constrained allocation in this 

time of conflict in Iraq and homeland security concerns. The recommendations are also sensitive to the need to address the budget 

deficit. The Committee’s recommendations reflect the belief that: 

(1) proposed cuts to many core programs are unacceptable; (2) large 

increases for grant programs are unrealistic; (3) reductions to Indian health, welfare and education programs are unacceptable; (4) 

critical forest health programs must be continued; (5) untested and 

unproven grant programs and new land acquisition are a low priority; and (6) large, expensive partnership projects that have not 

been approved in advance by the Committee are unacceptable because they result in additional operational costs and displace critical backlog maintenance requirements. 

Reductions to programs in Indian Country, including education 

grants, welfare programs, and Indian school and hospital construction funding have been restored to the maximum extent possible 

given the overall funding available in the Committee’s recommendations for fiscal year 2006. We must maintain our commitments to American Indian and Alaska Natives and critically needed education and health programs are central to our ability to meet 

those commitments. 

Wildfire management efforts and forest health programs are 

some of the most critically important core programs on which the 

Committee has focused scarce resources. The Committee recommendation increases funding for wildland fire management by 

$351 million above the request and $146 million above the fiscal 

year 2005 enacted level, including a total of $492 million for hazardous fuels reduction. In addition, the Committee has maintained 

funding for critical and essential forest health management programs and for national fire plan support. Without these funds, we 

will not be able to protect communities and natural resources and 

we will have ever-increasing wildfire suppression costs in the future and the number and severity of large fire events will grow. 

The Committee believes strongly that the agencies funded in the 

Interior and Related Agencies bill need to more effectively manage 

the funds they have. Travel costs need to be closely monitored and 

controlled. The number, size, and cost of government-sponsored 

conferences also should be reduced. 

The Committee expects the Departments and agencies funded in 

this bill to make maximum use of low cost airfares, consistent with 

General Services Administration guidelines. The GSA permits the 

use of lower fares, available to the general public, offered by noncontract carriers, if such use will result in a lower total trip cost. 

Consistent with GSA guidelines, the Committee expects each Department and agency to determine if such lower fares are available 

9 

and, if so, those lower fares should be used unless the contract carrier that would have otherwise been used will provide a comparable 

fare. This direction applies to all official travel funded in this bill. 

Major new construction projects should not be initiated at the expense of critical operations and maintenance requirements. Likewise, no new construction project should be initiated without a 

thorough analysis of the future staffing, operations, and maintenance costs that will result, and the Committee should be consulted at the earliest possible stage when a major construction 

project is under consideration. This has been a particular problem 

in the National Park Service. 

The Committee appreciates the need for information technology 

improvements, enterprise services networks, and implementing 

portions of the President’s management agenda. However, to date, 

a lot of funding has been dedicated to these initiatives without a 

well thought-out and reasonable approach to addressing requirements. Commercially available systems, through the private sector, 

should be used to the maximum extent possible rather than building customized new systems. Likewise, the Committee does not endorse the practice of assessing costs against programs to build bigger administrative bureaucracies in response to new administrative 

and technology requirements or the practice of reducing program 

budgets on the basis of presumed future savings. These costs 

should be clearly justified and requested under administrative accounts and any future savings associated with administrative improvements should be demonstrated before budget reductions are 

proposed. While portions of the Administration’s management 

agenda may indeed be useful, funds should not be taken from all 

agencies to provide centralized funding for the various lead agencies. If funding is needed for government wide initiatives, it should 

be requested and managed by each lead agency. 

The Committee has made difficult choices in formulating its fiscal year 2006 budget recommendations. Each agency funded in the 

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies bill needs to examine 

its way of doing business in these constrained fiscal times and 

focus on its core, proven programs and on better management of 

resources. 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

The Committee has been unable to provide funds for the Cooperative Conservation Initiative challenge cost share program because 

of severe fiscal constraints. However, the Committee remains supportive of the concept and has continued the traditional agency 

challenge cost share program. The Committee has no objection to 

broadening the scope of the ongoing program to encompass resource protection activities. 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for the multiple 

use management, protection, and development of a full range of 

natural resources, including minerals, timber, rangeland, fish and 

wildlife habitat, and wilderness on about 261 million acres of the 

Nation’s public lands and for management of 700 million additional 

acres of Federally-owned subsurface mineral rights. The Bureau is 

10 

the second largest supplier of public outdoor recreation in the 

Western United States. 

Under the multiple-use and ecosystem management concept the 

Bureau administers more than 18,000 grazing permits and leases 

and nearly 13 million livestock animal unit months on 214 million 

acres of public rangeland, and manages rangelands and facilities 

for 56,000 wild horses and burros, 261 million acres of wildlife 

habitat, and over 117,000 miles of fisheries habitat. Grazing receipts are estimated to be about $12.2 million in fiscal year 2006, 

the same as the estimate for fiscal year 2005 and actual receipts 

of $11.8 million in fiscal year 2004. The Bureau also administers 

about 55 million acres of commercial forests and woodlands 

through the ‘‘Management of Lands and Resources’’ and ‘‘Oregon 

and California Grant Lands’’ appropriations. Timber receipts (in- cluding salvage) are estimated to be $55.4 million in fiscal year 

2006 compared to estimated receipts of $33.0 million in fiscal year 

2005 and actual receipts of $13.5 million in fiscal year 2004. The 

Bureau has an active program of soil and watershed management 

on 175 million acres in the lower 48 States and 86 million acres 

in Alaska. Practices such as revegetation, protective fencing, and 

water development are designed to conserve, enhance, and develop 

public land, soil, and watershed resources. The Bureau is also responsible for fire protection on the public lands and on all Department of the Interior managed lands in Alaska, and for the suppression of wildfires on the public lands in Alaska and the western 

States. 

MANAGEMENT OF LANDS AND RESOURCES

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $836,826,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 850,177,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 845,783,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +8,957,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ¥4,394,000 

The Committee recommends $845,783,000 for management of 

lands and resources, $4,394,000 below the budget request and 

$8,957,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 

11 


Insert graphic folio 01 20754A.001
12 


Insert graphic folio 02 20754A.002
13 


Insert graphic folio 03 20754A.003
14 

Land Resources.—The Committee recommends $189,919,000 for 

land resources, $2,956,000 above the budget request and 

$1,905,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. Changes from 

the budget request include increases of $1,000,000 for the San 

Pedro Partnership and $1,100,000 for Santa Ana River conservation and land management programs, $156,000 for accelerated soil 

surveys in Wyoming, $1,000,000 for the Idaho strategic plan for 

noxious weed control, and a decrease of $300,000 for rangeland restoration. 

The increase provided for the Upper San Pedro Partnership shall 

be used only for water conservation and retention projects within 

the Upper San Pedro river region. 

Wildlife and Fisheries.—The Committee recommends $41,048,000 

for wildlife and fisheries, the same as the budget request and 

$4,137,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. 

Threatened and Endangered Species.—The Committee recommends $21,572,000 for threatened and endangered species, the 

same as the budget request and $428,000 above the fiscal year 

2005 enacted level. 

Recreation Management.—The Committee recommends 

$64,604,000 for recreation management, $1,000,000 above the 

budget request and $5,015,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted 

level. The change from the budget request is an increase of 

$1,000,000 for the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa National Monument 

plan implementation. 

The managers urge the Bureau to comply with the provisions of 

the Steens Act and allow landowner, lessee and inholder access to 

their property within the boundary of the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. Unless funding is provided 

for land acquisition or exchanges, landowners should be afforded 

full access to their property. 

Energy and Minerals.—The Committee recommends 

$110,069,000 for energy and minerals including Alaska minerals, 

$2,000,000 above the budget request and $494,000 above the fiscal 

year 2005 enacted level. The change from the budget request is an 

increase of $2,000,000 for oil and gas management. 

The Committee believes that U.S. oil shale development is an important domestic energy resource. This energy source has the potential to help reduce America’s growing dependence on foreign oil 

imports, provided that such oil shale development, for both research and development as well as large scale commercial projects, 

is conducted in an environmentally acceptable and economically 

feasible manner. The Committee directs the Bureau to report by 

December 31, 2005, on the administrative, regulatory, and statutory steps that may be necessary to proceed with oil shale development, including, but not limited to, acreage limitations on leases 

and permitting measures needed to stimulate oil shale research 

and commercial development. 

Realty and Ownership Management.—The Committee recommends $81,146,000 for realty and ownership management, the 

same as the budget request and $11,478,000 below the fiscal year 

2005 enacted level. 

Resource Protection and Maintenance.—The Committee recommends $85,866,000 for resource protection and maintenance, 

$2,250,000 above the budget request and $4,365,000 above the fisVerDate Aug 04 2004 07:10 May 14, 2005 Jkt 021162 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR080.XXX HR080
15 

cal year 2005 enacted level. Changes from the request include increases of $1,250,000 for the law enforcement initiative and 

$1,000,000 for California desert conservation area plans. The increase for law enforcement activities should be directed to increasing law enforcement presence on the Southwestern border in New 

Mexico, Arizona, and California. 

Transportation and Facilities Maintenance.—The Committee recommends $76,291,000 for transportation and facilities maintenance, the same as the budget request and $1,522,000 below the 

fiscal year 2005 enacted level. 

Land and Resource Information Systems.—The Committee recommends $18,217,000 for land and resource information systems, 

the same as the budget request and $155,000 above the fiscal year 

2005 enacted level. 

Mining Law Administration.—The Committee recommends 

$32,696,000 for mining law administration. Offsetting fees are 

equal to the amount made available to support this activity. 

Workforce and Organizational Support.—The Committee recommends $147,619,000 for workforce and organizational support, 

the same as the budget request and $5,458,000 above the fiscal 

year 2005 enacted level. 

Challenge Cost Share.—The Committee recommends $7,396,000 

for the Bureau’s traditional challenge cost share program, $12,600,000 below the budget request and the same as the fiscal 

year 2005 enacted level. 

Bill Language.—Language is included in Title IV—General Provisions concerning e government initiatives, competitive sourcing 

studies and the Service First initiative. 

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $831,295,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 756,564,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 761,564,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥69,731,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +5,000,000 

The Committee recommends $761,564,000 for wildland fire management, $5,000,000 above the budget request and $69,731,000 

below the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. When adjusted for emergency appropriations there is an increase of $28,880,000 above the 

fiscal year 2005 enacted level. 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 

16 


Insert graphic folio 04 20754A.004
17 

The appropriation includes $272,852,000 for preparedness, $234,167,000 for fire suppression operations, $211,220,000 for hazardous fuels reduction, $24,476,000 for burned area rehabilitation, 

$5,000,000 for rural fire assistance, $7,849,000 for deferred maintenance and capital improvement and $6,000,000 for the joint fire 

science program. 

The Committee has provided the requested funds for the hazardous fuels program but wants to ensure that these funds are 

used to address the Nation’s highest priority fuels projects. The 

Committee continues to stress that the Department should be coordinating hazardous fuels activities with the Department of Agriculture, State fire agencies and community wildfire protection 

plans. 

The Committee does not approve the new budget alignment within wildland fire management. Including joint fire science and facilities activities in the preparedness budget artificially inflates the 

preparedness budget and makes it difficult to compare to previous 

readiness levels. The Committee sees no compelling reason to include any other activities in the preparedness or suppression budgets. 

The Committee remains concerned about the high costs of large 

fire incidents. The Department of the Interior, along with the Forest Service should ensure that cost containment is an important 

priority when suppressing wildland fires. Therefore, the Committee 

directs the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service to 

continue reports directed previously and to examine, using independent panels, any individual wildfire incident which results in 

expenses greater than $10,000,000. 

The Committee has partially restored the rural fire assistance 

program. The Administration’s rationale for the reduction was that 

similar funding was available within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for rural fire assistance. The Committee 

is skeptical that the Department of the Interior will receive commensurate funding from FEMA and will be able retain the same 

flexibility in directing the funding to the highest priority needs. 

The Committee directs the Department to report, no later than December 31, 2005, with detailed information on how the FEMA 

funding will be received and allocated. 

Bill Language.—Language is included under the wildland fire 

management account allowing the Secretary of the Interior and the 

Secretary of Agriculture to transfer not more than $9,000,000 between the two Departments for wildland fire management programs and projects. Language is also included allowing the use of 

wildfire suppression funds in support of Federal emergency response actions. 

CONSTRUCTION

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $11,340,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 6,476,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 11,476,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +136,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +5,000,000 

The Committee recommends $11,476,000 for construction, 

$5,000,000 above the budget request and $136,000 above the 2005 

enacted level. The increase above the budget request is to address 

18 

high priority deferred maintenance construction projects that improve recreation facilities and public access. 

LAND ACQUISITION

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $11,192,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 13,350,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 3,817,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥7,375,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ¥9,533,000 

The Committee recommends $3,817,000 for land acquisition, a 

decrease of $9,533,000 below the budget request and $7,375,000 

below the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. This amount includes 

$1,500,000 for emergencies and hardships, and $2,317,000 for acquisition management. 

OREGON AND CALIFORNIA GRANT LANDS

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $107,497,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 110,070,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 110,070,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +2,573,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ 0 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 

19 


Insert graphic folio 05 20754A.005
20 

The Committee recommends $110,070,000 for the Oregon and 

California grant lands, the same as the budget request and 

$2,573,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. 

RANGE IMPROVEMENTS

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $10,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 10,000,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 10,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... 0 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends an indefinite appropriation of not 

less than $10,000,000 to be derived from public lands receipts and 

Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act lands grazing receipts. Receipts 

are used for construction, purchase, and maintenance of range improvements, such as seeding, fence construction, weed control, 

water development, fish and wildlife habitat improvement, and 

planning and design of these projects. 

SERVICE CHARGES, DEPOSITS AND FORFEITURES

The Committee recommends an indefinite appropriation estimated to be $32,940,000, the budget request, for service charges, 

deposits, and forfeitures. This appropriation is offset with fees collected under specified sections of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and other Acts to pay for reasonable administrative and other costs in connection with rights-of-way applications from the private sector, miscellaneous cost-recoverable realty 

cases, timber contract expenses, repair of damaged lands, the 

adopt-a-horse program, and the provision of copies of official public 

land documents. 

MISCELLANEOUS TRUST FUNDS

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $12,405,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 12,405,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 12,405,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... 0 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends an indefinite appropriation estimated to be $12,405,000, the budget request, for miscellaneous 

trust funds. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

provides for the receipt and expenditure of moneys received as donations or gifts (section 307). Funds in this trust fund are derived 

from the administrative and survey costs paid by applicants for 

conveyance of omitted lands (lands fraudulently or erroneously 

omitted from original cadastral surveys), from advances for other 

types of surveys requested by individuals, and from contributions 

made by users of Federal rangelands. Amounts received from the 

sale of Alaska town lots are also available for expenses of sale and 

maintenance of town sites. Revenue from unsurveyed lands, and 

surveys of omitted lands, administrative costs of conveyance, and 

gifts and donations must be appropriated before it can be used. 

21 

UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is to conserve, 

protect and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the 

continuing benefit of people. The Service has responsibility for migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, certain marine 

mammals, and land under Service control. 

The Service manages nearly 96 million acres across the United 

States, encompassing a 545-unit National Wildlife Refuge System, 

additional wildlife and wetlands areas, and 69 National Fish 

Hatcheries. A network of law enforcement agents and port inspectors enforce Federal laws for the protection of fish and wildlife. In 

2003, the Service celebrated the 100th anniversary of the establishment of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $962,940,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 985,563,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 1,005,225,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +42,285,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +19,662,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 

22 


Insert graphic folio 06 20754A.006
23 


Insert graphic folio 07 20754A.007
24 

The Committee recommends $1,005,225,000 for resource manage- ment, an increase of $42,285,000 above the budget request and 

$19,662,000 above the fiscal year 2005 level. Changes to the budget 

request are detailed below. 

Ecological Services.—The Committee recommends $260,893,000 

for ecological services, an increase of $10,320,000 above the budget 

request. 

Increases for endangered species candidate conservation pro- grams include $300,000 for Idaho sage grouse and $300,000 for the 

Fisher (Martes pennanti). Increases for recovery programs include $1,000,000 to restore the Platte River recovery program, $1,500,000 for wolf monitoring in 

Idaho, $200,000 for the Gabbro soils inventory in California, 

$2,000,000 for Pacific salmon grants to be administered through 

the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, $700,000 to restore 

funding for the Upper Colorado River recovery program, $500,000 

for Florida manatee protection and recovery, and $300,000 for 

Northern Aplomado falcon recovery efforts through the Peregrine 

Fund. 

For the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program, there is a de- crease of $4,000,000 to the proposed program expansion of the 

Upper Klamath Basin restoration program, and increases of 

$1,400,000 for Washington regional fisheries enhancement groups, 

$700,000 for environmental data quality and access for the Washington salmon recovery effort, $180,000 for technical assistance at 

the New Jersey Meadowlands; $750,000 for restoration in the 

Tunkhannock, Bentley, and Bowman’s Creek watersheds in Pennsylvania, $500,000 for fish passage in the west branch of the Susquehanna River, $500,000 for Georgia streambank restoration, 

$500,000 for nutria eradication at the Blackwater NWR, MD, 

$500,000 for Susquehanna River headwaters multiple use wetlands, and $500,000 for a study of Colorado River flow and aquatic 

habitats from Longhorn Dam to Matagorda Bay. In project planning, increases include $270,000 to restore the 

FERC review/relicensing program, $550,000 for the Middle Rio 

Grande initiative, $100,000 to continue operations at the Cedar 

City, UT ecological services office, and $170,000 to restore the base 

program. 

In coastal programs there are increases of $200,000 for the Hood 

Canal Salmon Enhancement Group, $200,000 for Long Live the 

Kings, and $300,000 to restore funding for the Tampa and Florida 

panhandle field offices, and a decrease of $2,500,000 to the proposed coastal program expansion. 

In the environmental contaminants program, there is an increase 

of $2,700,000. The Committee rejects the budget proposal to reduce 

this account. 

Refuges and wildlife.—The Committee recommends $490,358,000 

for refuges and wildlife, a decrease of $2,783,000 below the budget 

request. 

In refuge operations, there is a net increase of $500,000. For 

wildlife and habitat management, there is a $7,600,000 decrease 

for the departmental challenge cost share program, and increases 

of $1,400,000 to restore the spartina grass control program at the 

Willapa NWR, WA, $1,000,000 for cooperative projects with friends 

groups on invasive species control, $1,100,000 to restore the base 

25 

budget for general operations, and $2,000,000 to continue ‘‘minimum staffing’’ implementation using an updated refuge operating 

needs system. For refuge visitor services, there are increases of 

$2,000,000 to restore the visitor facility enhancements program 

and $600,000 to restore the base budget for general operations. 

In migratory bird management, there is a decrease of $3,483,000. 

For conservation and monitoring decreases include $750,000 for 

focal species management, $200,000 for survey and monitoring, and 

$200,000 for population and habitat assessment. For the joint ventures program, decreases include $1,433,000 for new joint ventures, 

$800,000 for existing joint ventures, and $100,000 for national administration. The Committee is very supportive of the migratory 

bird management program and has retained some of the increases 

proposed in the budget request. 

In law enforcement operations, there is an increase of $200,000 

to restore partially the law enforcement vehicle replacement program. 

Fisheries.—The Committee recommends $118,756,000 for fisheries, an increase of $11,100,000 above the budget request. For 

hatchery operations, there is a decrease of $600,000. For hatchery 

maintenance, there is an increase of $1,500,000 to restore partially 

whirling disease research. For fish and wildlife management, increases include $1,150,000 to restore the proposed general reduction, $1,750,000 for the national fish habitat initiative, $1,700,000 

to restore the fish passage program, $500,000 to restore the Great 

Lakes fish and wildlife restoration program, $2,000,000 for Washington State salmon mass marking of hatchery fish, $500,000 for 

Washington hatchery improvement to be divided equally between 

the Hatchery Scientific Review Group and Long Live the Kings, 

$250,000 for the Regional Mark Processing Center, and $350,000 

for Yukon River Salmon Treaty programs. There is also an increase 

of $2,000,000 to restore the marine mammals program. 

General Administration.—The Committee recommends 

$135,218,000 for general administration, a net increase of 

$1,025,000 above the budget request. In general operations, there 

is an increase of $2,025,000 to restore the proposed reduction for 

unidentified management efficiencies. For the National Conservation Training Center, there is a decrease of $375,000 for operations 

and an increase of $375,000 for maintenance. For the National Fish 

and Wildlife Foundation, there is an increase of $300,000 to restore 

the base program. For the science excellence initiative, there is a 

decrease of $1,500,000. In international affairs, there is a decrease 

of $200,000 for the international wildlife trade program and an increase of $400,000 to restore base funding for the wildlife without 

borders program. 

Bill Language.—The Committee recommends continuing bill language earmarking funding for the endangered species listing program. A total of $18,130,000, as requested, is earmarked for listing, 

of which $12,852,000 is earmarked for critical habitat designation. 

The Committee agrees to the following: 

1. Funds provided for wolf monitoring in Idaho include $460,000 

for the Nez Perce Tribe, $940,000 for the Idaho Office of Species 

Conservation, and $100,000 for the Service’s Snake River Basin Office. 

26 

2. Funds for the Gabbro soils inventory are to conduct a survey 

to evaluate the degree of protection afforded five plant species relative to recovery plan targets. 

3. The Committee has retained the proposed general increase for 

the Endangered Species Act consultation program and expects the 

Service to use this increase to address the backlog of critical consultation needs such as those associated with the American burying beetle in Oklahoma and the extraordinary needs in California. 

4. Last year the Committee urged the Service and the Department not to abandon their commitment to addressing the critical 

operations and maintenance backlog needs of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System now that 100th anniversary of the refuge system 

has passed. The Service was directed to update its minimum staffing analysis, which forms the basis for tier one of the Refuge Operating Needs System, no later than January 15, 2005. The Committee has not received that updated analysis and expects the 

Service to comply with that requirement prior to conference action 

on the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill. 

5. In fulfilling its responsibilities for the operation of Vieques 

NWR, the Service should continue to consult with the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

6. The increase above the 2005 level for migratory bird management should be used mainly to fill the large number of critical staff 

vacancies. 

7. The Peregrine Fund should be funded at $700,000 in fiscal 

year 2006, which includes $300,000 for Northern Aplomado Falcon 

recovery activities. 

8. The Service should continue and intensify its efforts to collect 

reimbursements for fisheries mitigation efforts and use those funds 

to address habitat restoration and conservation. The fiscal year 

2007 budget justification should include an update on the Service’s 

efforts in this area. 

9. The Committee commends the extensive efforts of the fisheries 

program over the past year to collect, correct, and standardize data 

on program spending and to identify critical operational shortfalls 

caused by base budget erosion. The Committee-recommended increases to the base budget are based on those data. The Committee 

expects the fisheries program to address inequities in field station 

funding when allocating base budget increases; to include consideration of reimbursable funding; to incorporate the results of the recent workforce planning effort; and to maintain salary and benefit 

costs, as a percent of total budget, at the same levels for each field 

station. 

10. The Committee is pleased with the development of the National Fish Habitat Initiative, and believes that this model has the 

potential to be a very effective tool for reversing the declines of 

aquatic species caused largely by habitat degradation. The Committee recommends $1,750,000 for the National Fish Habitat Initiative. Of the amount provided, 80% should be used to implement 

on-the-ground, cost-shared habitat restoration projects, identified 

in the Fisheries Operational Needs System and in direct support 

of fish habitat partnerships and pilot joint ventures, and 20% 

should be used to support continued development of the National 

Fish Habitat Plan. 

27 

11. The Committee is concerned about the number of depleted 

populations of Federal trust species; particularly those lacking adequate population assessments and management plans. Many of 

these species are indicators of larger ecosystem and human health 

issues and regular monitoring of the health of these populations is 

necessary. The Committee is pleased with the efforts of the fisheries program to address this need, and expects that a portion of 

the recommended base budget increase will be used for this purpose. The Committee further encourages the Service to support this 

effort in future budget requests. 

12. The Committee continues to believe that the Service’s science 

initiative needs to be closely coordinated with, and jointly funded 

by, the U.S. Geological Survey and has provided $500,000 for the 

Service and $200,000 for the Survey for the initiative. 

13. The Committee has recommended bill language in Title IV— General provisions prohibiting the use of funds for Safecom and 

Disaster.gov activities. Funds requested for these activities should 

be reprogrammed to cover equitably program shortfalls not funded 

in the budget request (associated with the underestimates of administrative costs when the Cost Allocation Methodology funds 

were realigned to programs in fiscal year 2005) . 

14. Since enactment of the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, the Service has worked to craft the required regulations. The Service is 

pursuing this effort, in consultation with the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and is 

committed to providing an effective and enforceable framework for 

implementing this law. The Committee expects the Service to publish a proposed rule as soon as possible and to report to the Committee on implementation requirements (funding and staffing) associated with the rule no later than November 1, 2005. 

CONSTRUCTION

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $93,210,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 19,676,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 41,206,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥52,004,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +21,530,000 

The Committee recommends $41,206,000 for construction, a decrease of $52,004,000 below the fiscal year 2005 level and an increase of $21,530,000 above the budget request. 

The Committee agrees to the following distribution of funds: 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Project Description Budget request 

Committee rec- ommenda- tion 

Difference 

Allegheny NFH, PA ..................................... Water Supply Improvements [cc] .............. 0 725 725 

Clark R. Bavin Forensics Laboratory, OR .. Renovation/Upgrade Facility—Phase II 

[cc].

0 3,355 3,355 

Crab Orchard NWR, IL ............................... Visitor Center Dam Rehabilitation [cc] ..... 2,625 2,625 0 

Big Oaks NWR, IN ...................................... Old Timbers Lake Dam Rehabilitation—

Phase II [d/cc].

150 150 0 

Balcones Canyonlands NWR, TX ................ Martin Lake and Martin West Dams [p/d/ 

cc].

500 500 0 

Kenai NWR, AK ........................................... Visitor Center/Water and Sewer Lines [cc] 0 500 500 

Klamath Basin NWR Complex, CA ............. Water Supply and Management—Phase V 

[cc].

0 2,500 2,500 

28 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Project Description Budget request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Difference 

Kofa NWR, AZ ............................................ Structural Replacement of Four Buildings—Phase II [cc].1,515 1,515 0 

Craig Brook NFH, ME ................................. Wastewater Treatment Compliance—

Phase III [cc].

2,480 2,480 0 

Division of Safety, Security and Aviation .. Replacement of Survey Aircraft—Phase 

III.

1,500 1,500 0 

Fish Springs NWR, UT ............................... Seismic Safety/Rehabilitation of 6 Buildings [cc].0 300 300 

Hanford Reach NM/Saddle Mountain NWR, 

WA.

Visitor Center [cc] ..................................... 0 2,250 2,250 

Northwest Power Planning Area ................ Fish Screens, etc ....................................... 0 3,000 3,000 

Servicewide ................................................ Bridge Safety Inspections ......................... 570 570 0 

Servicewide ................................................ Dam Safety Programs & Inspections ........ 720 720 0 

Servicewide ................................................ Visitor Contact Facilities ........................... 0 5,000 5,000 

Tualatin NWR, OR ...................................... Visitor Center and Administration Building [cc].0 3,900 3,900 

Subtotal, Line Item Construction .................................................................... 10,060 31,590 21,530 

Nationwide Engineering Services: 

Cost Allocation Methodology ............ .................................................................... 2,456 2,456 0 

Environmental Compliance ............... .................................................................... 1,000 1,000 0 

Other, non-project specific Nationwide Engineering Services..................................................................... 5,900 5,900 0 

Seismic Safety Program ................... .................................................................... 130 130 0 

Waste Prevention, Recycling, Environmental Management..................................................................... 130 130 0 

Subtotal, Nationwide Engineering 

Services.

.................................................................... 9,616 9,616 0 

Total ............................................. .................................................................... 19,676 41,206 21,530 

The Service should continue to use a standardized design approach for visitor centers and should request funding for visitor 

centers on the priority list. The Committee has provided funding to 

complete several projects that are currently underway. The budget 

request was irresponsible in not including construction funds for 

construction projects in process. 

LAND ACQUISITION

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $37,005,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 40,992,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 14,937,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥22,068,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ¥26,055,000 

The Committee recommends $14,937,000 for land acquisition, a 

decrease of $26,055,000 below the budget request and $22,068,000 

below the enacted level. This amount includes $1,750,000 for 

inholdings, $1,750,000 for emergencies and hardships, $1,724,000 

for exchanges, $7,893,000 for acquisition management, and 

$1,820,000 for cost allocation methodology. 

LANDOWNER INCENTIVE PROGRAM

The landowner incentive program provides funds to States, territories and tribes for matching, competitively awarded grants to esVerDate Aug 04 2004 07:10 May 14, 2005 Jkt 021162 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR080.XXX HR080
29 

tablish or supplement landowner incentive programs that provide 

technical and financial assistance to private landowners. The purpose of these incentive programs is to restore and protect habitat 

of Federally listed, proposed, and candidate species under the Endangered Species Act and other at risk species on private lands. Eligible grantees include the States, the District of Columbia, Indian 

Tribes, Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. 

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $21,694,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 40,000,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 23,700,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +2,006,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ¥16,300,000 

The Committee recommends $23,700,000 for the landowner incentive program, an increase of $2,006,000 above the fiscal year 

2005 level and $16,300,000 below the budget request. 

Given the constrained allocation for fiscal year 2006, the Committee has focused on restoring funding for the core, proven, mission-essential programs of the Service. The Committee does not object to new programs, but these grant programs should only be 

funded in addition to, and not at the expense of, mission-essential 

programs including proven, cost-shared, partnership programs. 

PRIVATE STEWARDSHIP GRANTS

The private stewardship grants program provides grants and 

other assistance to individuals and groups engaged in local, private, and voluntary conservation efforts that benefit federally listed, proposed, and candidate species, and other at risk species. 

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $6,903,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 10,000,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 7,386,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +483,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ¥2,614,000 

The committee recommends $7,386,000 for private stewardship 

grants, an increase of $483,000 above the fiscal year 2005 level and 

$2,614,000 below the budget request. 

COOPERATIVE ENDANGERED SPECIES CONSERVATION FUND

Eighty percent of the habitat for more than half of the listed endangered and threatened species is on private land. The Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund provides grants to 

States and territories for endangered species recovery actions on 

non-Federal lands and provides funds for non-Federal land acquisition to facilitate habitat protection. Individual States and territories provide 25 percent of grant project costs. Cost sharing is reduced to 10 percent when two or more States or territories are involved in a project. 

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $80,462,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 80,000,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 84,400,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +3,938,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +4,400,000 

30 

The Committee recommends $84,400,000 for the cooperative en- dangered species conservation fund, an increase of $3,938,000 

above the fiscal year 2005 level and $4,400,000 above the budget 

request. The increase to the budget request is for habitat conservation plan land acquisition. 

Bill Language.—Language is included deriving only the species 

recovery land acquisition and HCP land acquisition portions of this 

account from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, instead of 

deriving the entire funding from the LWCF as proposed in the 

budget request. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE FUND

Through this program the Service makes payments to counties in 

which Service lands are located, based on their fair market value. 

Payments to counties are estimated to be $20,914,000 in fiscal year 

2006 with $14,414,000 derived from this appropriation and 

$6,500,000 from net refuge receipts estimated to be collected in fiscal year 2005. 

Appropriation enacted, 2005 ............................................................ $14,214,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 14,414,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 14,414,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +200,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $14,414,000, the budget request, for 

the National wildlife refuge fund, an increase of $200,000 above the 

fiscal year 2005 funding level. 

NORTH AMERICAN WETLANDS CONSERVATION FUND

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, through the North American 

Wetlands Conservation Fund, leverages partner contributions for 

wetlands conservation. Projects to date have been in 50 States, 13 

Canadian provinces, 25 Mexican states, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In addition to this appropriation, the Service receives funding from receipts in the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration account 

from taxes on firearms, ammunition, archery equipment, pistols, 

and revolvers, and from the Sport Fish Restoration account from 

taxes on fishing tackle and equipment, electric trolling motors and 

fish finders, and certain marine gasoline taxes. By law, sport fish 

restoration receipts are used for coastal wetlands in States bordering the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, States bordering the Great 

Lakes, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth 

of the Northern Mariana Islands, the freely associated States in 

the Pacific, and American Samoa. 

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $37,472,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 49,949,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 40,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +2,528,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ................................................................ ¥9,949,000 

The Committee recommends $40,000,000 for the North American 

wetlands conservation fund, an increase of $2,528,000 above the 

fiscal year 2005 level and $9,949,000 below the budget request. Decreases to the budget request include $9,549,000 for wetlands conservation grants and $400,000 for program administration. 

31 

NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION

The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 2000 authorizes grants for the conservation of neotropical migratory birds in 

the United States, Latin America and the Caribbean, with 75 percent of the amounts available to be expended on projects outside 

the U.S. There is a three to one matching requirement under this 

program. 

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $3,944,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 0 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 4,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +56,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ................................................................ +4,000,000 

The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for the neotropical migratory bird conservation program, an increase of $56,000 above 

the fiscal year 2005 level and $4,000,000 above the budget request. 

The Administration proposed $4,000,000 for this program as part 

of the multinational species conservation fund. 

This program provides critically needed resources for conservation of neotropical migratory birds. The Committee expects the 

Service to coordinate closely with the Service’s international program on neotropical migratory bird conservation program implementation. 

MULTINATIONAL SPECIES CONSERVATION FUND

This account combines funding for programs under the former rewards and operations (African elephant) account, the former rhinoceros and tiger conservation account, the Asian elephant conservation program, and the great ape conservation program. 

The African Elephant Act of 1988 established a fund for assisting 

nations and organizations involved with conservation of African 

elephants. The Service provides grants to African nations and to 

qualified organizations and individuals to protect and manage critical populations of these elephants. 

The Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994 authorized 

programs to enhance compliance with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and U.S. or foreign 

laws prohibiting the taking or trade of rhinoceros, tigers, or their 

habitat. 

The Asian Elephant Conservation Act of 1997 authorized a grant 

program, similar to the African elephant program, to enable cooperators from regional and range country agencies and organizations to address Asian elephant conservation problems. The world’s 

surviving populations of wild Asian elephants are found in 13 

south and southeastern Asian countries. 

The Great Ape Conservation Act of 2000 authorized grants to foreign governments, the CITES secretariat, and non-governmental 

organizations for the conservation of great apes. 

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $5,719,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 8,300,000 

Recommended, 2005 ........................................................................... 5,900,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +181,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ................................................................ ¥2,400,000 

32 

The Committee recommends $5,900,000 for the multinational 

species conservation fund, an increase of $181,000 above the fiscal 

year 2005 level and $2,400,000 below the budget request. Changes 

to the budget request include a decrease of $4,000,000 for 

neotropical migratory birds (which is funded in a separate account) 

and increases of $400,000 for African elephant conservation, 

$400,000 for Asian elephant conservation, $300,000 for rhinoceros 

and tiger conservation and $500,000 for great ape conservation. 

The Committee expects these funds to be matched by non-Federal 

funding to leverage private contributions to the maximum extent 

possible. 

STATE AND TRIBAL WILDLIFE GRANTS

The State and tribal wildlife grants program provides funds for 

States to develop and implement wildlife management and habitat 

restoration for the most critical wildlife needs in each State. States 

are required to develop comprehensive wildlife conservation plans 

to be eligible for grants and to provide at least a 25 percent cost 

share for planning grants and at least a 50 percent cost share for 

implementation grants. 

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $69,028,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 74,000,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 65,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥4,028,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ¥9,000,000 

The Committee recommends $65,000,000 for State and tribal 

wildlife grants, a decrease of $4,028,000 below the fiscal year 2005 

level and $9,000,000 below the budget request. Within the amount 

provided, $6,000,000 is for competitively awarded grants to Indian 

tribes. 

Bill Language.—Bill language is continued specifying that each 

State or eligible entity has two years to enter into specific grant 

agreements. If fiscal year 2006 funds remain unobligated at the 

end of fiscal year 2007, the unobligated funds will be reapportioned 

to all States and eligible entities, together with any new appropriations provided in fiscal year 2008. Bill language also is included 

providing direction on redistributing funds for States with disapproved plans. 

The Committee agrees to the following: 

1. Not more than 3 percent of the appropriated amount may be 

used for Federal administration of the program. Administrative 

costs for each grantee should also be held to a minimum so that 

the maximum amount of funding is used for on-the-ground projects. 

2. Funds made available under this account should be added to 

revenues from existing State sources and not serve as a substitute 

for revenues from such sources. 

3. Priority for the use of these funds should be placed on those 

species with the greatest conservation need. Funds should be used 

to address the habitat requirements of species identified in State 

wildlife plans/strategies in order to preclude the need to list more 

species as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species 

Act. 

The Committee reiterates its expectation that each State and 

other participating entity in the formula grant program will submit 

33 

its comprehensive wildlife conservation plan on time. The Service 

should notify each State or other entity, as soon as possible after 

receipt of its plan, whether the plan is approved, conditionally approved, or disapproved. If a plan is conditionally approved, the submitting entity should be given a limited but reasonable amount of 

time to address the Service’s concerns and submit a revised plan 

for approval. Such extension of time should not exceed 6 months. 

If a plan is disapproved, the submitting entity is no longer entitled 

to receive funds from the program. Should an entity with a disapproved plan elect to submit a revised plan in the future, it may 

do so but, until a plan is approved, that entity will not be entitled 

to receive any funds from the program. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

The mission of the National Park Service is to preserve 

unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the 

national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration 

of this and future generations. The National Park Service cooperates with partners to extend the benefits of natural and cultural 

resource conservation and outdoor recreation throughout this country and the world. 

The National Park Service, established in 1916, has stewardship 

responsibilities for the protection and preservation of the heritage 

resources of the national park system. The system, consisting of 

388 separate and distinct units, is recognized globally as a leader 

in park management and resource preservation. The national park 

system represents much of the finest the Nation has to offer in 

terms of scenery, historical and archeological relics, and cultural 

heritage. Through its varied sites, the National Park Service attempts to explain America’s history, interpret its culture, preserve 

examples of its natural ecosystems, and provide recreational and 

educational opportunities for U.S. citizens and visitors from all 

over the world. In addition, the National Park Service provides 

support to tribal, local, and State governments to preserve culturally significant, ecologically important, and public recreational 

lands. 

OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $1,683,564,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 1,734,053,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 1,754,199,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +70,635,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +20,146,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 

34 


Insert graphic folio 08 20754A.008
35 

The Committee recommends $1,754,199,000 for operation of the National Park System, an increase of $70,635,000 above the enacted level and $20,146,000 above the budget request. The Committee has redirected funds to provide for a $30,000,000 base increase for the parks. This is in addition to the budget request 

which provides for pay and uncontrollable expenses. These funds 

are to be distributed proportionately to all park units and to remain in park base budgets. 

Resource Stewardship.—The Committee recommends 

$354,116,000 for resources stewardship, the same as the budget request and $6,080,000 above the enacted level. 

Included in this amount are increases above the enacted level of 

$4,931,000 for natural resources challenge vital signs. The Committee accepts the following reductions in the budget: $648,000 for 

fleet management reform, and $3,931,000 for the Natural Resource 

Preservation Program. Also included is $5,728,000 for uncontrollable expenses. 

Visitor Services.—The Committee recommends $346,181,000 for 

visitor services, the same as the budget request and $7,727,000 

above the enacted level. Included in this amount is an increase 

above the enacted level of $119,000 for fee metrics/data analysis. 

The Committee accepts the following reductions in the budget: 

$129,000 for fleet management reform, and $986,000 for the Presidential Inaugural activities. Also included is $8,723,000 for uncontrollable expenses. 

Maintenance.—The Committee recommends $594,686,000 for 

maintenance, a reduction of $900,000 below the budget request and 

$11,947,000 above the enacted level. Included in this amount is an 

increase of $2,500,000 for repair and rehabilitation of historic 

structures. The Committee accepts a reduction of $388,000 for fleet 

management reform. Also included is $9,835,000 for uncontrollable 

expenses. Within the total amount provided for repair and rehabilitation, there is $80,000 for campground rehabilitation at Ozark National Scenic Riverways, $200,000 for historic landscaping at Gettysburg NMP, $200,000 for Alice Ferguson (Wareham Lodge), 

$497,000 for Indiana Dunes NL (West Beach), $206,000 for Indiana 

Dunes NL (Dunbar Beach), $300,000 for Death Valley NP (Cow 

Creek), $140,000 for San Juan NHS sewer repairs, and $243,000 

for El Morro restrooms. 

Park Support.—The Committee recommends $298,659,000 for 

park support, a reduction of $8,594,000 from the budget request, 

and $8,259,000 above the enacted level. Included in this amount 

are increases of $400,000 for Jamestown 2007, $578,000 for IT intrusion detection, $525,000 to establish an IT test lab, $750,000 for 

an IT security plan review, $500,000 for IT upgrade equipment, 

$1,725,000 for an IT active directory and $1,235,000 for the enterprise services network. The Committee accepts the following reductions in the budget: $129,000 for fleet management reform, 

$1,416,000 for management efficiencies, $644,000 for IT certification and accreditation, $87,000 for E-Government initiatives, 

$247,000 for wild and Scenic Rivers and $2,427,000 for Lewis and 

Clark challenge cost share. Also included is $7,496,000 for uncontrollable expenses. The Committee expects the Service to continue 

to allocate one-third of the funds provided for the challenge cost 

share program to the National Trails System. 

36 

The Committee has been unable to provide funds for the cooperative conservation challenge cost share program because of fiscal 

constraints. However, the Committee remains supportive of the 

concept and has provided funds to continue the traditional agency 

challenge cost share program and has no objection to broadening 

the scope of the ongoing program to encompass resource protection 

activities. 

External Administrative Costs.—The Committee recommends 

$130,557,000 for external administrative costs, the same as the 

budget request and $6,622,000 above the enacted level. The Committee accepts the reduction of $1,337,000 for central office consolidation (GSA space rental). Also included is $7,959,000 for uncontrollable expenses. 

South Florida Initiative.—The Committee continues its support 

for the restoration of the Everglades and the protection and preservation of the national parks and national wildlife refuges located 

in the region. Since this initiative began, the Committee has provided over $1 billion in funding to the Department of the Interior 

and its bureaus for restoration projects and activities. Restoration 

programs funded by the Committee include land acquisition for 

Federal and State areas, water quality improvements, science, the 

South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, Modified Water 

Deliveries, and the Department’s participation in implementing the 

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. The Committee recognizes that although progress has been made in the last decade, 

challenges remain. These challenges must be addressed to ensure 

that the Everglades is preserved and restored and that the Federal 

investment in the Everglades is protected. To this end, it is imperative that overall Everglades restoration goals, as established by the 

South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, as well as individual project restoration goals, be achieved. 

The Committee remains deeply concerned over efforts to improve 

water quality. Without clean water, the Everglades will be 

irretrievably altered and its unique habitat will be degraded. This 

will further frustrate Everglades restoration efforts now underway. 

The Committee remains troubled that the State of Florida is not 

fully achieving its obligations under the 1992 Consent Decree entered in United States v. South Florida Water Management District. The Committee understands that the interim levels for total 

phosphorus concentration at A.R.M. Loxahatchee National Wildlife 

Refuge, which remain in effect until more protective and stringent 

levels are required at the beginning of 2007, were exceeded in 2002 

and again in 2004. This trend is troubling. The Committee understands that the U.S. District Court, which retains jurisdiction over 

the Consent Decree, is considering whether exceeding these interim 

levels should be deemed a violation of the Consent Decree. Notwithstanding the outcome of the court proceedings, the Committee 

directs the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to keep the Committee 

fully apprised of its effort to establish additional water quality 

monitoring and modeling at A.R.M. Loxahatchee National Wildlife 

Refuge. The Committee directs that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service provide the Committee with the refuge’s annual and quarterly reports summarizing the implementation of the additional 

monitoring and modeling at the refuge. Additionally, the Committee expects that the annual report required by P.L. 108–108 and 

37 

prepared jointly by the Departments of the Interior, Justice, and 

Army and the Environmental Protection Agency summarizing the 

status of the water entering A.R.M. Loxahatchee National Wildlife 

Refuge and Everglades National Park will be submitted expeditiously and on-time in the future as the report is long over-due. In 

the interim, the Committee expects that the Department will continue its work with its State and Federal partners to ensure that 

discharges to A.R.M. Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge and Everglades National Park achieve the levels and limits specified in 

the Consent Decree and do not cause adverse impact to these important Federal resources. 

The Committee is also concerned that the Everglades restoration 

program may not be proceeding in a manner that guarantees the 

achievement of the primary Federal interest, the restoration of the 

Everglades. The strong intergovernmental partnership that is necessary for restoration success is not apparent. Although the Committee appreciates the State of Florida’s announcement of its 

Acceler8 program and its intention to provide up-front funding to 

implement a number of Comprehensive Everglades Restoration 

Plan projects within the next five years, the Committee has heard 

concerns expressed by some stakeholders that the Acceler8 program was developed without adequate collaboration and that the 

projects being implemented are largely water storage projects and 

do not provide the anticipated natural system benefits. Given these 

concerns, the Committee directs the Secretary of the Interior, in 

consultation with the Secretary of the Army, to submit a report by 

December 31, 2005 on the status of the Everglades restoration 

projects now underway. The report should summarize the status of 

the projects, the anticipated environmental benefits of each project, 

and whether the projects being implemented by the State and the 

Army Corps together provide for natural system restoration. To the 

extent that changes in the sequencing of projects are necessary to 

achieve natural system restoration, the Committee directs that the 

report recommend such changes. 

Additionally, the Committee has heard concerns expressed by 

some stakeholders that some non-Federal lands may need to be acquired to fully achieve natural system restoration. In response to 

questions posed by the Committee, the Department agrees that 

this is a valid concern. Given that the South Florida Ecosystem 

Restoration Task Force has developed a land acquisition strategy 

that identifies the lands that remain to be acquired, as well as 

tools that may be available to assist in the acquisition of these 

lands, the Committee directs the Secretary of the Interior, as Chair 

of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force (Task 

Force), to provide a more detailed report to the Committee from the 

Task Force identifying and prioritizing for acquisition the lands 

that are necessary to achieve natural system restoration goals. The 

report should identify funding strategies involving innovative partnerships, as well as timeframes, as to when the necessary lands 

will be acquired so that they will be available for restoration purposes. The Committee directs that the Secretary of the Interior 

submit the Task Force report no later than December 31, 2005. 

The Committee is pleased with the improvements in coordination 

that the Department has made to its science programs supporting 

Everglades restoration activities. The Department’s Science Plan 

38 

provides a road-map to ensure that the science that is being conducted supports the needs of the land managing agencies and the 

decisions that will affect Interior-managed resources. Similar to 

last year, the Committee directs that the Department submit a report by December 31, 2005 describing the scientific research 

projects to be funded in the National Park Service and the U.S. Geological Survey with the fiscal year 2006 appropriations. The report 

should provide details for each research project, including how each 

research project is consistent with the Department’s Science Plan, 

as well as how the project is filling gaps in scientific information 

and supporting the decisions that need to be made. 

National Park Foundation.—Last year, the Committee directed 

the National Park Service to work cooperatively with the National 

Park Foundation to implement fully the GAO recommendations regarding improving communications, documentation and strategic 

focus of activities. These recommendations also addressed ways to 

strengthen the Proud Partner program that would ensure transparency and accountability. The Committee appreciates the level of 

cooperation by both the Service and the new leadership of the National Park Foundation. The National Park Service Director has assured the Committee all GAO recommendations have been implemented and that the Service will have full access to the details of 

all future and renewal Proud Partners agreements and will be a 

signatory to those agreements. 

The Service is reminded that existing agency policies, as well as 

sound financial management practices, require that all fundraising 

that benefits the National Park Service, including activities of the 

Foundation, require written agreements and approved fundraising 

plans. 

Other.—The Committee continues to support the decision by 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways to retain the carpentry and 

maintenance positions at the park. The Committee recognizes the 

urgent needs at ONSR for these skilled personnel. The Committee 

expects that these positions will be retained. 

The Committee understands that the Service is working closely 

with the Town of Blowing Rock, North Carolina to resolve permanently, through administrative means or, if necessary, a land exchange, the long standing issue of the access to water as part of 

the town’s municipal water supply. The Committee expects the 

Service to allow the town of Blowing Rock to continue its water 

usage while moving forward with the needed steps to provide a 

permanent remedy, including facilitating and funding the necessary compliance effort. The Committee requests a status report 

no later than March 1, 2006. 

The Committee expects the Service to provide the same level of 

funding as provided in fiscal year 2005 for the Johnstown Area 

Heritage Association Museum, as well as the Ice Age National Scientific Reserve, and continue this funding in the operations account 

in future years. 

The Committee strongly encourages the National Park Service to 

complete the management plan for the Cedar Creek and Belle 

Grove National Historical Park no later than September 1, 2007. 

Bill language is included under this account specifying how the 

additional park base increase should be allocated. 

39 

UNITED STATES PARK POLICE

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $80,076,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 80,411,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 82,411,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +2,335,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +2,000,000 

The Committee recommends $82,411,000 for the U.S. Park Police, an increase of $2,000,000 above the budget request and 

$2,335,000 above the enacted level. Increases from the enacted 

level are for uncontrollable expenses and for new recruit classes. 

Decreases from the enacted level totaling $986,000 are for Inauguration activities. 

The Committee directs the U.S. Park Police to submit a final report no later than January 15, 2006, detailing how it has implemented each recommendation in the original National Academy of 

Public Administration (NAPA) report. If certain recommendations 

have not been agreed to, a full explanation is required. This process has taken nearly four years and three NAPA studies to complete. The Committee expects final resolution by the above mentioned date. 

NATIONAL RECREATION AND PRESERVATION

The National recreation and preservation appropriation provides 

for outdoor recreation planning, preservation of cultural and National heritage resources, technical assistance to Federal, State and 

local agencies, and administration of Historic Preservation Fund 

grants. 

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $60,973,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 36,777,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 48,997,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥11,976,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +12,220,000 

The Committee recommends $48,997,000 for national recreation 

and preservation, an increase of $12,220,000 above the budget request and a reduction of $11,976,000 below the enacted level. The 

Committee has agreed with the budget request and has eliminated 

the Statutory or Contractual Aid category. Critical elements of this 

account have been moved to the operations account. 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimate by activity are shown in the following table: 

40 


Insert graphic folio 009 20754A.009
41 


Insert graphic folio 010 20754A.010
42 

Recreation Programs.—The Committee recommends $554,000 for 

recreation programs, the same as the budget request and an increase of $11,000 above the enacted level. The increase is for uncontrollable expenses. 

Natural Programs.—The Committee recommends $9,545,000 for 

natural programs, the same as the budget request and a decrease 

of $1,320,000 below the enacted level. Programmatic decreases include $512,000 for rivers and trails studies, $500,000 for rivers, 

trails, and conservation assistance and $495,000 for national natural landmarks. An increase of $187,000 is for uncontrollable expenses. 

Cultural Programs.—The Committee recommends $19,953,000 

for cultural programs, an increase of $2,231,000 above the budget 

request and $200,000 below the enacted level. The programmatic 

increase includes the restoration of $1,931,000 for the National 

Center for Preservation Technology and Training in Louisiana. The 

Committee strongly urges the Service to continue to provide funding for this purpose in future budget submissions. In addition, $300,000 is provided to produce a digitization design 

plan for a long range project to digitize archival records consisting 

of over 80,000 listings of buildings, districts, sites, structures, and 

objects in the National Register of Historic Places. In designing 

this plan, the Service should be creative in working with entities 

such as the Library of Congress both for technical assistance and 

to avoid duplication of systems. While the Committee understands 

the critical need and importance of this project, the Service must 

prioritize its needs in future budget requests. Decreases to cultural programs include $99,000 for Gettysburg, $100,000 for Creole Heritage Center, and $296,000 for underground 

railroad grants. An increase of $215,000 is provided for uncontrollable expenses. Within available funds, the Service is directed to 

initiate planning authorized in the American Revolution Commemoration Act. The Service is strongly encouraged to provide 

funds in the fiscal year 2007 budget for this activity. 

International Park Affairs.—The Committee recommends 

$1,618,000 for international park affairs, the same as the budget 

request and $25,000 above the enacted level. This increase is for 

uncontrollable expenses. 

Environmental and Compliance Review.—The Committee recommends $399,000 for environmental and compliance review, the 

same as the budget request and $8,000 above the enacted level. 

This increase is for uncontrollable expenses. 

Grant Administration.—The Committee recommends $1,913,000 

for grant administration, the same as the budget request and 

$47,000 above the enacted level. his increase is for uncontrollable 

expenses. 

The Committee has not provided funds for the Chesapeake Bay 

Gateways and Water Trail initiative. Since fiscal year 2000, this 

Committee has provided $9,500,000 for this effort. A routine oversight program review conducted by the House Appropriations Committee’s Surveys and Investigation staff uncovered several problems. The report indicates that there is a deficiency of responsible 

program management including, but not limited to, a lack of scrutiny of the matching fund requirements, use of grant funds to subsidize operations at grant sites, and an inappropriate use of grant 

43 

funds with third party non-profit organizations. The review concluded that in addition to poor management, there was clearly too 

much funding chasing too few eligible projects. 

Heritage Partnership Program.—The Committee recommends 

$15,015,000 for heritage partnerships, an increase of $9,989,000 

above the budget request and $436,000 above the enacted level. 

The Committee recommends the following distribution of funds: 

Project Amount 

America’s Agricultural Heritage Partnership (Silos & Smokestacks) $750,000 

Augusta Canal National Heritage Area ............................................... 400,000 

Automobile National Heritage Area ..................................................... 500,000 

Blue Ridge National Heritage Area ..................................................... 900,000 

Cane River National Heritage Area ..................................................... 900,000 

Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor ............................. 800,000 

Erie Canalway National Corridor ........................................................ 700,000 

Essex National Heritage Area .............................................................. 900,000 

Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area ..................................... 500,000 

John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor ..................................................................................................... 845,000 

Lackawanna Valley National Heritage Area ....................................... 650,000 

Mississippi Gulf National Heritage Area ............................................ 175,000 

National Aviation Heritage Area .......................................................... 200,000 

National Coal Heritage Area ................................................................ 123,000 

Ohio and Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor ............................... 900,000 

Oil Region National Heritage Area ...................................................... 200,000 

Quinnebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor ..................................................................................................... 850,000 

Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area ............................................... 900,000 

Schuylkill River Valley National Heritage Area ................................. 500,000 

Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District ............... 500,000 

South Carolina National Heritage Corridor ........................................ 900,000 

Tennessee Civil War Heritage Area ..................................................... 500,000 

Wheeling National Heritage Area ........................................................ 900,000 

Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area .............................................. 400,000 

Subtotal, Projects ............................................................................ 14,893,000 

Administration ....................................................................................... 122,000 

Total ................................................................................................. $15,015,000 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND

The Historic Preservation Fund supports the State historic preservation offices to perform a variety of functions, including State 

management and administration of existing grant obligations; review and advice on Federal projects and actions, determinations, 

and nominations to the National Register; Tax Act certifications; 

and technical preservation services. The States also review properties to develop data for planning use. 

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $71,739,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 66,205,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 72,705,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +966,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +6,500,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 

44 


Insert graphic folio 011 20754A.011
45 

The Committee recommends $72,705,000 for historic preserva- tion fund programs, an increase of $6,500,000 above the budget request and $966,000 above the enacted level. The Committee recommendation provides $36,000,000 for State historic preservation offices, $3,205,000 for tribal grants, 

$30,000,000 for Save America’s Treasure grants, and $3,500,000 for 

Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU). The HBCU 

program is a competitive program administered by the Service. The 

cost share on this program is 70 percent Federal and, 30 percent 

private. In addition, there are HBCU unexpended balances of 

$6,300,000 that have been available since 2000. Because of budget 

constraints, the Committee has not agreed to fund a new Preserve 

America initiative. 

CONSTRUCTION

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $352,982,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 307,362,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 291,230,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥61,752,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ¥16,132,000 

The Committee recommends $291,230,000 for construction, a decrease of $16,132,000 below the budget request and $61,752,000 

below the enacted level. 

The Committee recommends the following distribution of funds: 

Project Amount 

Amistad National Recreation Area, TX ............................................... $1,003,000 

Big Bend National Park, TX (curatorial) ............................................. 2,100,000 

Blue Ridge Parkway, NC ...................................................................... 804,000 

Blue Ridge Parkway, NC (visitor center) ............................................ 3,500,000 

Chaco Culture National Historical Park, NM ..................................... 4,238,000 

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park, DC/MD/WV 1,847,000 

Cumberland Island National Seashore, GA (Plum Orchard) ............. 3,247,000 

Cuyahoga Valley National Park, OH (rehabilitation) ........................ 2,500,000 

Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park, OH (Wright 

Dunbar Plaza) .................................................................................... 450,000 

Death Valley National Park, CA .......................................................... 5,791,000 

Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, PA (cabins) ............ 700,000 

Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, NJ .......................... 2,871,000 

Everglades National Park, FL .............................................................. 25,000,000 

Fire Island National Seashore, NY ...................................................... 764,000 

George Washington Memorial Parkway, VA (Arlington House) ........ 1,251,000 

George Washington Memorial Parkway, VA (maintenance) .............. 400,000 

Glacier National Park, MT ................................................................... 758,000 

Grand Portage National Monument, MN ............................................ 4,000,000 

Grand Teton National Park, WY .......................................................... 1,673,000 

Gulf Islands National Seashore, FL/MS .............................................. 971,000 

Homestead National Historic Site, NE (visitor center) ...................... 1,000,000 

Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, OH ................................ 389,000 

Hot Springs National Park, AR ............................................................ 6,059,000 

Independence National Historical Park, PA ........................................ 3,932,000 

Independence National Historical Park, PA ........................................ 2,000,000 

Kalaupapa National Historical Park, HI ............................................. 3,779,000 

Keweenaw National Historical Park, MI (Calumet- Hecla) ............... 1,650,000 

Lincoln Library, IL ................................................................................ 4,000,000 

Moccasin Bend NAD, TN (erosion) ....................................................... 2,000,000 

Mount Rainier National Park, WA ...................................................... 14,307,000 

Mount Rainier National Park, WA ...................................................... 7,900,000 

Olympic National Park, WA ................................................................. 10,098,000 

Pinnacles National Monument, CA ...................................................... 4,794,000 

Point Reyes National Seashore, CA ..................................................... 2,160,000 

Redwood National Park, CA ................................................................. 2,169,000 

Rosie the Riveter National Historical Park, CA (planning) ............... 200,000 

46

Project Amount 

San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park, CA ...................... 4,350,000

Saratoga National Historical Park, NY (Victory Woods) ................... 310,000

Saugus Iron Works National Historic Site, MA .................................. 3,078,000

Shenandoah National Park, VA ........................................................... 4,835,000

Southwest Pennsylvania Heritage Commission, PA ........................... 2,500,000

Statue of Liberty/Ellis Island National Monuments, NJ .................... 8,452,000

Stones River National Battlefield, TN (tour) ...................................... 610,000

Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site, AL ...................................... 6,767,000

White House, DC ................................................................................... 6,523,000

Wind Cave National Park, SD .............................................................. 4,928,000

Wolf Trap National Park, VA ............................................................... 3,000,000

Yellowstone National Park, WY ........................................................... 11,118,000

Yellowstone National Park, WY ........................................................... 4,114,000 

Yellowstone National Park, WY ........................................................... 11,175,000

Yosemite National Park, CA ................................................................. 2,176,000

Project Total .................................................................................... 204,241,000

Emergency/Unscheduled ....................................................................... 3,944,000

Housing ................................................................................................... 7,889,000

Equipment replacement ........................................................................ 26,900,000

Planning, construction ........................................................................... 19,925,000

General management plans .................................................................. 13,754,000

Construction program management ..................................................... 28,605,000

Dam safety ............................................................................................. 2,662,000

Managed partnership projects .............................................................. 310,000

Subtotal ........................................................................................... 103,989,000

Subtotal (before use of prior year funds) ............................................. 308,230,000

Use of prior year balances .................................................................... ¥17,000,000

Total Construction .......................................................................... $291,230,000

The Committee commends the Service for the quality of its construction budget in recent years. The focus on critical backlog 

maintenance over the last ten years has made a significant impact 

on the most serious projects and the impact of the Choosing By Advantage system is very evident on small but significant projects 

that had not competed well in the past. In addition, the Committee 

is pleased at the progress made on the condition assessments as 

well as the new asset management program that is focused on lifecycle costs. Hopefully, this will help prevent reoccurrence of a large 

deferred maintenance backlog in the future. 

The Committee believes that keeping up with backlog maintenance needs should remain a high priority. However, the Service 

should begin to integrate the most critical, new construction requirements into future budget submissions. The Committee continues to be concerned that, each year, the same parks seem to appear in the line item construction request. In many cases, there are 

multiple projects for one park unit. It is obvious that certain parks 

have been competing well within the system, however, professional 

judgment needs to be applied to ensure fairness and equity to all 

park units. The Committee strongly encourages the Service to 

make adjustments in future budget requests. 

Although the Committee understands that much of the unobligated balances in construction are tied to large projects, and acknowledges the progress made to expend these funds, the Committee continues to encourage the Service to reduce these balances 

to a more reasonable level. 

Partnership Construction Projects.—The Committee is pleased 

with the recent progress that has been made to get large partnership construction projects under control. However, the Committee 

reminds the Service that most of the 44 projects should not be forwarded to Congress for funding and those that do complete the new 

47 

process, and are considered high priorities, should be included in 

annual budget requests when appropriate. With the Director’s personal assurance, the Committee understands that there will be no 

surprises in the future and that all parks will adhere to the longstanding bill language requiring Committee notification and approval prior to any commitment on projects in excess of $5,000,000. 

The Committee expects that Director’s order 21 will be finalized 

no later than July 15, 2005. Any future modifications to this agreement should be forwarded to the Committee. 

Curatorial Facilities.—The Committee has noticed a growing 

number of parks requesting curatorial facilities. The Committee acknowledges that many collections in the parks are not stored under 

ideal circumstances. The Service has three separate facilities to 

deal with this issue; the Midwest Archeological Center, the Northeast Cultural Resources Center and the new Western Archeological 

Center, which has significant storage space remaining. 

It is obvious that decisions on these individual park facilities are 

being made ad hoc without any Service-wide analysis or plan. The 

Committee directs the Associate Director for Cultural Resources to 

work with the Associate Director for Park Planning, Facilities, and 

Lands to study the issue of collection storage in the parks and report findings and recommendations to the Committee by September 

2006. Any future funding requirements should be weighed against 

other Service-wide priorities. 

Other.—The Committee has included $2,100,000 to complete the 

curatorial facility at Big Bend National Park; $3,500,000 to continue work on the Blue Ridge Parkway destination center; 

$3,247,000 to complete rehabilitation work on the Cumberland Island National Seashore, Plum Orchard home, and $2,500,000 for 

rehabilitation work at Cuyahoga Valley National Park in Ohio. 

Funding in the amount of $450,000 is provided to complete work 

on the Wright Dunbar Plaza, part of Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park; $700,000 is to continue cabin replacement at 

the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area; $400,000 is for 

maintenance projects along the George Washington Parkway in 

Virginia, and $1,000,000 is to continue work on the Homestead National Historic Site visitor center. 

The Committee has provided $1,650,000 to complete work on the 

Calumet-Hecla House in Keweenaw National Historical Park; 

$4,000,000 for the Lincoln Library; $2,000,000 for erosion work at 

Moccasin Bend NAD; $200,000 to initiate planning for the Rosie 

the Riveter National Historical Park, and $310,000 to complete 

work on the Saratoga National Historical Park, Victory Woods 

project. In addition, $2,500,000 is provided for the Southwest Pennsylvania Heritage Commission and $610,000 is for planning the 

Stones River National Battlefield driving tour. The Committee encourages the park to seek non-Federal assistance to help complete 

its project. 

The Committee has provided $175,000 to initiate planning for a 

museum concept plan for the Wilson’s Creek NB Sweeney museum 

collection. The region should consider this a high priority project 

and continue to provide funds in future budget requests for this effort. Also provided is $250,000 to complete planning associated 

with the Manhattan Project Sites study. 

48 

The Committee has provided $3,000,000 to undertake the most 

essential deferred maintenance requirements at Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts. The Committee cautions the 

Service that prior to beginning any expenditure of these funds, the 

Service should develop a planned program of expenditures, in priority order, focused on health and safety improvements, code compliance, and utility upgrades. The Committee expects the plan to 

represent a stand-alone set of work that can be accomplished within the funds provided and that is not dependent on subsequent appropriations. If additional enhancements at the park are deemed a 

priority to accomplish the mission, the Service and the Wolf Trap 

Foundation should consider a capital improvement partnership 

agreement, in accordance with the new partnership construction 

process. The Committee should be consulted prior to any agreements being signed. 

The Committee has not provided funds for two Lake Mead NRA 

projects included in the budget request. These projects should be 

funded with the receipts from the Southern Nevada Public Lands 

Management Act. 

The Committee is aware of proposals by Gateway National 

Recreation Area to improve the recreation playing fields and comfort stations at Miller Field and Great Kills. The Committee is supportive of improving the outdoor recreation opportunities at this 

park and directs the Service to develop a plan for phased implementation of the most critical improvements needed. Once a plan 

is developed, the Committee will be able to consider the funding requirements needed to initiate site-specific pre-design. 

The Committee is aware of the significant interest in greater 

New Bedford in the plan to initiate a comprehensive ethnographic 

study of the park and its surroundings in order to develop a better 

understanding of the roles that the area’s various communities and 

neighborhoods played in the history of the whaling industry. The 

Service is directed to initiate this study within available funds. 

The Committee expects planning for restoration of the Bodie Island Lighthouse to be completed toward the end of fiscal year 2006. 

The Service should request construction funds when appropriate. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

(RESCISSION)

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. ¥$30,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... ¥30,000,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... ¥30,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... 0 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends the rescission of $30,000,000 in the 

annual contract authority provided by 16 U.S.C. 460l–10a. This authority has not been used in years, and there are no plans to use 

it in fiscal year 2006. 

49 

LAND ACQUISITION AND STATE ASSISTANCE

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $146,349,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 54,467,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 9,421,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥136,928,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ¥45,046,000 

The Committee recommends $9,421,000 for land acquisition and 

State assistance, a decrease of $45,046,000 below the budget request and $136,928,000 below the enacted level. Within the funds 

provided, $1,587,000 is for assistance to States for administrative 

expenses, and $7,834,000 is for Federal land acquisition program 

activities, including $4,000,000 for emergencies and hardships, 

$9,749,000 for acquisition management, and $4,000,000 for 

inholdings. The Committee recommendation includes the use of 

$9,915,000 in prior year funds from the Cat Island project at Gulf 

Islands National Seashore. Negotiations for this acquisition have 

been ongoing since March 2002. Funds were appropriated in fiscal 

years 2003 and 2004, and the Service, the property owner, and the 

Trust for Public Land have been unable to reach agreement on the 

terms and conditions of the acquisition or on an appraisal, both 

necessary precursors to an agreement on valuation and cost. Because of these delays, the Committee is redirecting these funds to 

urgently needed park base increases. 

UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

The United States Geological Survey was established by an act 

of Congress on March 3, 1879 to provide a permanent Federal 

agency to conduct the systematic and scientific ‘‘classification of the 

public lands, and examination of the geological structure, mineral 

resources, and products of the National domain’’. The USGS is the 

Federal government’s largest earth-science research agency, the 

Nation’s largest civilian mapmaking agency, and the primary 

source of data on the Nation’s surface and ground water resources. 

Its activities include conducting detailed assessments of the energy 

and mineral potential of the Nation’s land and offshore areas; investigating and issuing warnings of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, and other geologic and hydrologic hazards; research on the geologic structure of the Nation; studies of the geologic features, structure, processes, and history of other planets of 

our solar system; topographic surveys of the Nation and preparation of topographic and thematic maps and related cartographic 

products; development and production of digital cartographic databases and products; collection on a routine basis of data on the 

quantity, quality, and use of surface and ground water; research in 

hydraulics and hydrology; the coordination of all Federal water 

data acquisition; the scientific understanding and technologies 

needed to support the sound management and conservation of our 

Nation’s biological resources; and the application of remotely 

sensed data to the development of new cartographic, geologic, and 

hydrologic research techniques for natural resources planning and 

management, surveys, investigations, and research. 

50 

SURVEYS, INVESTIGATIONS, AND RESEARCH

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $936,464,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 933,515,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 974,586,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +38,122,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +41,071,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 

51 


Insert graphic folio 012 20754A.012
52 


Insert graphic folio 013 20754A.013
53 

The Committee recommends $974,586,000 for surveys, investigations, and research, an increase of $41,071,000 above the budget 

request and $38,122,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. 

National Mapping Program.—The Committee recommends 

$133,203,000 for the national mapping program, $250,000 below 

the budget request and $14,452,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. The change to the request is a reduction of $250,000 

for the science impact proposal. 

The Committee commends the Survey and the Administration for 

finally providing a detailed proposal to continue existing Landsat 

satellite operations and implement the Landsat Data Continuity 

Mission, which will place the next generation Landsat sensor in 

orbit. Long-term remote sensing data are vital to many aspects of 

the government and private sector and are strongly supported by 

this Committee. 

Geologic Hazards, Resources and Processes.—The Committee recommends $239,246,000 for geologic hazards, resources, and processes, $31,110,000 above the budget request and $8,752,000 above 

the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. Changes from the request include increases of $250,000 for the global dust study, $1,248,000 for 

Florida shelf research, $28,478,000 for mineral research and assessments and $1,134,000 for Alaska mineral resource assessments. 

The Committee strongly disagrees with the proposed reduction in 

the Survey’s mineral resources program. Minerals and mineral 

products are important to the U.S. economy, with processed minerals adding billions of dollars to the economy. Mineral commodities are essential to both national security and infrastructure development. Mineral resources research and assessments are a core 

responsibility of the Survey. The Committee does not agree that objective data on mineral commodities can be generated in the private sector. 

Water Resources Investigations.—The Committee recommends 

$211,751,000 for water resources investigations, $7,580,000 above 

the budget request and $551,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted 

level. Changes from the request include $230,000 for the base toxic 

hydrology program, $100,000 for the Hood Canal dissolved oxygen 

study, $750,000 for the San Pedro partnership, and $6,500,000 for 

the water resource research institutes. 

The Committee is concerned with reports that suggest that the 

Water Resource Division (WRD) of the Survey is providing or seeking to provide a variety of commercial services to Federal and nonFederal entities in direct competition with the private sector. The 

Committee strongly discourages WRD from providing commercially 

available services to Federal and non-Federal entities through its 

cooperative water program unless these services are performed by 

a private sector firm under contract with the Survey or the entity 

with which the Survey has entered into a cooperative agreement. 

The Committee encourages the Survey to focus its efforts on carrying out its important mission of serving as a national database 

for hydrologic data, theory, and research. The Survey should submit a report to the House Committee on Appropriations by December 31, 2005, regarding its past, present and future efforts to avoid 

competing with the private sector. 

54 

The Committee agrees with the proposed increase for the water 

availability project. The Committee expects the Survey to continue 

with this important program and establish a second pilot project, 

as outlined in the Survey’s November 2003 implementation plan. 

The Committee urges the Administration to request funding in future budgets to expand this program for other areas of the Country. 

Biological Research.—The Committee recommends $174,765,000 

for biological research, $1,840,000 above the budget request and 

$3,066,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. Changes to the 

request include increases of $1,430,000 for the Great Lakes Science 

Center for safety needs associated with the docking of the research 

vessel Kiyi, $150,000 for invasive species database coordination 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, $500,000 for manatee research, $335,000 for equipment at the anadromous fish lab, 

$250,000 for the Tunison lab, $175,000 for the Potomac snakehead 

program, $200,000 for the Upper Midwest Environmental Science 

Center, $400,000 to restore funding for the Nebraska Fish and 

Wildlife Cooperative Unit, and decreases of $550,000 for the science 

on the DOI landscape initiative, $750,000 for Glen Canyon adaptive management, and $300,000 for invasive species. 

Enterprise Information.—The Committee recommends 

$47,087,000 for enterprise information, $680,000 below the budget 

request, and $2,714,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. 

The change to the budget request is a decrease of $680,000 for the 

‘‘disaster.gov’’ initiative. 

Science Support.—The Committee recommends $72,337,000 for 

science support, the same as the budget request and $6,753,000 

above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. 

Facilities.—The Committee recommends $96,197,000 for facilities, $1,471,000 above the budget request and $1,586,000 above the 

fiscal year 2005 enacted level. The change to the request is an increase of $1,471,000 to restore rental payments associated with the 

mineral assessments program. 

Bill Language.—Language is included in Title IV—General Provisions concerning egovernment initiatives and competitive 

sourcing studies. 

MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE

The Minerals Management Service is responsible for collecting, 

distributing, accounting and auditing revenues from mineral leases 

on Federal and Indian lands. In fiscal year 2005, MMS expects to 

collect and distribute about $9.5 billion from active Federal and Indian leases. The MMS also manages the offshore energy and mineral resources on the Nation’s outer continental shelf (OCS). To 

date, the OCS program has been focused primarily on oil and gas 

leasing. Over the past several years, MMS has been exploring the 

possible development of other marine mineral resources, especially 

sand and gravel. With the passage of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, 

MMS assumed increased responsibility for oil spill research, including the promotion of increased oil spill response capabilities, and 

for oil spill financial responsibility certifications of offshore platforms and pipelines. The MMS also operates the Interior Franchise 

Fund: the entrepreneurial GovWorks enterprise provides important 

procurement services to a variety of governmental agencies. 

55 

ROYALTY AND OFFSHORE MINERALS MANAGEMENT

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $166,820,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 160,416,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 152,676,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥14,144,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ¥7,740,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 

56 


Insert graphic folio 014 20754A.014
57 


Insert graphic folio 015 20754A.015
58 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $152,676,000 for 

royalty and offshore minerals management, a decrease of 

$7,740,000 below the budget request and $14,144,000 below the 

2005 enacted level. In addition, the Committee recommends use of 

$122,730,000 in receipts, which agrees with the Administration request to increase receipts and fees by $19,000,000. The Committee 

recommendation provides for the requested activities with two exceptions noted below, and provides small increases for fixed costs. 

The Committee has recommended bill language which allows the 

royalty-in-kind (RIK) program to continue hereafter; this allows the 

MMS to recover transportation costs, salaries, and other administrative costs directly related to the royalty-in-kind program. Therefore, the $9,800,000 requested for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 

to the RIK conversion initiative and the CAM program funding initiative are not included in the appropriation. The Committee encourages the MMS to establish multi-year agreements for RIK 

transportation and processing, if advantageous to the Federal government. 

Bill Language.—Language is included earmarking $77,529,000 

for royalty management activities, a decrease of $9,800,000 below 

the request and an increase of $2,112,000 above the enacted level. 

OIL SPILL RESEARCH

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $7,006,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 7,006,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 7,006,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... 0 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $7,006,000 to be derived from the 

Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, to conduct oil spill research and financial responsibility and inspection activities associated with the 

Oil Pollution Act of 1990, Public Law 101–380. The Committee recommendation is equal to the budget request and the fiscal year 

2005 level. 

OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

(OSM), through its regulation and technology account, regulates 

surface coal mining operations to ensure that the environment is 

protected during those operations and that the land is adequately 

reclaimed once mining is completed. The OSM accomplishes this 

mission by providing grants to those States that maintain their 

own regulatory and reclamation programs and by conducting oversight of State programs. Further, the OSM administers the regulatory programs in the States that do not have their own programs 

and on Federal and Tribal lands. Through its abandoned mine land 

(AML) reclamation fund account, the OSM provides environmental 

restoration at abandoned coal mines using tonnage-based fees collected from current coal production operations. In their 

unreclaimed condition these abandoned sites may endanger public 

health and safety or prevent the beneficial use of land and water 

resources. 

59 

REGULATION AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $108,368,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 110,535,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 110,535,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +2,167,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ 0 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 

60 


Insert graphic folio 016 20754A.016
61 

The Committee recommends $110,535,000, the budget request, for regulation and technology, including the use of $100,000 in civil 

penalty collections. This is $2,167,000 above the 2005 level. The increase is to offset partially increases in uncontrollable costs for 

States and the OSM and for other requested activities. 

ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION FUND

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $188,205,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 246,014,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 188,014,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥191,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ¥58,000,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 

62 


Insert graphic folio 017 20754A.017
63 

The Committee recommends $188,014,000 for the abandoned 

mine reclamation fund, $58,000,000 below the budget request and 

$191,000 below the fiscal year 2005 level. The recommendation 

does not include the requested allocation of $58,000,000 to implement the Administration’s legislative proposal which would return 

the State share balances to certified States. The recommendation 

includes other aspects of the Administration request under this 

heading. The Committee has retained language, as in past years, 

which limits funding for minimum program States to $1,500,000. 

The Committee recommendation does not include the special authority for Maryland grants. 

The Committee has included language which transfers the balance in the fund for the rural abandoned mine program (RAMP), 

which has not been used for 10 years, to the Federal share fund, 

so the funds could be used in the future for emergencies and other 

Federal obligations. 

The Committee sees merit in the Administration’s previous legislative proposal to extend and modify the Surface Mining Control 

and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). The Committee notes that legislative action is still pending, so funds are not included at this time 

for its implementation. The Committee encourages the authorizing 

committees to act on this reasonable legislative proposal, which 

would increase the rate at which dangerous abandoned sites would 

be reclaimed; do so at a lower cost; and provide a fair and reasonable method of compensating Wyoming and other governments, 

which have completed abandoned coal mine reclamation. Absent 

legislative action, existing law will allow continued distribution of 

AML funds to States in a manner similar to that which occurred 

in fiscal year 2005. 

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

The Bureau of Indian Affairs was created in 1824. Its mission is 

founded on a government-to-government relationship and trust responsibility that results from treaties with Native groups. The Bureau delivers services to over 1.5 million Native Americans through 

12 regional offices and 83 agency offices. In addition, the Bureau 

provides education programs to Native Americans through the operation of 118 day schools, 52 boarding schools, and 14 dormitories. 

The Bureau administers more than 45 million acres of tribally 

owned land, 10 million acres of individually owned land, and over 

309,000 acres of Federally owned land, which is held in trust status. 

OPERATION OF INDIAN PROGRAMS

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $1,926,091,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 1,924,230,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 1,992,737,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +66,646,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +68,507,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 

64 


Insert graphic folio 018 20754A.018
65 


Insert graphic folio 019 20754A.019
66 


Insert graphic folio 020 20754A.020
67 


Insert graphic folio 021 20754A.021
68 

The Committee recommends $1,992,737,000 for the operation of Indian programs, $68,507,000 above the budget request and 

$66,646,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. 

The Committee agrees with the Bureau that an alternative budget structure for the operation of Indian programs is badly needed. 

The current budget structure is confusing and complex and offers 

little opportunity to review funding levels and assess performance 

on a programmatic level. However, the Committee is concerned 

that there was inadequate consultation with Tribes when preparing 

this new budget structure. The Committee is also concerned that 

the process of making budgetary data available to Tribes is inadequate. 

The Committee directs the Bureau to do the following: 

1. Consult with Tribal leaders on an alternative budget structure 

that is: (1) aligned programmatically, (2) provides full transparency 

for Tribal priority allocations funding, (3) increases accountability 

for Bureau programs and program managers, and (4) clearly delineates funding levels of the central and regional offices. The Committee expects a progress report by October 31, 2005. The Committee directs the Bureau to submit a revised budget structure as 

a part of the fiscal year 2007 budget justification. 

2. Develop an internet website, hosted by the Office of the Secretary, that: (1) allows Tribes to access Bureau of Indian Affairs 

and Office of Special Trustee budget information, (2) displays the 

distribution of funding that affects Indian country, and (3) contains 

information and links to all Federal grant programs that provide 

funding for Indian country. 

3. Submit a report, by December 31, 2005, outlining the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs current process for consulting Tribes and Tribal 

leaders on administrative, funding, and operational changes to programs and projects. 

The Bureau’s regulations prescribe detailed procedures for placing land into trust, including consideration of the impact on local 

tax revenues and jurisdictional conflicts that may arise. The Committee directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a study of Bureau procedures and practices in implementing 

these regulations, including the role played by Tribes that contract 

with BIA to manage real estate service programs. The GAO should 

report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no 

later than May 1, 2006. The Committee is aware that GAO studies 

can take time, and directs the GAO to undertake this study as soon 

as the Interior Appropriations bill passes the House floor. 

Tribal Priority Allocations.—The Committee recommends 

$778,609,000 for Tribal priority allocations, $17,920,000 above the 

request and $8,526,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. 

Changes from the budget request include increases of $1,500,000 

for Indian Child Welfare Act activities, $6,420,000 for welfare assistance, $8,838,000 for Johnson O’Malley assistance grants, and 

$1,162,000 for community fire protection. 

The funding increase for Indian Child Welfare Act activities 

should be used for counseling and after-school care programs for atrisk children. 

The Committee has restored the proposed reductions to the welfare assistance program, the Johnson O’Malley assistance grants, 

and the community fire protection program within the Tribal priVerDate Aug 04 2004 07:10 May 14, 2005 Jkt 021162 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR080.XXX HR080
69 

ority allocations. The Committee feels that the justification for the 

reductions—that there are other programs in the government that 

could provide these funds—is completely unfounded. The budget request provided no information to support claims that other funding 

sources are readily available to offset the reductions in this budget. 

Other Recurring Programs.—The Committee recommends 

$636,337,000 for other recurring programs, $34,036,000 above the 

budget request and $23,418,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted 

level. Changes from the budget request include increases of 

$15,000,000 for Indian school equalization program (ISEP) formula 

funds, $3,360,000 to restore the early childhood development program, $5,000,000 for student transportation, $1,200,000 for irrigation operations and maintenance, $3,750,000 to partially restore 

the Washington timber-fish-wildlife program, $1,806,000 for the 

Chippewa/Ottawa Resource Authority (CORA), $3,000,000 for the 

inter-tribal bison council, $320,000 for the Upper Columbia United 

Tribes, and $600,000 for the circle of flight program. 

The funding increase provided for the ISEP should be directed to 

basic educational programs, with one exception. The Committee directs the Bureau to provide $2,000,000 to the FOCUS program for 

assisting at-risk students, encouraging more parental participation 

in schools, and encouraging participation in after-school activities. 

The Committee directs the Bureau to report, by December 31, 

2005, on the allocation and use of FOCUS funds. 

The funding increase in the irrigation operations and maintenance program is to upgrade irrigation systems for the Navajo Agriculture Products Industry. This funding is in addition to the base 

funding increase of $750,000 proposed in the budget for the Navajo 

irrigation project. 

Within the funding provided for the Washington timber-fish-wildlife program, $1,000,000 should be used for the mass marking of 

salmon. 

Non Recurring Programs.—The Committee recommends 

$67,691,000 for nonrecurring programs, $2,366,000 above the budget request and $8,294,000 below the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. 

The increases above the budget request are $396,000 for SeminoleFlorida Everglades restoration and $1,970,000 to restore reductions 

to the endangered species program. 

Central Office Operations.—The Committee recommends 

$151,534,000 for central office operations, the same as the budget 

request and $11,513,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. 

The Committee agrees with the requested increase for trust services to address the probate backlog. 

Regional Office Operations.—The Committee recommends 

$41,590,000 for regional office operations, the same as the budget 

request and $228,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. 

Special Programs and Pooled Overhead.—The Committee recommends $317,516,000 for special programs and pooled overhead, 

$14,185,000 above the budget request and $31,255,000 above the 

fiscal year 2005 enacted level. Changes from the budget request include increases of $8,500,000 for law enforcement activities, 

$3,451,000 for the United Tribes Technical College, $1,726,000 for 

Crownpoint Institute and $508,000 for the National ironworkers 

training program. 

70 

The funding increases provided for law enforcement should be 

used for high priority law enforcement needs in Indian country including, but not limited to, community policing programs and drug 

enforcement. None of these funds should be retained by the central 

or regional offices for administrative activities. The Bureau should 

provide the Committee with a report detailing the use of these 

funds by December 31, 2005. 

The Committee believes that the United Tribes Technical College 

and Crownpoint Institute are institutions of higher learning that 

provide an educational benefit to Indian country. The continued reduction of funding for these institutions in budget requests is of 

great concern. The Committee urges the Department and the Office 

of Management and Budget to give these colleges full consideration 

in future budget requests and to work with these institutions to resolve concerns over funding formulas. 

CONSTRUCTION

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $319,129,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 232,137,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 284,137,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥34,992,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +52,000,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 

71 


Insert graphic folio 022 20754A.022
72 

The Committee recommends $284,137,000 for construction, 

$52,000,000 above the budget request and $34,992,000 below the 

fiscal year 2005 enacted level. 

Education.—The Committee recommends $225,875,000 for education construction, $52,000,000 above the budget request and 

$37,497,000 below the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. Changes from 

the budget request include increases of $32,000,000 for replacement school construction, $1,000,000 for employee housing, and 

$19,000,000 for facilities improvement and repair. 

The Committee is concerned about the reduction to Indian school 

construction and repair. This Committee has made substantial 

progress in replacing Indian schools, but much remains to be done. 

The Committee does not agree that the Bureau needs to reduce 

funding for new schools to finish ongoing projects. The Committee 

has restored a portion of the funding and directs the Bureau to proceed with the construction of the next schools on the Bureau’s priority list. The Committee has also included an increase to the 

school maintenance and repair program that should be used to address the most immediate health and safety maintenance needs in 

Bureau schools. 

Public Safety and Justice.—The Committee recommends 

$11,777,000 for public safety and justice construction, the same as 

the budget request and $4,396,000 above the 2005 enacted level. 

Resources Management.—The Committee recommends 

$38,272,000 for resources management construction, the same as 

the budget request and $2,017,000 below the 2005 enacted level. 

General Administration and Construction Management.—The 

Committee recommends $8,213,000 for general administration and 

construction management, the same as the budget request and 

$126,000 above the 2005 enacted level. 

INDIAN LAND AND WATER CLAIM SETTLEMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS

PAYMENTS TO INDIANS

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $44,150,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 24,754,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 34,754,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥9,396,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +10,000,000 

The Committee recommends $34,754,000 for Indian land and 

water claim settlements and miscellaneous payments to Indians, 

$10,000,000 above the budget request and $9,396,000 below the 

2005 enacted level. Funding includes $634,000 for the White Earth 

land settlement, $254,000 for the Hoopa-Yurok, $144,000 for Pyramid Lake, $8,111,000 for Colorado Ute, $10,167,000 for Cherokee, 

Choctaw and Chickasaw settlement, $10,000,000 for the Quinault 

settlement, and $5,444,000 for the Zuni Water settlement. 

Bill Language.—Language is included under Indian Land and 

Water Claims Settlements providing $10,000,000 for payment to 

the Quinault Indian Nation for the north boundary settlement 

agreement. 

73 

INDIAN GUARANTEED LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $6,332,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 6,348,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 6,348,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +16,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $6,348,000 for the Indian guaranteed loan program account, the same as the budget request and 

$16,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. 

DEPARTMENTAL OFFICES

INSULAR AFFAIRS

The Office of Insular Affairs (OIA) was established on August 4, 

1995, through Secretarial Order No. 3191, which also abolished the 

former Office of Territorial and International Affairs. The OIA has 

important responsibilities to help the United States government 

fulfill its responsibilities to the four U.S. territories of Guam, 

American Samoa (AS), U.S. Virgin Islands and the Commonwealth 

of the Northern Marianas Islands (CNMI) and also the three freely 

associated States: the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), the 

Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) and the Republic of Palau. 

The permanent and trust fund payments to the territories and the 

compact nations provide substantial financial resources to these 

governments. During fiscal year 2004 new financial arrangements 

for the Compacts of Free Association with the FSM and the RMI 

were implemented; this also included mandatory payments for certain activities previously provided in discretionary appropriations 

as well as Compact impact payments of $30,000,000 per year split 

among Guam, CNMI, AS, and Hawaii. 

ASSISTANCE TO TERRITORIES

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $75,581,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 74,263,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 76,563,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +982,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +2,300,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 

74 


Insert graphic folio 023 20754A.023
75 

The Committee recommends $76,563,000 for assistance to territories, $982,000 above the fiscal year 2005 level and $2,300,000 

above the budget request. 

Territorial Assistance.—The Committee recommends $25,733,000 

for territorial assistance, $651,000 above the fiscal year 2005 level 

and $2,300,000 above the budget request. Increases to the budget 

request include $500,000 for additional oversight of the implementation of the Compacts of Free Association, $800,000 for payments 

to replace the Prior Service Trust Fund, and $1,000,000 to continue 

health care programs in the RMI. The Committee directs that technical assistance grant support to the Pacific Basin Development 

Commission be maintained at no less than the fiscal year 2005 

level. 

The Committee recommends an additional $500,000 to the Office 

of Insular Affairs subactivity to support oversight of the implementation of the Compacts of Free Association, including at least one 

additional position and increased oversight travel funds for the 

Honolulu Field Office and additional support at headquarters. The 

Committee notes that the field office is charged with managing 

over $114,000,000 in Compact sector grant funds, and was given an 

additional responsibility of managing the $18,000,000 Supplemental Education Grant program which replaced Federal programs. Although the Office of Insular Affairs is working diligently 

with five Honolulu-based and two in-country grant managers, the 

Committee has determined that additional funding for oversight 

and management is essential. This is especially true for the education sector, which currently has one manager to oversee 

$57,000,000 in grants to both the FSM and RMI. The Committee 

expects the Department to continue reviewing funding and staffing 

levels for Compact oversight so the Department can assure the 

Congress and the American public that all compact grants funds 

are used appropriately for high priority needs. 

The Committee reiterates its support for the agreement among 

the pension systems of the Republic of Palau, the CNMI, the RMI, 

and the FSM to assume responsibilities for the enrollees of the 

Prior Service Benefits Trust Fund. The Committee recommendation 

includes $800,000 for distribution among the pension systems for 

payments to the enrollees, provided the agreement is fully implemented by each jurisdiction. The Committee directs the Department to continue to work with the Board of Directors of the Prior 

Service Benefits Trust Fund and the directors of each pension system to ensure that the agreements are implemented and that prior 

service benefits can be paid to the enrollees. The Committee also 

directs that this funding be reprogrammed for general technical assistance uses if there is a failure to fully implement the new agreement. 

The Committee has also included $1,000,000 for continuation of 

health care programs in the RMI. The funds shall be used first to 

provide primary health care to members of the Enewetak, Bikini, 

Rongelap, and Utrik communities residing on Enewetak Atoll, Kili 

Island, Mejetto Island, Rongelap Atoll following resettlement, and 

Utrik Atoll. Such primary medical care shall consist of a clinic with 

at least one doctor and an assistant, necessary supplies, and 

logistical support. 

76 

The Committee notes that the OIA spent $655,000 on two business development conferences in Los Angeles. This required about 

4,000 OIA FTE hours and extensive contractor involvement; 13 

staff from DC and OIA field offices in American Samoa and the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands traveled to Los 

Angeles for the conference. The Committee directs the OIA to provide the House and Senate Appropriations Committees project cost 

plans before and after similar future conferences, as well as for the 

future ‘‘Business Opportunities Missions’’. It is imperative that 

these economic development efforts be reasonable and cost effective 

given the great need for technical assistance in the territories. 

American Samoa.—The Committee recommends $23,110,000 for 

American Samoa operations as requested, an increase of $331,000 

above the fiscal year 2005 level. 

The Committee has reviewed recent work by the GAO concerning 

accountability for key Federal grants to American Samoa. Through 

Presidential delegation, the Secretary of the Interior exercises ultimate control and responsibility for, and has authority to take a 

proactive role in, the administration of the Territory of American 

Samoa. The Committee urges the Secretary to use this authority 

to coordinate with all Federal agencies that award funds to American Samoa and to encourage the other agencies to consider designating American Samoa a high-risk grantee under the Grants 

Management Common Rule. A coordinated approach to designation 

could include a common, basic set of special conditions to be applied by all Federal grant awarding agencies to grants to American 

Samoa. The designation could also include a basic set of corrective 

actions that American Samoa must take, including earning clean 

single audit opinions for two consecutive years before the special 

conditions are removed. 

The Committee also notes that the Lyndon B. Johnson Tropical 

Medical Center’s poor physical infrastructure weakens its ability to 

deliver a minimum standard of care to the population of American 

Samoa. The Committee urges the Secretary to coordinate with 

other Federal agencies to resolve infrastructure and safety deficiencies at this Center to ensure continued Federal funding for the 

island’s only medical service provider. The Committee directs the 

Secretary to designate an additional $2,000,000 to the Center’s 

base budget from the total operations grants made available to the 

American Samoa Government, to be used to help alleviate the 

shortages of medicines and medical supplies at the Center. The 

Committee also urges the Secretary to clearly assign staff responsibility for coordinating Federal activities in American Samoa. 

Northern Mariana Islands/Covenant Grants.—The Committee 

recommends $27,720,000 for CNMI covenant grants, the same as 

the budget request and the fiscal year 2005 level. The Committee 

directs the Office of Insular Affairs to implement the allocations 

presented in the budget request, however the Secretary may use 

discretion to modify the Covenant funding formula to address 

court-ordered infrastructure projects in the respective territories. 

77 

COMPACT OF FREE ASSOCIATION

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $5,450,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 4,862,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 5,362,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥88,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +500,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 

78 


Insert graphic folio 024 20754A.024
79 

The Committee recommends $5,362,000 for the compact of free association, $500,000 above the budget request and $88,000 below 

the fiscal year 2005 level. The Committee recommendation continues Enewetak support. 

DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $95,821,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 120,155,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 118,755,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +22,934,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ¥1,400,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 

80 


Insert graphic folio 025 20754A.025
81 

The Committee recommends $118,755,000 for salaries and expenses for departmental management, a decrease of $1,400,000 

below the budget request and $22,934,000 above the 2005 enacted 

level. Changes from the budget request include decreases of 

$500,000 for Take Pride in America, $700,000 for law enforcement 

and security, and $200,000 for partnership training. Departmental 

programs that are denied requested increases in this appropriation 

should not be augmented with staffing and funds from individual 

bureaus or any other source to achieve the requested level of activity. 

Land Appraisal Consolidation.—The Committee has gone along 

with the consolidation of bureau-level appraisal offices into a central, Department-level office. However, the Committee was led to 

believe that this consolidation would result in significant cost savings. The Committee approves the budget request increase of 

$7,441,000 for appraisal services, but expects future budget requests to contain increases for fixed costs only. 

Partnership Training.—The Committee has denied funding for 

partnership training. 

Bill Language.—Language is included in General Provisions, Department of the Interior, which limits the number of FTEs to 34 

and detailees to 8 in the Office of Law Enforcement and Security. 

Since the tragedy of September 11, 2001, the Committee has responded to the need for stronger emergency response and coordination among the Interior Department’s bureaus. Significant funds 

have been provided to the individual bureaus to supplement their 

security needs. The Committee believes that the level specified in 

the bill language is sufficient, given tight fiscal constraints, to deal 

with security needs. 

PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES

Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) provides for payments to local 

units of government containing certain federally owned lands. 

These payments are designed to supplement other Federal land receipt sharing payments that governments may be receiving. The recipients may use payments received for any governmental purpose. 

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $226,805,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 200,000,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 230,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +3,195,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +30,000,000 

The Committee recommends $230,000,000 for PILT, $30,000,000 

above the budget request and $3,195,000 above the fiscal year 2005 

level. 

CENTRAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS FUND

The Central Hazardous Materials Fund was established to include funding for remedial investigations/feasibility studies and 

cleanup of hazardous waste sites for which the Department of the 

Interior is liable pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability Act. The fund includes sums 

82 

recovered from or paid by a party as reimbursement for remedial 

action or response activities. 

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $9,855,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 9,855,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 9,855,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... 0 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $9,855,000, the same as the budget 

request and the fiscal year 2005 enacted level, for the central hazardous materials fund. This account was previously located in the 

Bureau of Land Management. 

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $51,656,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 55,752,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 55,340,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +3,684,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ¥412,000 

The Committee recommends $55,340,000 for salaries and expenses of the Office of the Solicitor, a decrease of $412,000 below 

the budget request and an increase of $3,684,000 above the fiscal 

year 2005 enacted level. Changes from the budget request include 

decreases of $207,000 for support for legal staff, $200,000 for two 

additional FOIA appeals support positions, and $5,000 for training, 

audit, and evaluation. Departmental programs that are denied requested increases in this appropriation should not be augmented 

with staffing and funds from individual bureaus or any other 

source to achieve the requested level of activity. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $37,275,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 40,999,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 39,566,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +2,291,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ¥1,433,000 

The Committee recommends $39,566,000 for salaries and expenses of the Office of Inspector General, a decrease of $1,433,000 

below the budget request and an increase of $2,291,000 above the 

fiscal year 2005 enacted level. Changes from the budget request include decreases of $470,000 for two FTEs and PCS moves for the 

Office of Evaluations and Quick Response, $750,000 for five FTEs 

for investigations, $100,000 for IT standardization, accreditation, 

and equipment, $59,000 for security clearances, and $54,000 for 

mentor program training. Departmental programs that are denied 

83 

requested increases in this appropriation should not be augmented 

with staffing and funds from individual bureaus or any other 

source to achieve the requested level of activity. 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL TRUSTEE FOR AMERICAN INDIANS

The Office of Special Trustee for American Indians (OST) was established by the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform 

Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–412). The Special Trustee is charged 

with general oversight of Indian trust asset reform efforts Department-wide to ensure proper and efficient discharge of the Secretary’s trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and individual Indians. The Office of the Special Trustee was created to ensure that 

the Department of the Interior establishes appropriate policies and 

procedures, develops necessary systems, and takes affirmative actions to reform the management of Indian trust funds. In carrying 

out the management and oversight of the Indian trust funds, the 

Secretary has a responsibility to ensure that trust accounts are 

properly maintained, invested and reported in accordance with the 

American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994, 

Congressional action, and other applicable laws. 

The Special Trustee for American Indians also has responsibility 

for the related financial trust functions including deposit, investment, and disbursement of trust funds. The Department has responsibility for what may be the largest land trust in the world. 

Indian trust lands today encompass approximately 56 million acres 

of land—over 10 million acres belonging to individual Indians and 

nearly 45 million acres owned by Indian Tribes. On these lands, Interior manages over 100,000 leases for individual Indians and 

Tribes. Leasing, use permits, sale revenues, and interest of approximately $192 million per year are collected for approximately 

245,000 individual Indian money accounts, and about $414 million 

per year is collected for about 1,400 Tribal accounts per year. In 

addition, the trust manages approximately $3 billion in Tribal 

funds and $400 million in individual Indian funds. 

FEDERAL TRUST PROGRAMS

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $193,540,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 269,397,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 191,593,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥1,947,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ¥77,804,000 

The Committee recommends $193,593,000 for the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians, $77,804,000 below the budget 

request and $1,947,000 below the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. 

Program operations, support, and improvements.—The Committee recommends $189,361,000 for program operations, support 

and improvements, $77,804,000 below the budget request and 

$1,963,000 below the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. The reduction 

is for historical accounting. 

The Committee has included the requested funds in the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs and Office of Special Trustee for trust management reform and improving trust systems, and has continued historical accounting activities at the fiscal year 2005 level. The Committee does not agree to the large increase requested in historical 

84 

accounting and has shifted this funding to help offset the reductions proposed in the Administration’s request to Indian education 

and health care. 

Executive Direction.—The Committee recommends $2,232,000 for 

executive direction, the same as the budget request, and $16,000 

above the 2005 enacted level. 

Since 1996, the committee has appropriated hundreds of millions 

of dollars for activities related to the Cobell v. Norton litigation. 

The Committee feels very strongly that these funds could have 

been better used to fund greatly needed health and education programs in Indian country. The Committee believes that this case 

must be resolved without negatively impacting future funding levels for Indian programs in this bill. The Committee recognizes that, 

in addition to mediation talks that have taken place in the last 

year, the House and Senate authorizing committees have made 

commitments to develop a comprehensive legislative solution to 

this ongoing problem. 

The Committee rejects the notion that, in passing the American 

Indian Trust Management Reform Act of 1994, Congress had any 

intent of ordering an historical accounting on the scale of that 

which continues to be ordered by the Court. Such an undertaking 

would certainly be a poor use of Federal and trust resources. 

Bill Language.—As in fiscal year 2005 and in previous years, the 

Committee has included bill language under the Office of Special 

Trustee that limits the amount of funding available for historical 

accounting to $58,000,000. The clear intent of the Committee is to 

definitively limit the amount of funding available to conduct historical accounting activities. 

INDIAN LAND CONSOLIDATION

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $34,514,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 34,514,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 34,514,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... 0 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $34,514,000 for Indian land consolidation, the budget request and the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. 

NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT AND RESTORATION

NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT FUND

The purpose of the Natural Resource Damage Assessment Fund 

is to provide the basis for claims against responsible parties for the 

restoration of injured natural resources. Assessments ultimately 

will lead to the restoration of injured resources and reimbursement 

for reasonable assessment costs from responsible parties through 

negotiated settlements or other legal actions. 

Operating on a ‘‘polluter pays’’ principle, the program anticipates recovering over $32 million in receipts in fiscal year 2005, with the 

vast majority to be used for the restoration of injured resources. 

The program works to restore sites ranging in size from small town 

landfills to the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989 in Alaska. 

Prior to fiscal year 1999, this account was included under the 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service appropriation. The account 

85 

was moved to the Departmental Offices appropriation because its 

functions relate to several different bureaus within the Department 

of the Interior. 

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $5,737,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 6,106,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 6,106,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +369,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $6,106,000, the budget request, for 

the natural resource damage assessment fund, an increase of 

$369,000 above the fiscal year 2005 level. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Sections 101 and 102 provide for emergency transfer authority 

with the approval of the Secretary. 

Section 103 provides for the use of appropriations for certain 

services. 

Sections 104 through 106 prohibit the expenditure of funds for 

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leasing activities in certain areas. 

These OCS provisions are addressed under the Minerals Management Service. 

Section 107 prohibits the National Park Service from reducing 

recreation fees for non-local travel through any park unit. 

Section 108 permits the transfer of funds between the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs and the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians. 

Section 109 continues a provision allowing the hiring of administrative law judges to address the Indian probate backlog. 

Section 110 continues a provision permitting the redistribution of 

tribal priority allocation and tribal base funds to alleviate funding 

inequities. 

Section 111 continues a provision requiring the allocation of Bureau of Indian Affairs postsecondary schools funds consistent with 

unmet needs. 

Section 112 continues a provision permitting the conveyance of 

the Twin Cities Research Center of the former Bureau of Mines for 

the benefit of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Section 113 continues a provision authorizing the Secretary of 

the Interior to use helicopter or motor vehicles to capture and 

transport horses and burros at the Sheldon and Hart National 

Wildlife Refuges. 

Section 114 authorizes federal funds for Shenandoah Valley Battlefield NHD and Ice Age NST to be transferred to a State, local 

government, or other governmental land management entity for acquisition of lands. 

Section 115 continues a provision prohibiting the closure of the 

underground lunchroom at Carlsbad Caverns NP, NM. 

Section 116 continues a provision preventing the demolition of a 

bridge between New Jersey and Ellis Island. 

Section 117 continues a provision limiting compensation for the 

Special Master and Court Monitor appointed by the Court in Cobell 

v. Norton to 200 percent of the highest Senior Executive Service 

rate of pay. 

86 

Section 118 continues a provision allowing the Secretary to pay 

private attorney fees for employees and former employees in connection with Cobell v. Norton. 

Section 119 continues a provision dealing with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s responsibilities for mass marking of salmonid 

stocks. 

Section 120 requires the use of Departmental Management funds 

for operational needs at the Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge 

airport. 

Section 121 prohibits the conduct of gaming under the Indian 

Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) on lands described 

in section 123 of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001, or land that is contiguous to that 

land. 

Section 122 continues a provision prohibiting the use of funds to 

study or implement a plan to drain or reduce water levels in Lake 

Powell. 

Section 123 allows the National Indian Gaming Commission to collect $12,000,000 in fees for fiscal year 2006. 

Section 124 makes funds appropriated for fiscal year 2006 available to the tribes within the California Tribal Trust Reform Consortium and others on the same basis as funds were distributed in 

fiscal year 2005, and separates this demonstration project from the 

Department of the Interior’s trust reform reorganization. 

Section 125 provides for the renewal of certain grazing permits 

in the Jarbidge Field office of the Bureau of Land Management. 

Section 126 authorizes the acquisition of lands and leases for 

Ellis Island. 

Section 127 permits the Secretary of the Interior to issue grazing 

permits within the Mojave National Preserve. 

Section 128 implements rules concerning winter snowmobile use 

on Yellowstone National Park. 

Section 129 limits the use of funds for staffing for the Department of Interior’s Office of Law Enforcement and Security. 

TITLE II—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

The Environmental Protection Agency was created by Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, which consolidated nine programs 

from five different agencies and departments. Major EPA programs 

include air and water quality, drinking water, hazardous waste, research, pesticides, radiation, toxic substances, enforcement and 

compliance assurance, pollution prevention, oil spills, Superfund, 

Brownfields, and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank program. 

In addition, EPA provides Federal assistance for wastewater treatment, sewer overflow control, drinking water facilities, and other 

water infrastructure projects. The agency is responsible for conducting research and development, establishing environmental 

standards through the use of risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, monitoring pollution conditions, seeking compliance through a 

variety of means, managing audits and investigations, and providing technical assistance and grant support to States and tribes, 

which are delegated authority for actual program implementation. 

Under existing statutory authority, the Agency may contribute to 

specific homeland security efforts and may participate in some 

international environmental activities. 

87 

Among the statutes for which the Environmental Protection 

Agency has sole or significant oversight responsibilities are: 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended. 

Toxic Substances Control Act, as amended. 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended. 

Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, as amended. 

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as 

amended. 

Oil Pollution Act of 1990. 

Public Health Service Act (Title XIV), as amended. 

Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended. 

Clean Air Act, as amended. 

Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended. 

Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002. 

Bioterrorism Act of 2002. 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended. 

Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization 

Act of 2002 (amending CERCLA). 

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986. 

Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended. 

Pollution Prosecution Act of 1990. 

Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2003. 

For fiscal year 2006, the Committee recommends $7,708,027,000 

for the Environmental Protection Agency, a decrease of 

$318,458,000 below the fiscal year 2005 level and $187,427,000 

above the budget request. Changes to the budget request are detailed in each of the appropriation accounts. 

The Committee agrees to the following: 

1. In 2001, the EPA requested that the National Academy of 

Sciences review the situation regarding the use of human studies. 

In its 2005 report, the Committee urged EPA to consider the Academy’s recommendations on the use of human volunteer studies in 

its regulatory programs. EPA is currently following the Academy’s 

recommendations on the use of human volunteer studies and, on 

February 8, 2005, issued a Federal Register notice clarifying its 

policy. The notice outlines EPA’s plans for rulemaking. The Committee commends EPA for its clarification of policy with respect to 

human studies and will continue to monitor the Agency’s efforts in 

this area. 

2. The Committee continues to be concerned that unclear regulations, conflicting court decisions, and inadequate scientific information are creating confusion about the extent to which reporting requirements in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and the Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know Act cover emissions from poultry, dairy, 

or livestock operations. Producers want to meet their environmental obligations but need clarification from the Environmental 

Protection Agency on whether these laws apply to their operations. 

The Committee believes that an expeditious resolution of this matter is warranted. 

3. The Committee expects the EPA to prepare its fiscal year 2007 

budget justification in the order specified in the table accomVerDate Aug 04 2004 07:10 May 14, 2005 Jkt 021162 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR080.XXX HR080
88 

panying this report and to delineate clearly the differences between 

the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and the fiscal year 2007 request 

for each activity. The Committee recommends discontinuing the annual operating plan beginning in fiscal year 2006. The Committee 

has approved the fiscal year 2005 operating plan. 

4. The Committee generally has provided funding for fixed cost 

increases, as requested, including pay costs, rent, utilities, and security. The Committee has also agreed to many of the proposed realignments of programs. EPA should only make further adjustments, consistent with the requirements of the reprogramming 

guidelines contained in the front of this report. Also, in accordance 

with the reprogramming guidelines, the Committee should be notified regarding reorganizations of offices, programs, or activities 

prior to the planned implementation of such reorganizations. 

5. The EPA should review the distribution of funds among regions and make adjustments, as needed, to ensure that funding is 

strategically aligned to meet the highest priority needs. 

6. EPA should establish and enforce, through the Office of Environmental Information, an information technology management 

policy with an emphasis on standardization across all of EPA. 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

The Science and Technology account funds all Environmental 

Protection Agency research (including, by transfer of funds, Hazardous Substances Superfund research activities) carried out 

through grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements with other 

Federal agencies, States, universities, and private business, as well 

as in-house research. This account also funds personnel compensation and benefits, travel, supplies and operating expenses for all 

Agency research. Research addresses a wide range of environmental and health concerns across all environmental media and 

encompasses both long-term basic and near-term applied research 

to provide the scientific knowledge and technologies necessary for 

preventing, regulating, and abating pollution, and to anticipate 

emerging environmental issues. 

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $744,061,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 760,640,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 765,340,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +21,279,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +4,700,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 

89 


Insert graphic folio 026 20754A.026
90 


Insert graphic folio 027 20754A.027
91 


Insert graphic folio 028 20754A.028
92 


Insert graphic folio 029 20754A.029
93 


Insert graphic folio 030 20754A.030
94 

The Committee recommends $765,340,000 for science and technology, an increase of $21,279,000 above the fiscal year 2005 level 

and $4,700,000 above the budget request. In addition, the Committee recommends that $30,606,000, as requested, be transferred 

to this account from the Hazardous Substance Superfund account 

for ongoing research activities consistent with the intent of the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended. Changes to the budget request are 

detailed below. 

Air Toxics and Quality.—The Committee recommends a decrease 

of $7,000,000 for Federal support for the air toxics program. 

Climate Protection Program.—The Committee recommends an increase of $2,300,000 for the climate protection program. Direction 

on the use of these funds is provided below. 

Homeland Security.—The Committee recommends a decrease of 

$35,000,000 for Water Sentinel and related training, and a decrease of $8,000,000 in preparedness, response, and recovery for 

the decontamination program. While the amount provided is less 

than the budget request, there is an increase above the fiscal year 

2005 level for these programs. 

Research: Congressional Priorities.—The Committee recommends 

an increase of $40,000,000 for programs of national and regional 

significance that have been funded through this program/project in 

at least 3 of the last 4 years. Direction on the use of these funds 

is provided below. 

Human Health and Ecosystems.—The Committee recommends a 

net increase of $12,400,000 for human health and ecosystems including a decrease of $1,200,000 for computational toxicology and 

increases of $1,900,000 for endocrine disruptor research, $3,700,000 

for fellowships through the Science to Achieve Results program, 

and $8,000,000 for other human health and ecosystems research of 

which $4,000,000 is for exploratory grants, $2,900,000 is for ecosystem protection research, $600,000 is for aggregate risk research, 

and $500,000 is for condition assessments of estuaries in the Gulf 

of Mexico. 

The Committee agrees to the following: 

1. EPA is encouraged to increase its use of private sector capability in the clean automotive technology program. The increase 

provided for the climate protection program is to ensure that not 

less than $10,000,000 is used for competitively awarded contract 

research and engineering services and activities. The private sector 

has significant research capability that is used by EPA through 

this program, to develop clean, cost effective, highly fuel-efficient 

engines and powertrain technologies. 

2. The EPA should develop clear goals and milestones for the 

Water Sentinel program, including the use of real-time monitoring; 

seek the advice of the Science Advisory Board; and justify more 

clearly the funding request for the program, in the context of the 

overall plan, in the fiscal year 2007 budget request. 

3. The Committee does not agree with the transfer of research 

funds to the Office of Air and Radiation, the Office of Water, the 

Solid Waste and Emergency Response program, and the Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances program. The Office of Research and Development should coordinate closely with these offices on their research needs. There should be an emphasis on 

95 

using the Science to Achieve Results grants program whenever 

practicable. 4. The Committee has included $40,000,000 for Programs of National and Regional Significance with the expectation that the EPA 

will conduct a competitive solicitation among programs that have 

been added by the Congress to the Science and Technology account 

in at least 3 of the last 4 years. The Committee notes that many 

of these Congressional priorities provide invaluable assistance to 

the EPA and are performed at a cost substantially less than if EPA 

were to institute such programs in-house. A competitive solicitation 

should ensure that the highest priority national and regional programs continue to be funded. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS AND MANAGEMENT

The Environmental Programs and Management account encompasses a broad range of abatement, prevention, and compliance activities, and personnel compensation, benefits, travel, and expenses 

for all programs of the Agency except Science and Technology, Hazardous Substance Superfund, Leaking Underground Storage Tank 

Trust Fund, Oil Spill Response, and the Office of Inspector General. 

Abatement, prevention, and compliance activities include setting 

environmental standards, issuing permits, monitoring emissions 

and ambient conditions, and providing technical and legal assistance toward enforcement, compliance, and oversight. In most cases, 

the States are directly responsible for actual operation of the various environmental programs and the Agency’s activities include 

oversight and assistance. 

In addition to program costs, this account funds administrative 

costs associated with the operating programs of the Agency, including support for executive direction, policy oversight, resources management, general office and building services for program operations, and direct implementation of Agency environmental programs for Headquarters, the ten EPA Regional offices, and all nonresearch field operations. 

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $2,294,902,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 2,353,764,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 2,389,491,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +94,589,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +35,727,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 

96 


Insert graphic folio 031 20754A.031
97 


Insert graphic folio 032 20754A.032
98 


Insert graphic folio 033 20754A.033
99 


Insert graphic folio 034 20754A.034
100 


Insert graphic folio 035 20754A.035
101 


Insert graphic folio 036 20754A.036
102 


Insert graphic folio 037 20754A.037
103 


Insert graphic folio 038 20754A.038
104 

The Committee recommends $2,389,491,000 for environmental 

programs and management, an increase of $94,589,000 above the 

fiscal year 2005 level and $35,727,000 above the budget request. 

Changes to the budget request are detailed below. 

Brownfields.—The Committee recommends a decrease of 

$5,000,000 for Brownfields support. 

Air Toxics and Quality.—The Committee recommends a net decrease of $6,800,000 for air toxics and quality, including a decrease 

of $5,000,000 in Federal support for air quality management for 

the clean diesel initiative, an increase of $1,200,000 for stratospheric ozone/domestic programs, and a decrease of $3,000,000 for 

stratospheric ozone/multilateral fund. 

Climate Protection.—The Committee recommends a decrease of 

$4,000,000 for climate protection, including decreases of $500,000 

for Energy Star and $3,500,000 for the methane to markets initiative. 

Compliance.—The Committee recommends a decrease of 

$2,900,000 for compliance monitoring, including decreases of 

$1,800,000 to reduce the rescission-related restoration proposed in 

the budget and $1,100,000 for regional program support. 

Enforcement.—The Committee recommends a decrease of 

$4,000,000 for enforcement, including decreases of $3,000,000 for 

civil enforcement and $1,000,000 for criminal enforcement. 

Environmental Protection: Congressional Priorities.—The Committee recommends an increase of $40,000,000 for programs of national and regional significance that have been funded through this 

program/project in at least 3 of the last 4 years. Direction on the 

use of these funds is provided below. The Committee notes that the 

National Rural Water Association program has been moved to the 

Water: Health Protection/Drinking Water Programs portion of the 

environmental programs and management account. 

Geographic Programs.—The Committee recommends a net decrease of $2,532,000 for geographic programs, including increases 

of $1,045,000 for Lake Champlain, $1,523,000 for Long Island 

Sound, and $2,000,000 for Puget Sound, and decreases of 

$6,000,000 for community action for a renewed environment and 

$1,100,000 for regional geographic initiatives. 

Information Exchange/Outreach.—The Committee recommends a 

net increase of $5,000,000 for information exchange/outreach, including an increase of $9,000,000 for environmental education and 

a decrease of $4,000,000 for the exchange network. 

Information Technology/Data Management.—The Committee recommends a decrease of $10,000,000 for information technology/data 

management. A large amount of funding for these activities was 

transferred to the compliance program in the budget request. After 

accounting for that transfer, the Committee’s recommendation provides an increase above the fiscal year 2005 level for data system 

improvements. 

Operations and Administration.—The Committee recommends a 

decrease of $5,000,000 for facilities infrastructure and operations. 

Pesticide Licensing.—The Committee recommends a decrease of 

$3,041,000 for pesticides: review/reregistration of existing pesticides, which leaves an increase of $3,635,000 above the enacted 

level. 

105 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.—The Committee recommends a general reduction of $5,000,000 for RCRA activities. 

The Committee notes that, after this reduction, the Agency will retain an increase of nearly $3,000,000 above the fiscal year 2005 

level. The increase above the enacted level should be used for the 

highest priority activities. 

Toxics Risk Review and Prevention.—The Committee recommends a net decrease of $1,000,000 for toxics risk review and 

prevention, including an increase of $1,000,000 for chemical risk 

review and a decrease of $2,000,000 for the pollution prevention 

program. 

Water: Ecosystems.—The Committee recommends a net decrease 

of $17,000,000 for water/ecosystems, including a decrease of 

$22,000,000 for Great Lakes Legacy Act programs (which leaves an 

increase of 25 percent above the fiscal year 2005 level) and an increase of $5,000,000 for the National Estuary Program. Direction 

on both of these programs is provided below. 

Water: Human Health Protection.—The Committee recommends 

a net increase of $7,000,000 for water/human health protection, including a decrease of $3,000,000 for drinking water programs and 

an increase of $10,000,000 for the National Rural Water Association. 

Receipts from Toxics and Pesticides Fees.—The Administration 

proposed a $50,000,000 reduction to the environmental programs 

and management account under the assumption that legislation 

would be enacted to increase fees on pesticide registrations and 

that $50,000,000 would be made available, as a result, to offset appropriations. The Committee notes that no legislative proposal has 

been received from the Administration and it is unlikely that these 

receipts will be available for fiscal year 2006 as explained below. 

Therefore, the Committee recommends an increase of $50,000,000 

to ensure that critical programs in this area continue. The Committee believes that the budget should not assume the use of receipts that are dependent on the enactment of subsequent legislation unless such legislation is under active consideration by the 

Congress. 

The Committee agrees to the following: 

1. The pesticide Safety Education Program should be funded at 

$1,200,000 in fiscal year 2006. 

2. EPA has adopted regulations to reduce emissions from on-road 

heavy-duty diesel vehicles beginning in 2007 and from off-road 

heavy-duty diesel vehicles beginning in 2010. These regulations 

will apply to new vehicles and not to the millions of existing vehicles, which will probably not be fully replaced until 2030. Through 

the clean diesel initiative, EPA is working to retrofit existing vehicles with new emission reduction technologies. These include the 

accelerated use of new fuels, after-treatment of diesel exhaust with 

retrofit technology, and replacing and rebuilding older engines with 

new cleaner engine technology. The Committee has provided 

$10,000,000 in support of these efforts. 

3. A total of $24,446,000 is included for the National Estuary 

Program, which includes $500,000 for each of the 28 NEP estuaries 

and $10,446,000 for other activities in support of the program. 

4. The Committee has included $40,000,000 for Programs of National and Regional Significance with the expectation that the EPA 

106 

will conduct a competitive solicitation among special programs that 

have been added by the Congress to the Environmental Programs 

and Management account in at least 3 of the last 4 years. The 

Committee notes that many of these Congressional priorities provide invaluable assistance to the EPA and are performed at a cost 

substantially less than if EPA were to institute such programs in 

house. A competitive solicitation should ensure that the highest 

priority national and regional programs continue to be funded. 

5. The EPA needs to develop a clear plan for the Great Lakes 

Legacy Act implementation and explain in future budget requests 

how the requested funding for that program supports the plan. 

6. When Congress enacted the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) of 2003 to allow EPA to collect new pesticide registration fees, it specifically prohibited the collection of any new tolerance fees by the EPA. However, the Administration assumed the 

use of receipts from registration fees as part of its fiscal year 2005 

and 2006 budget requests. EPA should not spend time proposing 

fees and promulgating rules in conflict with PRIA and should use 

its limited resources on other, more productive pesticide work. 

7. The Committee expects EPA to encourage local governments 

and communities to pursue innovative public-private partnerships, 

such as the Adopt-A-Waterway program, which, at no additional 

cost to the taxpayers, help to implement storm water pollution prevention activities, curb urban runoff, and improve water quality. 

Further, the Committee encourages EPA to work with the States 

to enter into public-private partnerships, such as Adopt-A-Waterway, to fulfill their public education and outreach responsibilities. 

8. The Committee is aware that the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma 

has applied for treatment as a State status under the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the ‘‘Clean Water 

Act’’) and that the issue is currently under litigation. The Committee will watch with interest the resolution of this issue. 

9. The Committee is aware of TCE contamination affecting a 

large number of homes in Endicott and Ithaca, NY, which is due 

to vapor intrusion of TCE contaminants into the basements of 

homes. The Committee is further aware that EPA is in the process 

of finalizing its TCE risk assessment and that his is a prcess that 

is likely to continue over the next two years or more. EPA has indicated that it is currently evaluating a number of interim approaches for screening levels for TCE while awaiting the final assessment. The Committee strongly urges EPA to work with the 

State of New York to adopt protective interim approaches, as soon 

as practicable, including consideration of provisional screening levels based upon the 2001 Human Health Risk Assessment. Finally, 

the Committee expects EPA to keep it informed periodically on 

progress on the development and implementation of interim procedures and actions at these sites and on completion of the new EPA 

risk assessment. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) provides audit, evaluation, 

and investigation products and advisory services to improve the 

performance and integrity of EPA programs and operations. This 

account funds personnel compensation and benefits, travel, and expenses (excluding rent, utilities, and security costs) for the Office 

107 

of Inspector General. In addition to the funds provided under this 

heading, the OIG receives funds by transfer from the Hazardous 

Substance Superfund account. The IG also holds the position of Inspector General for the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. 

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $37,696,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 36,955,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 37,955,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +259,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +1,000,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 

108 


Insert graphic folio 039 20754A.039
109 

The Committee recommends $37,955,000 for the Office of Inspec- tor General, an increase of $259,000 above the fiscal year 2005 

level and $1,000,000 above the budget request. In addition, the 

Committee recommends that $13,536,000, as requested, be transferred to this account from the Hazardous Substance Superfund account. The Committee expects that $1,000,000 will be used to carry 

out the duties of Inspector General for the Chemical Safety and 

Hazard Investigation Board. 

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

The Buildings and Facilities account provides for the design and 

construction of EPA-owned facilities as well as for the repair, extension, alteration, and improvement of facilities used by the Agency. The funds are used to correct unsafe conditions, protect health 

and safety of employees and Agency visitors, and prevent deterioration of structures and equipment. 

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $41,688,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 40,218,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 40,218,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... –1,470,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ 0 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 

110 


Insert graphic folio 040 20754A.040
111 

The Committee recommends $40,218,000, the budget request, for buildings and facilities, a decrease of $1,470,000 below the fiscal 

year 2005 level. 

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

The Hazardous Substance Superfund (Superfund) program was 

established in 1980 by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act to clean up emergency 

hazardous materials, spills, and dangerous, uncontrolled, and/or 

abandoned hazardous waste sites. The Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act (SARA) expanded the program substantially in 

1986, authorizing approximately $8,500,000,000 in revenues over 

five years. In 1990, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act extended the program’s authorization through 1994 for 

$5,100,000,000 with taxing authority through calendar year 1995. 

The Superfund program is operated by EPA subject to annual appropriations from a dedicated trust fund and from general revenues. Enforcement activities are used to identify and induce parties 

responsible for hazardous waste problems to undertake clean-up 

actions and pay for EPA oversight of those actions. In addition, responsible parties have been required to cover the cost of fund-financed removal and remedial actions undertaken at spills and 

waste sites by Federal and State agencies. Transfers from this account are made to the Office of Inspector General and Science and 

Technology accounts for Superfund-related activities. 

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $1,247,477,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 1,279,333,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 1,258,333,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +10,856,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ –21,000,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 

112 


Insert graphic folio 041 20754A.041
113 


Insert graphic folio 042 20754A.042
114 


Insert graphic folio 043 20754A.043
115 


Insert graphic folio 044 20754A.044
116 

The Committee recommends $1,258,333,000 for hazardous substance superfund, an increase of $10,856,000 above the fiscal year 

2005 level and $21,000,000 below the budget request. Changes to 

the budget request are detailed below. 

Enforcement.—The Committee recommends a decrease of 

$8,000,000 for enforcement, including decreases of $1,000,000 for 

criminal enforcement and $7,000,000 for superfund enforcement. 

Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery.—The 

Committee recommends a decrease of $11,500,000 for homeland security: preparedness, response, and recovery, including decreases of 

$2,000,000 for decontamination and $9,500,000 for laboratory preparedness and response. 

Operations and Administration.—The Committee recommends a 

decrease of $1,500,000 for facilities infrastructure and operations. 

Bill language.—Bill language is included, as requested, transfer- ring $13,536,000 to the Office of Inspector General and $30,606,000 

to the Science and Technology account. 

The Committee is aware of the Hudson River PCB Superfund 

Site and the burdens it has placed on the Town of Fort Edward, 

New York, which will host the dewatering facility for site remediation. The Committee is concerned that the Town of Fort Edward 

does not have the capacity to alleviate the multi-year impacts of 

this remediation without assistance. The Committee expects the 

EPA to provide assistance to the maximum extent possible, including financial and staffing assistance, to the Town of Fort Edward 

throughout the duration of this project and to maintain a close dialogue with the Town of Fort Edward and the Committee. The Committee also expects the EPA to provide semiannual reports on the 

Hudson River PCB Superfund project to the Committee. 

In 2001, the National Academy of Sciences issued ‘‘A Risk-Management Strategy for PCB-Contaminated Sediments’’ that noted 

the lack of information on the effectiveness of remedial actions at 

contaminated sediment sites. The report called for more evaluations of remedial efforts to determine the effectiveness of such remedies, particularly dredging, in achieving projected environmental 

benefits. Currently, about 140 contaminated sediment sites are in 

some stage of the Superfund process. A number of these sites are 

‘‘mega’’ sites with large potential costs for both public and private 

parties. The Committee believes that independent experts should 

take another look at this issue with an emphasis on mega sites. Accordingly, the Committee expects the EPA to enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to examine whether: 

(1) actual costs match EPA estimates; (2) EPA estimated risk reduction benefits are being achieved as predicted; (3) such risk reduction benefits will be achieved significantly faster than other less 

costly remedial alternatives, including source control and natural 

recovery; (4) EPA is considering remedial alternatives on an equal 

footing, or dredging is the presumptive remedy; (5) EPA is considering potential adverse consequences of all remedial alternatives 

consistent with requirements of the National Environmental Policy 

Act; and (6) EPA regions are following agency sediment guidance 

and recommendations made by the Academy in its 2001 report. 

EPA should complete arrangements with the Academy for this 

study no later than December 1, 2005, and the study should be provided to the Committee no later than December 1, 2006. 

117 

LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PROGRAM

Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the 

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, authorized the 

establishment of a response program for clean-up of releases from 

leaking underground storage tanks. Owners and operators of facilities with underground tanks must demonstrate financial responsibility and bear initial responsibility for clean-up. The Federal trust 

fund is funded through the imposition of a motor fuel tax of onetenth of a cent per gallon, which generates approximately 

$170,000,000 per year. 

Most States also have their own leaking underground storage 

tank programs, including a separate trust fund or other funding 

mechanism. The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund 

provides additional clean-up resources and may also be used to enforce necessary corrective actions and to recover costs expended 

from the Fund for clean-up activities. The underground storage 

tank response program is designed to operate primarily through cooperative agreements with States. However, funds are also used for 

grants to non-State entities, including Indian tribes, under Section 

8001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. 

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $69,440,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 73,027,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 73,027,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +3,587,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ 0 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 

118 


Insert graphic folio 045 20754A.045
119 

The Committee recommends $73,027,000, the budget request, for 

the leaking underground storage tank program, an increase of 

$3,587,000 above the fiscal year 2005 level. 

OIL SPILL RESPONSE

This appropriation, authorized by the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act, as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, provides 

funds to prepare for and prevent releases of oil and other petroleum products in navigable waterways. In addition, EPA is reimbursed for incident specific response costs through the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund managed by the United States Coast Guard. 

EPA is responsible for directing all clean-up and removal activities posing a threat to public health and the environment; conducting site inspections; providing a means to achieve cleanup activities by private parties; reviewing containment plans at facilities; reviewing area contingency plans; pursuing cost recovery of 

fund-financed clean-ups; and conducting research of oil clean-up 

techniques. Funds for this appropriation are provided through the 

Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund which is composed of fees and collections made through provisions of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the 

Comprehensive Oil Pollution Liability and Compensation Act, the 

Deepwater Port Act of 1974, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

Amendments of 1978, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 

as amended. Pursuant to law, the Trust Fund is managed by the 

United States Coast Guard. 

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $15,872,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 15,863,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 15,863,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... –9,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ 0 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 

120 


Insert graphic folio 046 20754A.046
121 

The Committee recommends $15,863,000, the budget request, for oil spill response, a decrease of $9,000 below the fiscal year 2005 

level. 

STATE AND TRIBAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS

(INCLUDING RESCISSIONS OF FUNDS)

The State and Tribal Assistance Grants account provides grant 

funds for programs operated primarily by State, local, tribal and 

other governmental partners. The account provides funding for infrastructure projects through the State Revolving Funds, geographic specific projects in rural Alaska and Alaska Native Villages, Puerto Rico, and on the United States-Mexico Border, and 

other targeted special projects. In addition, the account funds 

Brownfields assessment and revitalization grants, grants for clean 

school buses, and miscellaneous other categorical grant programs. 

The largest portion of the STAG account consists of State Revolving Funds (SRFs), which provide Federal financial assistance to 

protect the Nation’s water resources. The Clean Water SRFs help 

eliminate municipal discharge of untreated or inadequately treated 

pollutants and thereby help maintain or restore the country’s water 

to a swimmable and/or fishable quality. The Clean Water SRFs 

provide resources for municipal, inter-municipal, State, and interstate agencies and tribal governments to plan, design, and construct wastewater facilities and other projects, including non-point 

source, estuary, stormwater, and sewer overflow projects. The Safe 

Drinking Water SRFs finance improvements to community water 

systems so that they can achieve compliance with the mandates of 

the Safe Drinking Water Act and continue to protect public health. 

Categorical grant programs include non-point source grants 

under Section 319 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 

amended, Public Water System Supervision grants, Section 106 

water quality grants, grants to improve targeted watersheds, Clean 

Air Act Section 105 and 103 air grants, grants targeted to environmental information, Brownfields cleanup grants, and other grants 

used by the States, tribes, and others to meet Federal environmental statutory and regulatory requirements. 

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $3,575,349,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 2,960,800,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 3,127,800,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... –447,549,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +167,000,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 

122 


Insert graphic folio 047 20754A.047
123 


Insert graphic folio 048 20754A.048
124 


Insert graphic folio 049 20754A.049
125 

The Committee recommends $3,127,800,000 for State and tribal 

assistance grants, a decrease of $447,549,000 below the fiscal year 

2005 level and $167,000,000 above the budget request. Changes to 

the budget request are detailed below. 

Brownfields.—The Committee recommends a decrease of 

$25,000,000 for Brownfields projects. The Committee recommended 

level represents an increase of more than $6,000,000 above the fiscal year 2005 level. 

Infrastructure Assistance: Clean Water State Revolving Fund.—

The Committee recommends an increase of $120,000,000 for the 

clean water State revolving funds, including the use of 

$100,000,000 rescinded from expired contracts, grants, and interagency agreements from various EPA appropriation accounts. 

State and Tribal Infrastructure Grants/Congressional priorities.—The Committee recommends an increase of $200,000,000 for 

targeted STAG infrastructure grants. These specific grants will be 

designated in conference action on the Interior, Environment, and 

Related Agencies Act, 2006. 

Categorical Grants.—The Committee recommends a net decrease 

of $28,000,000 for categorical grants, including decreases of 

$8,000,000 for Brownfields, $8,000,000 for pollution control (section 

106), $1,000,000 for pollution prevention, $23,000,000 for a new 

State and tribal performance fund, and $3,000,000 for wetlands 

program development and an increase of $15,000,000 for water 

quality cooperative agreements. 

Bill Language.—The Committee recommends bill language stipulating that funds associated with STAG special projects, from fiscal 

year 2000 or earlier, that have not received an approved grant by 

the end of fiscal year 2006 will be transferred to the appropriate 

State’s Drinking Water or Clean Water State Revolving Fund. Bill 

language also provides for the transfer of funds, not needed for 

STAG projects, to the appropriate State’s Drinking Water or Clean 

Water Revolving Fund (i.e., unused funds from completed projects 

or funds from projects that are determined to be ineligible for a 

grant) . 

The Committee also recommends the rescission of $100,000,000 

in balances from expired contracts, grants, and interagency agreements from various EPA appropriation accounts and the use of 

these funds, as an additional amount of $100,000,000, for the Clean 

Water State Revolving Fund. 

The Committee also recommends bill language granting authority to EPA to make technical corrections on special project infrastructure grants subject to Committee consultation. 

The Committee has also included bill language, as requested by 

the Administration and as carried in previous appropriations acts, 

to: (1) extend for an additional year the authority for States to 

transfer funds between the Clean Water SRF and the Drinking 

Water SRF; (2) waive the one-third of 1 percent cap on the Tribal 

set aside from non-point source grants; (3) increase to 1.5 percent 

the cap on the Tribal set-aside for the Clean Water SRF; and (4) 

require that any funds provided to address the water infrastructure 

needs of colonias within the United States along the United StatesMexico border be spent only in areas where the local governmental 

entity has established an enforceable ordinance or rule which preVerDate Aug 04 2004 07:10 May 14, 2005 Jkt 021162 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR080.XXX HR080
126 

vents additional development within colonias that lack water, 

wastewater, or other necessary infrastructure. 

Bill language has been included stipulating that, consistent with 

section 603 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, $50,000,000 of the $850,000,000 proposed for the Clean Water 

SRF program is to be made available by the States for interest-free 

loans to increase non-point and non-structural, decentralized alternatives and expand the choices available to communities for clean 

water improvements. The Committee continues to support this program. 

While no specific special project grants are identified at this 

point for fiscal year 2006 as in past years, targeted grants shall be 

accompanied by a cost-share requirement whereby 45 percent of a 

project’s cost is the responsibility of the community or entity receiving the grant. In those few cases where such cost-share requirement poses a particular financial burden on the recipient community or entity, the Committee supports the Agency’s use of its longstanding guidance for financial capability assessments to determine 

reductions or waivers from this match requirement. Except for the 

limited instances in which an applicant meets the criteria for a 

waiver, the Committee has provided no more than 55% of an individual project’s cost, regardless of the amount appropriated. 

The Committee agrees to the following: 

1. No STAG technical correction may be made without advance 

consultation with the Committee. The EPA should report to the 

Committee within 30 days of the close of each fiscal year with a 

list of the technical corrections it has made to STAG special project 

infrastructure grants during that fiscal year and on funds transferred from projects to the drinking water and clean water SRFs. 

2. As in past years, from within the Committee’s $50,000,000 recommendation for the United States-Mexico Border program, the 

Agency is expected to continue the Brownsville, Texas area water 

supply project, and the EI Paso, Texas area desalination and water 

supply project. 

3. With respect to financial assistance from State Revolving 

Funds, States should give priority to projects that use best management practices that provide cost savings and increased efficiency. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

The Committee has included bill language, requested by the Administration and supported by the Science Committee, permitting 

EPA to hire no more than 5 senior level scientists using expedited 

procedures. This authority is similar to that provided to the National Institutes of Health. 

The Committee has, again this year, included an administrative 

provision giving the Administrator specific authority, in the absence of an acceptable tribal program, to award cooperative agreements to Federally recognized Indian Tribes or Intertribal consortia so as to properly carry out EPA’s environmental programs. 

127 

TITLE III—RELATED AGENCIES 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

FOREST SERVICE

The U.S. Forest Service manages 193 million acres of public 

lands for multiple use Nationwide, including lands in 44 States and 

Puerto Rico, and cooperates with States, other Federal agencies, 

Tribes and others to sustain the Nation’s forests and grasslands. 

The Forest Service administers a wide variety of programs, including forest and rangeland research, State and private forestry assistance, wildfire suppression and fuels reduction, cooperative forest health programs, and human resource programs. The National 

Forest System (NFS) includes 155 National forests, 20 National 

grasslands, 20 National recreation areas, a National tallgrass prairie, 6 National monuments, and 6 land utilization projects. The 

NFS is managed for multiple use, including timber production, 

recreation, wilderness, minerals, grazing, fish and wildlife habitat 

management, and soil and water conservation. 

The Committee notes that the Forest Service celebrated its centennial year in 2005. The Forest Service was established on February 1, 1905 when the forest reserves were transferred from the 

General Land Office in the Department of the Interior to the newly 

named, U.S. Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture. 

FOREST AND RANGELAND RESEARCH

Forest and rangeland research and development sponsors basic 

and applied scientific research. This research provides both credible 

and relevant knowledge about forests and rangelands and new 

technologies that can be used to sustain the health, productivity, 

and diversity of private and public lands to meet the needs of 

present and future generations. Research is conducted across the 

U.S. through six research stations, the Forest Products Laboratory, 

and the International Institute of Tropical Forestry in Puerto Rico 

as well as cooperative research efforts with many of the Nation’s 

universities. The Committee stresses that this research and development should support all of the Nation’s forests and rangelands 

and that technology transfer and practical applications are vital. 

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $276,384,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 285,400,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 285,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +8,616,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ¥400,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 

128 


Insert graphic folio 050 20754a.050
129 

The Committee recommends $285,000,000 for forest and range- land research, a decrease of $400,000 below the budget request and 

$8,616,000 above the fiscal year 2005 funding level. For clarity, the 

funding level for the forest inventory and analysis (FIA) program 

is displayed as a distinct activity. Funding for FIA under this heading is $62,100,000, $6,614,000 below the requested level and 

$6,174,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. The Committee 

notes that an additional $5,000,000 for the FIA program is provided within the State and private forestry appropriation. There is 

a total increase of $6,216,000 for the FIA program above the fiscal 

year 2005 enacted level. 

The Committee recommendation includes all project funding as 

stipulated in the budget request and supporting documents, with 

the following exceptions. The advanced housing research consortium receives $1,500,000, which is $218,000 above the request. The 

adelgid research at the Northeastern station receives $1,600,000, 

an increase of $121,000 above the request. The emerald ash borer 

research project in Ohio receives $400,000, $153,000 above the request. The southern pine beetle initiative receives $2,400,000, 

$428,000 above the request. The Coweeta Hydrologic Lab receives 

$200,000 for research on reducing impacts of floods and landslides 

and $150,000 for technology transfer. Uncontrollable cost increases 

receive $6,177,000 above the request. The Montana State University and New Mexico State University Skeen range research 

projects and the salvage lumber research at the forest products lab 

are not funded. Funding for the National agroforestry research center is $727,000, as requested. 

The Committee expects to see detailed work plans, including 

costs and staffing, for the new Western Wildland Environmental 

Threat Assessment Center in Oregon and the Eastern Forest Environmental Threat Assessment Center in North Carolina, before 

funding from any appropriation for these new centers is distributed 

in fiscal year 2006. The Committee also directs the Forest Service 

to include explicit funding amounts for these two centers in future 

budget requests, regardless of the accounts involved. The Committee notes that these centers should, as provided in the Healthy 

Forest Restoration Act, focus primarily on hardwood forests and 

the threats from insects and disease which could destroy thousands 

of valuable acres of timberland and alter landscapes throughout 

surrounding areas. The centers should rely on emerging remote 

sensing technology and geospatial modeling. 

Bill Language.—The Committee recommends continuing bill lan- guage earmarking a specific allocation, $62,100,000, for the forest 

inventory and analysis program. 

STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY

Through cooperative programs with State and local governments, 

forest industry, conservation organizations, and non-industrial private forest landowners, the Forest Service supports the protection 

and management of the nearly 500 million acres of non-Federal forests in the country. Technical and financial assistance is offered to 

improve wildland fire management and protect communities from 

wildfire; control insects and disease; improve harvesting and processing of forest products; conserve environmentally important forests; and enhance stewardship of urban and rural forests. The ForVerDate Aug 04 2004 07:10 May 14, 2005 Jkt 021162 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR080.XXX HR080
130 

est Service provides special expertise and disease suppression for 

all Federal and tribal lands, as well as cooperative assistance with 

the States for State and private lands. 

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $341,606,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 253,387,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 254,875,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥86,731,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +1,488,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 

131 


Insert graphic folio 051 20754A.051
132 

The Committee recommends $254,875,000 for State and private 

forestry, $1,488,000 above the budget request and $86,731,000 

below the 2005 funding level. Aspects of the budget request are approved, unless otherwise stated below. Funding levels are presented as changes from the request. All funds requested for the 

healthy forests initiative are included. 

Forest Health Management.—The Committee recommends 

$103,000,000 for forest health management, $30,669,000 above the 

request and $1,135,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. 

The Committee emphasizes its concern with forest health and does 

not understand why, with the huge concern nationally for healthy 

forests, the budget request included such large decreases for these 

immensely valuable and vital forest health programs. The Committee is also concerned about invasive exotic pests, which have 

proven to have huge impacts on American forests and trees. Forest 

health funding provides important programs such as: (1) the slowthe-spread gypsy moth program; (2) control and management of the 

Asian long-horned beetle, the emerald ash borer, Dutch elm disease 

and other pests in urban settings; (3) adelgids in the east; and (4) 

various mountain pine beetles throughout the Rockies and the 

west. 

The Committee recommendation includes $17,000,000 for southern pine beetle forest health activities, including forest rehabilitation, disease prevention, and education. This consists of $5,000,000 

within the Federal lands activity and $12,000,000 within the cooperative lands activity to assist State and private forest managers. 

Federal Lands Forest Health Management.—The Committee recommends $55,000,000 for Federal lands forest health management, 

$4,977,000 above the request and $764,000 above the fiscal year 

2005 enacted level. 

Cooperative Lands Forest Health Management.—The Committee 

recommends $48,000,000 for cooperative lands forest health management, $25,692,000 above the budget request and $371,000 above 

the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. The cooperative forest health activity includes $350,000 for the southern Appalachian office of the 

American Chestnut Foundation. 

The Committee encourages the Forest Service and other USDA 

agencies to work closely with Minnesota on the Dutch elm disease 

problem; this disease requires a dedicated and time-critical effort 

to remove infected trees quickly and efficiently, to avoid an escalating bark beetle population. 

The Committee strongly encourages the Administration to use 

the Secretary’s authority under Public Law 97–46 to fund the survey, evaluation, control and management of unplanned, emerging 

pest occurrences from funds available to the agencies or corporations of the Department of Agriculture. This approach has been 

used in the past for the Forest Service and has been used in previous years for emergency pest projects by the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

Cooperative Fire Protection.—The Committee recommends 

$41,422,000 for cooperative fire protection, $14,586,000 above the 

request and $2,585,000 above the fiscal year 2005 funding level. 

The Committee also notes that the cooperative fire portion of the 

national fire plan within the wildland fire management account inVerDate Aug 04 2004 07:10 May 14, 2005 Jkt 021162 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR080.XXX HR080
133 

cludes a total of $41,000,000 for State fire assistance and 

$8,000,000 for volunteer fire assistance. 

State Fire Assistance.—The Committee recommends $35,422,000 

for State fire assistance, $14,503,000 above the budget request and 

$2,502,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. The increased 

funding includes $2,500,000 for use in the vicinity of the San 

Bernardino NF, CA, where a tremendous forest die-back has produced potentially catastrophic wildfire conditions. The Committee 

encourages the Forest Service to consider funding community wildfire protection planning projects for northern Arizona and in Colorado. 

Volunteer Fire Assistance.—The Committee recommends 

$6,000,000 for volunteer fire assistance, an increase of $83,000 

above the request and the enacted level. 

Cooperative Forestry.—The Committee recommends $103,553,000 

for cooperative forestry, $45,678,000 below the budget request and 

$41,841,000 below the 2005 enacted level. 

Forest Stewardship.—The Committee recommends $37,399,000 

for forest stewardship, $300,000 above the budget request and 

$5,079,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. Within the allocation for forest stewardship, the Committee provides funding of 

$500,000 for watershed activities in the New York City watershed, 

an increase of $100,000 over the budget request. The remaining increase above the request is $200,000 for the Northeastern area to 

work with Forest Service research and university forest scientists 

to improve land use decision models and forest simulators which 

can be used by private landowners, public land managers, and educators. 

The Committee encourages efforts to better target the delivery of 

the forest stewardship program to focus on priority resource concerns. This will allow close monitoring and quantification of on-theground accomplishments, more clearly demonstrating program outcomes. 

Forest Legacy Program.—The committee recommends 

$25,000,000 for the forest legacy program, a decrease of 

$55,000,000 below the budget request and $32,134,000 below the 

fiscal year 2005 enacted level. This allocation includes $5,000,000 

for program administration and $20,000,000 for high priority 

projects. 

Urban and Community Forestry.—The Committee recommends 

$28,175,000 for urban and community forestry, an increase of 

$700,000 above the budget request and $3,775,000 below the fiscal 

year 2005 level. This increase above the request is for continued 

support of the long-standing and successful northeastern Pennsylvania community forestry program. 

The Committee has yet to see the final, new allocation methodology and performance based granting which was directed previously for urban and community forestry. The Committee will reconsider funding for this program depending on the results of that 

process. 

Economic Action Programs.—The Committee recommends 

$7,979,000 for economic action programs, a decrease of $11,053,000 

below the fiscal year 2005 level. This program was not included in 

the budget request. The Committee has transferred $5,000,000 

here for biomass grants which was requested as part of the hazVerDate Aug 04 2004 07:10 May 14, 2005 Jkt 021162 PO 00000 Frm 00133 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR080.XXX HR080
134 

ardous fuels program. The biomass program has promise, but it is 

more appropriately funded within State and private forestry. Within the economic action program the Committee also recommends: 

(1) $1,000,000 for the Education and Research Consortium (ERC) 

of Western NC environmental education effort; (2) $329,000 for the 

New England value added wood products project, MA; (3) $250,000 

for the Allegheny area, PA tourism effort; (4) $400,000 for watershed work in the New York City watershed; and (5) $1,000,000 for 

economic development grants to Custer County, ID, consistent with 

the Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act, 

which shall be distributed upon authorization of that Act. The 

funds for the ERC are for the on-going educational programs provided by the ERC, including the Pisgah Forest Institute, and for 

the existing efforts in Pennsylvania and northern California. 

Forest Resource Information and Analysis.—The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for forest resource information and analysis, 

$343,000 above the budget request and $42,000 above the 2005 enacted level. 

International Program.—The Committee recommends $6,900,000 

for the international program, $1,911,000 above the request and 

$490,000 above the fiscal year 2005 level. The Committee is encouraged by the successful partnerships in the international program and the growing importance of Forest Service expertise, including international support to counter invasive pests harming 

our forests and efforts to conserve and protect migratory species. 

Bill Language.—The Committee recommends continuing bill language deriving forest legacy funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and language requiring notification of the 

Appropriations Committees before allocating forest legacy project 

funds. The Committee has not included the Administration’s request to also derive funding for the forest stewardship program and 

the urban and community forestry program from the LWCF. 

NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM

Within the National Forest System (NFS), which covers 193 million acres, there are 51 Congressionally designated areas, including 

20 National recreation areas, and 7 National scenic areas. The NFS 

includes a substantial amount of the Nation’s softwood inventory. 

In fiscal year 2002, over 208,000 acres of national forest vegetation 

was managed through timber sale activities, which produced 1.8 

billion board feet of timber products. The NFS hosted over 211 million visits in fiscal year 2002. The NFS includes over 133,000 miles 

of trails and 25,000 developed facilities, including 4,389 campgrounds, 58 major visitor centers, and about one-half of the Nation’s ski-lift capacity. Wilderness areas cover 35 million acres, 

nearly two-thirds of the wilderness in the contiguous 48 States. 

The Forest Service also has major habitat management responsibilities for more than 3,000 species of wildlife and fish, and 10,000 

plant species and provides important habitat and open space for 

over 422 threatened or endangered species. Half of the Nation’s big 

game habitat and coldwater fish habitat, including salmon and 

steelhead, is located on National forest system lands and waters. 

In addition, in the 16 western States, where the water supply is 

sometimes critically short, about 55 percent of the total annual 

yield of water is from National forest system lands. 

135 

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $1,392,959,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 1,651,357,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 1,423,920,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +30,961,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ¥227,437,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 

136 


Insert graphic folio 052 20754A.052
137 

The Committee recommends $1,423,920,000 for the National forest system, a decrease of $227,437,000 below the request and 

$30,961,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. The Committee has not agreed to include hazardous fuels funding within 

this account; this is discussed under the wildland fire management 

heading. The overall NFS funding is $53,563,000 above the request, if the transfer of $281,000,000 for the hazardous fuels program is not counted. All funds requested for the healthy forests initiative are included. 

Land Management Planning.—The Committee recommends 

$59,057,000 for land management planning as requested, a decrease of $4,110,000 below the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. The 

Committee expects that, as the new planning regulations are implemented, there should be cost savings. 

Inventory and Monitoring.—The Committee recommends 

$169,009,000 for inventory and monitoring, $2,000,000 above the 

budget request and $1,707,000 above the fiscal year 2005 level. The 

increase above the request is to partially offset fixed costs. 

Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness.—The Committee recommends $265,200,000 for recreation, heritage and wilderness, 

$7,856,000 above the budget request and $7,857,000 above the fiscal year 2005 level. Within the increase, the Committee has included $100,000 for the Ocoee and Hiwasse corridor management 

plan and $150,000 for a strategic trails analysis on the Cherokee 

NF, TN. The remainder of the increase is to partially offset fixed 

costs. 

The Committee encourages Forest Service units to conduct thorough, public analyses of recreation services, but the Service should 

maintain its tradition of providing pristine backcountry and dispersed recreation, as well as developed recreation. Recreation sites 

should not be closed or access denied without full public involvement. 

The Committee also encourages the Forest Service to maintain 

adequate public and scientific services at the Mt. St. Helens National Volcanic monument. 

Wildlife and Fish Habitat Management.—The Committee recommends $134,800,000 for wildlife and fish habitat management, 

an increase of $9,849,000 above the budget request and $51,000 

above the fiscal year 2005 level. The increase above the request is 

to maintain existing programs. The Committee notes the importance of Forest Service habitat management for the Nation’s fish 

and wildlife, and to many partners. Many habitat projects fulfill 

common watershed improvement and hazardous fuels reduction 

goals. 

Grazing Management.—The Committee recommends $49,000,000 

for grazing management, $4,341,000 above the budget request and 

$966,000 above the fiscal year 2005 funding level. The increase 

above the request is to maintain existing programs. 

Forest Products.—The Committee recommends $283,297,000 for 

forest products, $5,000,000 above the budget request and 

$10,050,000 above the fiscal year 2005 funding level. The increase 

above the request includes a $500,000 increase for the base program on the National Forests in North Carolina. The remainder of 

the increase should be used to maintain existing programs. 

138 

Vegetation and Watershed Management.—The Committee recommends $183,700,000 for vegetation and watershed management, 

a decrease of $10,074,000 below the request and a decrease of 

$5,914,000 below the fiscal year 2005 funding level. The Committee 

has agreed to the request to move funding for environmental compliance and protection projects to the minerals and geology management program. This reduces the vegetation and watershed management account $24,241,000 below the enacted level. Therefore, 

not counting the environmental compliance program, the recommended funding level for vegetation and watershed management is $18,327,000 above the enacted level. 

The budget request includes an increase above the enacted level 

of $21,807,000 for improving and establishing forest vegetation; instead the Committee recommendation agrees to increase these activities by $11,733,000 above the enacted level, a reduction of 

$10,074,000 from the request. The other subactivities are funded at 

the requested levels. 

The Committee notes the recent GAO report which indicates that 

the Forest Service has inadequate data to accurately quantify its 

reforestation needs. The Committee has provided a substantial 

funding increase for these activities in fiscal year 2006, but the 

Service needs to standardize guidance for reporting data on reforestation and timber stand improvement needs and improve the 

data’s accuracy before additional increases can be considered. In 

addition, the Committee expects the Forest Service to provide clear 

presentations of reforestation needs and accomplishments in future 

budget justifications, including the specific use and distribution of 

the mandatory funding from the Reforestation Fund, as well as 

partner efforts, such as the new American Forests initiative. 

Minerals and Geology Management.—The Committee recommends $85,865,000 for minerals and geology management, an 

increase of $12,074,000 above the request and $30,118,000 above 

the 2005 funding level. Most of this large increase above the enacted level is due to the transfer of the environmental compliance 

and restoration subactivites out of the vegetation and watershed 

activity. The Committee recommendation includes the requested 

$25,426,000 for these subactivities which were not funded in minerals and geology in fiscal year 2005. 

The budget request includes large reductions which are ill-advised for the administration of mineral operations and for the geological services programs. The Committee recommendation fully 

funds the requested budget for minerals and geology management, 

plus increases to the request of $7,876,000 for the administration 

of mineral operations, $1,000,000 for processing mineral applications, and $3,198,000 for the management of geologic resources and 

hazards. This results in $1,000,000 increases above the enacted for 

each of these three subactivites. 

Land Ownership Management.—The Committee recommends 

$93,000,000 for land ownership management, $8,843,000 above the 

budget request and $871,000 above the 2005 funding level. The increase above the request is to maintain existing programs. The 

Committee expects the Forest Service to maintain the full-time 

lands team to work on the Pacific Crest Trail project and other 

similar projects. 

139 

Law Enforcement Operations.—The Committee recommends 

$91,000,000 for law enforcement operations, $4,674,000 above the 

budget request and $4,986,000 above the 2005 funding level. The 

increases above the request include a total of $1,000,000 for antidrug activities on the Daniel Boone NF, KY, and $700,000 for work 

on the Mark Twain NF, MO. The remainder of the increase above 

the request is for general program delivery. 

The Committee agrees with the concept displayed in special exhibit 15 of the budget justification regarding making all programs 

and activities, other than emergency appropriations, contribute to 

indirect cost pools. Bill language is included under Forest Service 

administrative provisions to accomplish a transfer for law enforcement on a one-time basis. The Forest Service should continue this 

equitable treatment of programs for cost pools in subsequent years. 

Centennial of Service Challenge.—The Committee notes that this 

challenge cost share effort begun in fiscal year 2005 appears to be 

very successful. More than 230 individual partner projects have 

been funded in all regions of the Nation. These efforts will bring 

in more than $20,000,000 in partner contributions which will enhance the national forest system and improve public services. 

Therefore, the Committee has provided $9,000,000 to continue this 

program, which was not included in the request, a reduction of 

$861,000 from the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. These funds 

should be used in addition to, and in a complimentary fashion with, 

other challenge cost share programs included in the budget request. The Forest Service should continue to display data on these 

efforts in subsequent budget justifications. 

Other.—The Committee has provided $992,000, as requested, for 

management of the Valles Caldera National Preserve, NM, a reduction of $2,607,000 from the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. The 

Committee notes that, if there are specific infrastructure needs, 

such funding should be requested under the capital improvement 

and maintenance appropriation and compete with other Forest 

Service projects. 

The Committee recommendation includes the full funding requested by the Administration for the Quincy Library Group 

project in California and for the Land Between the Lakes National 

Recreation Area, KY and TN. 

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $2,098,487,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 1,444,267,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 1,790,506,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥307,981,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +346,239,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 

140 


Insert graphic folio 052 20754A.053
141 

The Committee recommends $1,790,506,000 for wildland fire 

management. This is $346,239,000 above the budget request and 

$307,981,000 below the enacted level, which also included certain 

emergency appropriations as well as $394,443,000 for additional, 

urgent wildfire suppression funds. The hazardous fuels funding is 

retained under this heading as has been past practice, as discussed 

below. Hazardous fuels funding was requested in the National forest system account. Increases above the request for other wildfire 

management activities total $61,239,000. The overall Committee 

recommendation for wildland fire management is $117,490,000 

above the 2005 funding level, not counting the urgent wildfire suppression funds and the emergency funds. 

The Committee recommendation supports the direction provided 

by the national fire plan and the healthy forests initiative. All 

funds requested for the healthy forests initiative are included. In 

addition, funds are provided for other essential national fire plan 

related activities which suffered reductions in the request, including forest health management, State fire assistance, fire plan research and development, and restoration and rehabilitation. 

Wildfire Preparedness.—The Committee recommends 

$691,014,000 for wildfire preparedness, an increase of $15,000,000 

above the budget request and $14,544,000 above the enacted level. 

The funding requested within preparedness for the joint fire 

science program, $8,000,000, is included under other wildfire operations as has been the past practice and agreement. The Committee sees no compelling reason to include any other funding activities in the preparedness and suppression budget lines, and the 

Committee directs the Administration not to request funding for 

joint fire science under preparedness. After transfer of joint fire 

science, the overall preparedness funding level is $23,000,000 

above the request, which helps offset fixed cost increases. The Committee understands that it is imperative to maintain firefighting 

readiness so that initial attack has a greater chance of putting fires 

out while they are small, less destructive, and less expensive to 

suppress. 

The Committee is concerned that the allocation of funds between 

preparedness and suppression operations may not maintain the 

levels of readiness needed for public safety that were established 

in fiscal years 2003 and 2004. The Committee believes that decisive 

action is necessary to manage escalating fire suppression costs. An 

important component of reducing such costs is maintaining initial 

attack capability so that more fires can be contained before they escape and cause serious loss of life and property as well as natural 

resource damage. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Forest 

Service to analyze current readiness levels to determine whether 

maintaining preparedness resources in the field at a level not less 

than that established in fiscal year 2004 will, based on the best information available, result in lower overall firefighting costs. If the 

Forest Service makes such a determination, the Committee directs 

the Forest Service to adjust the levels for preparedness and suppression funding accordingly and report on these adjustments to 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. The Secretary of Agriculture should advise the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in writing prior to the decision. 

142 

Wildfire Suppression Operations.—The Committee recommends 

$700,492,000 for wildfire suppression operations as requested, an 

increase of $51,633,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted funding 

level. This funding level is $45,560,000 above the 10-year average 

of actual wildfire suppression expenditures. 

The Committee remains concerned about the high costs of large 

fire incidents. The Forest Service, along with the Department of 

the Interior, should ensure that cost containment is an important 

priority when suppressing wildland fires. Therefore, the Committee 

directs the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to 

continue reports directed previously and to continue to examine, 

using independent panels, any individual wildfire incident which 

results in expenses greater than $10,000,000. The Committee directs the Forest Service not to follow the second and fifth bulleted 

proposals in the appendix to the budget of the U.S. government 

under the fire operations heading. The Committee insists that a 

national, interdepartmental approach, with full cooperation of 

States and other partners, is needed to improve the fire program. 

The cooperative spirit would be disrupted by requiring regions to 

hold back funding which may be urgently needed for suppression 

activities elsewhere in the Nation as instructed in the budget appendix. 

The Committee has included bill language which requires the 

Forest Service to treat wildfire suppression like other non-emergency appropriations with regard to indirect cost pools which support agency administration. All programs in the agency should pay 

the full cost of operations, including overhead. Accordingly, the 

Committee directs the Forest Service to charge appropriate cost 

pool expenses to wildfire suppression in a manner commensurate 

with the method for assessing other funds and to continue this procedure hereafter. The Committee has provided similar instructions 

for the law enforcement program. This concept was displayed in 

special exhibit 15 of the budget justification. 

Hazardous Fuels.—The Committee has provided $286,000,000 for 

hazardous fuels reduction work, $5,000,000 above the budget request (which was in the NFS account) and an increase of 

$23,461,000 above the fiscal year 2005 level. The budget request 

also included $5,000,000 for biomass grants out of the hazardous 

fuels funding. The Committee has transferred that funding and 

program to the economic action program in the State and private 

forestry account, where it is more appropriately operated. Thus, the 

overall hazardous fuels program funding is actually $10,000,000 

over the requested level. The recommendation includes no less than 

$5,000,000 above the requested funding level to treat the urgent 

and dangerous situation on the San Bernardino NF, CA, caused by 

drought and a catastrophic bark beetle outbreak. 

The recommendation retains the authority to use up to 

$15,000,000 on adjacent, non-Federal lands when hazard reduction 

activities are planned on national forest system lands. 

The Committee has included new bill language which allows the 

Chief of the Forest Service to transfer hazardous fuels funding into 

the national forest system account if, at the Chief’s sole discretion, 

it will be advantageous to the government. If a decision is made 

to make this transfer, the Forest Service shall notify the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations 30 days in advance of the 

143 

transfer. Additionally, 90 days after the end of the fiscal year, the 

Forest Service shall submit a report to the Committees which details and explains the benefits of this transfer, including steps 

taken to ensure close coordination of projects with the Department 

of the Interior and the States, as well as steps taken to help implement completed community wildfire protection plans. Included in 

this report, the Forest Service, in conjunction with the Department 

of the Interior, should detail the methods used to prioritize fuels 

projects. A common project prioritization method should be used by 

both departments to assure the American public that all funds, regardless of funding source, are used for the highest priority fuels 

reduction projects. 

Rehabilitation.—The Committee has restored $9,281,000 for the 

burned area rehabilitation and restoration program, $7,281,000 

above the budget request and $3,538,000 below the fiscal year 2005 

enacted level. As presented in the budget request, the Committee 

expects the Forest Service, in close partnership with the Department of the Interior, to continue the native plant materials program at the fiscal year 2005 level. The increase above the request 

is for general program delivery. 

Fire Plan Research and Development.—The Committee recommendation includes $21,719,000 for research and development, 

$4,834,000 above the budget request and equal to the fiscal year 

2005 enacted level. The increase above the request is to support 

important research efforts nationwide. Considering the multi-billion dollar efforts supported for Federal and State wildfire management and hazardous fuels treatments, it is imperative that research and development be retained to guide future applications 

and develop technologies which may help reduce costs, save lives, 

and protect natural resources. 

Joint Fire Sciences Program.—The Committee has provided $8,000,000 for the joint fire science program, an increase of 

$111,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. The budget request included funding for this important program in the preparedness activity, as discussed above. This program is producing important scientific and technical information, often in collaboration with 

the Nation’s forestry schools, that is needed to support the large effort concerning hazardous fuels and other fire management issues. 

Forest Health Management, Federal Lands and Co-op Lands.—

The Committee has provided $25,000,000 for the forest health portion of the national fire plan, including $15,000,000 for Federal 

lands and $10,000,000 for cooperative efforts with the States and 

others. This funding level is $13,428,000 above the request and 

$347,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. The increase 

above the request is for general program delivery. This funding 

should be used in conjunction with the similar funding in State and 

private forestry to continue the more integrated approach to forest 

health, including prevention, and restoration and rehabilitation of 

forests and rangelands. The Committee expects the Forest Service 

to focus on major problems, such as southern pine beetles, western 

mountain bark beetles, adelgids, and other pests and pathogens, as 

well as invasive plants, which harm forests and subsequently increase wildfire hazards. 

The Committee is concerned that the Administration does not 

recognize forest health management as a vital component of the 

144 

healthy forests initiative and another tool in reducing risks of catastrophic wildfires. This work is an essential part of the national 

fire plan, and is vital to the success of the healthy forests initiative 

as well. 

State and Volunteer Fire Assistance.—The Committee has pro- vided $41,000,000 for State fire assistance, $11,585,000 above the 

request and $821,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. The 

Committee does not understand why the Administration chose to 

dramatically cut this successful cooperative conservation and protection program in its request. The program is essential to maintain and enhance the partnership between State foresters and 

State fire agencies and the Federal wildfire management enterprise. The increase above the request is for general program delivery and $500,000 is for implementation of community wildfire protection plans in the North Lake Tahoe area. The Committee expects the Forest Service to support and expand the Fire Safe Councils in California and that the Forest Service will use this innovative program as a model for other States. State fire assistance 

funds should also be used preferentially to support community 

wildfire protection planning and implementation. The Committee has also included $8,000,000 for volunteer fire 

assistance, an increase of $111,000 above the request and the enacted level. This brings the volunteer fire funding to a total of 

$14,000,000 including funding in State and private forestry. 

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $565,516,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 380,792,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 468,260,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥97,256,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +87,468,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 

145 


Insert graphic folio 052 20754A.054
146 


Insert graphic folio 052 20754A.055
147 

The Committee recommends $468,260,000 for capital improve- ment and maintenance, $87,468,000 above the request and 

$97,256,000 below the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. In order to 

more clearly display and track Forest Service maintenance funding, 

it has been separated out as separate budget activities this year 

within the former facilities, roads, and trails activities. 

The Committee notes that the Forest Service has a huge backlog 

in deferred maintenance and failed roads and buildings all over the 

Nation. However, the budget request this year has huge reductions 

in maintenance and construction which are unacceptable. Portions 

of these reductions were to be made up with new legislative procedures. 

The Committee notes that no legislative proposal has been received from the Administration and it is unlikely that substantial, 

additional receipts will be available for fiscal year 2006. Therefore, 

the Committee recommends an increase of $47,647,000 to ensure 

that critical facility, road and trail maintenance funding is maintained close to the fiscal year 2005 levels. The Committee believes 

that the budget should not assume the use of receipts that are dependent on the enactment of subsequent legislation unless such 

legislation is under active consideration by the Congress. 

The Administration’s concept is to: (1) charge all accounts an 

across-the-board assessment for facility maintenance, further adding to the indirect cost pools which have hampered delivery of 

funds to on-the-ground programs; and (2) increase the authority to 

sell unneeded facilities, without creating inholdings, to generate 

funds to use for basic maintenance. This Committee notes that it 

previously started a program to sell unneeded facilities, and this 

has been a successful pilot to date. However, it has yet to generate 

substantial sums, and in any case, increased sales authority would 

not provide immediately needed funds for routine facility maintenance. In some portions of the Nation the Forest Service has excess 

facilities, and the Service should use all deliberate speed to dispose 

of these facilities to the benefit of the government. Title IV includes 

language extending the facility sale authority. 

The Committee has used its scarce resources to bring maintenance funding back close to the enacted levels, while accepting a 

37% decrease from the fiscal year 2005 enacted level for facilities 

construction. 

The Committee expects to continue to receive regular updates, 

and a continued display in the budget justification, on progress in 

addressing the huge backlog of deferred maintenance and repair, 

especially as it relates to the activities funded through the road 

and trails fund, the pilot conveyance authority and the infrastructure improvement funds. 

Facilities.—The Committee recommends $153,761,000 for facilities maintenance and capital improvement, $36,045,000 above the 

budget request and $45,008,000 below the fiscal year 2005 level. 

The Committee recommendation for facility maintenance is 

$343,000 above the enacted and $26,478,000 above the request. 

The Committee has funded the capital improvement request with 

the following changes: 

State Project Change from request: 

CA .......................................................... San Bernardino NF HQ ............................................................... $2,000,000 

148 

State Project Change from request: 

CA .......................................................... Redwood Sci. lab seismic retrofit ............................................. 2,000,000 

CA .......................................................... Meeks Bay campground ............................................................. 778,000 

CA .......................................................... Turtle Rock Fire Station relocation ............................................ 1,200,000 

CO ......................................................... Cayton campground ................................................................... 454,000 

FL .......................................................... Clearwater/Lake Dorr ................................................................. 800,000 

ID ........................................................... Driggs warehouse replacement ................................................. 800,000 

NC ......................................................... Cheoah Ranger Station .............................................................. 900,000 

NC ......................................................... Santeetlah Lake Area development ........................................... 1,500,000 

OR/WA ................................................... Region 6 facility disposal .......................................................... 1,000,000 

PA .......................................................... Allegheny NF recreation & admin. sites .................................... 2,600,000 

TN .......................................................... Cherokee NF recreation and admin. sites ................................. 2,500,000 

WI .......................................................... Forest Products Lab modernization ........................................... ¥8,000,000 

WY/CO ................................................... Medicine Bow-Routt storage consolidation ............................... 1,035,000 

The Committee notes that it has reduced the funding for the construction of new buildings for important wood products research at 

the Forest Products Lab (FPL), WI. The Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 to conduct detailed plans for this effort. As 

currently proposed, this project will cost over $40,000,000 and require construction of several new scientific buildings. The Committee supports wood products research, and greatly admires the 

outstanding record established by the FPL, but it has determined 

that the Forest Service needs to do additional comprehensive planning and partnering before undertaking such a large effort. Therefore, the Committee encourages the Forest Service, along with its 

partners and research users, to establish an integrated plan for 

agency-wide wood products utilization research, including the modernization of the Forest Products lab, and include strategic plans, 

with staffing cost estimates and a commitment from Administration leadership to pursue adequate staffing for any new facilities 

which may be needed. 

Roads.—The Committee recommends $225,499,000 for road 

maintenance and capital improvement, an increase of $35,940,000 

above the budget request and $897,000 below the fiscal year 2005 

level. The Committee has maintained the road decommissioning 

authority at $15,000,000. The Committee notes that at even these 

funding levels, the existence of failed roads continues to increase. 

The inventory of roads which can be used by passenger cars declines every year, and absent some new infusion of funds, such as 

from the highway trust fund, continued deterioration is assured. 

Trails.—The Committee recommends $76,000,000 for trails maintenance and capital improvement, $12,208,000 above the budget request and $293,000 above the fiscal year 2005 level. The Committee directs continuation of the increased funding amounts provided in fiscal year 2005 for maintenance of the national scenic and 

historic trails. In addition, within the increase above the request 

for trails construction, the Committee has included: $500,000 for 

construction at the Florida National Scenic Trail; $1,000,000 for 

construction at the Continental Divide trail; $1,000,000 for construction at the Pacific Crest National Scenic trail; $250,000 for the 

Rio Sabana trail, PR; and $750,000 for trail construction at the 

Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie, IL. The remainder of the increase above the request is for general program delivery. In addition, the Forest Service should maintain a full time Pacific Crest 

Trail (PCT) manager; provide funds to work with the Pacific Crest 

Trail Association; and aid PCT trail relocation reviews. The Forest 

149 

Service should make every effort to work with volunteer groups, 

which contribute work, time, and money to enhance Federal resources. 

Infrastructure Improvement.—The Committee recommends 

$13,000,000 for infrastructure improvement, $3,275,000 above the 

budget request and $829,000 below the fiscal year 2005 enacted 

level. The Committee has included $2,000,000 for the region 6 fish 

passage program. 

LAND ACQUISITION

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $61,007,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 40,000,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 15,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥46,007,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ¥25,000,000 

The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for land acquisition, a 

decrease of $25,000,000 below the budget request and $46,007,000 

below the enacted level. This amount includes $13,000,000 for acquisition management, $500,000 for cash equalization, and 

$1,500,000 for inholdings. 

ACQUISITION OF LANDS FOR NATIONAL FORESTS SPECIAL ACTS

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $1,054,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 1,069,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 1,069,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +15,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $1,069,000 for acquisition of lands 

for National forests, special acts, as requested. These funds are 

used pursuant to several special acts, which authorize appropriations from the receipts of specified National forests for the purchase of lands to minimize erosion and flood damage to critical watersheds needing soil stabilization and vegetative cover. 

ACQUISITION OF LANDS TO COMPLETE LAND EXCHANGES

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $231,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 234,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 234,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +3,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends an indefinite appropriation estimated to be $234,000, as requested, for acquisition of lands to complete land exchanges under the Act of December 4, 1967 (16 U.S.C. 

484a). Under the Act, deposits made by public school districts or 

public school authorities to provide for cash equalization of certain 

land exchanges can be appropriated to acquire similar lands suitable for National forest system purposes in the same State as the 

National forest lands conveyed in the exchanges. 

150 

RANGE BETTERMENT FUND

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $3,021,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 2,963,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 2,963,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥58,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends an indefinite appropriation esti- mated to be $2,963,000, as requested, for the range betterment 

fund, to be derived from grazing receipts from the National forests 

(Public Law 94–579, as amended) and to be used for range rehabilitation, protection, and improvements including seeding, reseeding, 

fence construction, weed control, water development, and fish and 

wildlife habitat enhancement in 16 western States. 

GIFTS, DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS FOR FOREST AND RANGELAND

RESEARCH

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $64,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 64,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 64,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... 0 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $64,000, the budget estimate, for 

gifts, donations and bequests for forest and rangeland research. 

Authority for the program is contained in Public Law 95–307 (16 

U.S.C. 1643, section 4(b)). Amounts appropriated and not needed 

for current operations may be invested in public debt securities. 

Both the principal and earnings from the receipts are available to 

the Forest Service. 

MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL FOREST LANDS FOR SUBSISTENCE USES

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $5,879,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 5,467,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 5,467,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥412,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $5,467,000, the same as the budget request and $412,000 below the enacted level, for the management 

of national forest lands for subsistence uses in Alaska. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS, FOREST SERVICE

The Committee has continued administrative provisions contained in previous years. The Committee has also continued the 

wildland fire transfer authority, which allows use of funds from 

other accounts available to the Forest Service during wildfire emergencies when other wildfire emergency funds are not available. As 

was the case last year, the first transfer of funds into the wildland 

fire management account shall include unobligated funds from the 

land acquisition and the forest legacy accounts. 

The Committee limits funding for the working capital fund of the 

Department of Agriculture to the $72,646,000 requested in the 

budget. As discussed under the law enforcement program heading, 

the Committee has included bill language allowing a transfer of 

funds consistent with the budget request special exhibit 15. 

151 

The Committee continues the authority for transfers to the National Forest Foundation and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. The Committee notes that it is acceptable for these foundations to make grants to Federal recipients, including Forest Service 

offices. The Committee allows $250,000 in administrative funds to 

be used by the National Forest Foundation, but encourages the 

Foundation to work to be independent of this Federal administrative funding support like the National Park and National Fish and 

Wildlife Foundations. 

The Committee remains very concerned about how the Forest 

Service has implemented the ‘‘Competitive Sourcing’’ initiative. 

This effort was mismanaged in the past. Accordingly, this issue is 

addressed once again in bill language, included under Title IV— General Provisions, limiting the use of funds for competitive 

sourcing efforts and providing certain other guidance. Competitive 

sourcing efforts may continue, but the cost is limited to $2,500,000, 

a 25% increase over the fiscal year 2005 limitation. 

The Committee is concerned that the Forest Service has an inadequate ability to obtain and produce reliable performance data that 

the Congress and the public can utilize to assess management effectiveness. The Committee notes the recent USDA–OIG audit 

(March 2005) that assessed the agency’s long-term challenges regarding the results act, and presented findings on the lack of adequate performance data. The Committee directs the Forest Service 

to develop and implement a system of internal controls to ensure 

improved agency performance data in fiscal year 2006 and to include a presentation on this improvement as part of the next budget justification. As part of this effort, the Chief should implement 

policies that hold agency line officers accountable for reporting 

more accurate performance data in 2006 and establishing an independent review process to validate the reported information. Measurable indicators should be maintained for line officer progress on 

programs and accomplishments. This information should be readily 

available to Congress and the public. 

The Committee recognizes that the Forest Service is engaged in 

two large efforts to improve administrative functions through detailed and expensive business process reengineering of financial 

services and human resources. The Committee supports efforts to 

improve in these areas, but it is concerned that the efforts may not 

be adequately documented and open to public scrutiny. Therefore, 

the Committee directs the Forest Service to provide quarterly reports on business process reengineering efforts and transmit these 

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations and post 

them in an easily found location on the agency web-site. The Committee expects the Forest Service, working closely with the Department of Agriculture, to provide adequate Congressional notification 

at key benchmarks in these processes, and directs the Forest Service to document the funding requirements and accomplishments in 

subsequent budget justifications. 

The Committee recently completed a detailed review of the use 

of reserve fund accounts by the land managing agencies. The Committee found that the Forest Service has generally had acceptable 

use of this fund. The Committee directs the Forest Service to notify 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations before making allocations in excess of $500,000 from this account. The ComVerDate Aug 04 2004 07:10 May 14, 2005 Jkt 021162 PO 00000 Frm 00151 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR080.XXX HR080
152 

mittee also requests that future budget justification displays on 

this fund include a complete presentation of spending from the 

fund during the most recent complete fiscal year, with a brief explanation why the uses were indeed important, unanticipated, and 

appropriate. 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICES

The provision of Federal health services to Indians is based on 

a special relationship between Indian tribes and the U.S. Government first set forth in the 1830s by the U.S. Supreme Court under 

Chief Justice John Marshall. Numerous treaties, statutes, constitutional provisions, and international law have reconfirmed this relationship. Principal among these is the Snyder Act of 1921, which 

provides the basic authority for most Indian health services provided by the Federal Government to American Indians and Alaska 

Natives. The Indian Health Service (IHS) provides direct health 

care services in 36 hospitals, 59 health centers, 2 school health centers, and 49 health stations. Tribes and tribal groups, through contracts and compacts with the IHS, operate 13 hospitals, 172 health 

centers, 3 school health centers, and 260 health stations (including 

176 Alaska Native village clinics). The IHS, tribes, and tribal 

groups also operate 9 regional youth substance abuse treatment 

centers and 2,252 units of staff quarters. 

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $2,596,492,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 2,732,298,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 2,732,298,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +135,806,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ 0 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 

153 


Insert graphic folio 056 20754A.056
154 


Insert graphic folio 057 20754A.057
155 

The Committee recommends $2,732,298,000 for Indian health 

services, the same as the budget request and $135,806,000 above 

the fiscal year 2005 level. 

The Committee has retained the requested operational increases 

in the health services programs, including the increases to mental 

health and substance abuse programs. The Committee suggests 

that the IHS direct some of the increased funding to combating 

youth violence and illicit drug problems in Indian country. The 

Committee urges the Administration to continue to request increases in these areas in future budget requests. The Committee 

reiterates that all program funding under this appropriation is to 

be treated as recurring programs in future years unless expressly 

stated to the contrary. 

Bill Language.—Language is included under Indian Health Services to ensure that all American Indian and Alaska Native children 

with disabilities have access to the services afforded to them 

through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The Act 

provides for the creation of a comprehensive system of coordinated 

services to ensure adequate health and human services for all 

American Indian and Alaska Native children with disabilities enrolled in Bureau-funded schools and this provision provides the 

mechanism for identifying these children to ensure that all eligible 

children have access to such services. 

INDIAN HEALTH FACILITIES

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $388,574,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 315,668,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 370,774,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥17,800,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +55,106,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 

156 


Insert graphic folio 058 20754A.058
157 

The Committee recommends $370,774,000 for Indian health facilities, $17,800,000 below the fiscal year 2005 level and 

$55,106,000 above the budget request. Changes to the request include increases of $5,000,000 for maintenance and improvements, 

$46,806,000 for health care facilities construction and $3,300,000 

for medical equipment. 

The Committee agrees to the following distribution of health care 

facilities construction funds: 

Project 2006 request Committee 

recommendation 

Kayenta, AZ Health Center ...................................................................................................... 0 $3,878,000 

San Carlos, AZ Health Center ................................................................................................. 0 6,139,000 

Fort Belknap, MT quarters ....................................................................................................... 3,326,000 3,326,000 

Southern California Regional Treatment Center ..................................................................... 0 11,242,000 

Northern California Regional Treatment Center ...................................................................... 0 11,547,000

Small Ambulatory Facilities ..................................................................................................... 0 10,000,000 

Dental Facilities Program ........................................................................................................ 0 4,000,000 

Total ................................................................................................................................ 3,326,000 50,132,000 

The Committee agrees to the following: 

1. The Service should continue to apply a cap of $2,000,000 for 

any single small ambulatory facility project and most, if not all, 

projects should be funded substantially below that level. 

2. The increase for equipment should be focused on replacing outdated medical equipment and should remain in the base budget. 

The Committee urges the Service and the Office of Management 

and Budget to request increases in this activity. Existing medical 

equipment in Indian country is rapidly becoming outdated and 

needs are increasing as more hospitals and clinics are built and expanded. 

3. Funds for sanitation facilities for new and renovated housing 

should be used to serve housing provided by the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs housing improvement program, new homes, and homes renovated to like-new condition. Onsite sanitation facilities may also 

be provided for homes occupied by the disabled or sick who have 

physician referrals indicating an immediate medical need for adequate sanitation facilities at home. 

4. Sanitation funds should not be used to provide sanitation facilities for new homes funded by the housing programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The HUD should 

provide any needed funds to the IHS for that purpose. 

5. The IHS may use up to $5,000,000 in sanitation funding for 

projects to clean up and replace open dumps on Indian lands pursuant to the Indian Lands Open Dump Cleanup Act of 1994. 

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, an 

agency within the National Institutes of Health, was authorized in 

section 311(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 to conduct certain research and worker training activities associated with the Nation’s 

Hazardous Substance Superfund program. 

158 

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $79,842,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 80,289,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 80,289,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +447,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $80,289,000, the budget request, for 

the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, an increase of $447,000 above the fiscal year 2005 level. 

AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY

TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC HEALTH

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 

an agency of the Public Health Service, was created in section 

104(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. The ATSDR’s primary mission is to 

conduct surveys and screening programs to determine relationships 

between exposure to toxic substances and illness. Other activities 

include the maintenance and annual update of a list of hazardous 

substances most commonly found at Superfund sites, the preparation of toxicological profiles on each such hazardous substance, consultations on health issues relating to exposure to hazardous or 

toxic substances, and the development and implementation of certain research activities related to ATSDR’s mission. 

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $76,041,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 76,024,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 76,024,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥17,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $76,024,000, the budget request, for 

toxic substances and environmental public health, a decrease of 

$17,000 below the fiscal year 2005 level. 

The Committee expects the Agency to provide periodic updates 

on its study of the health effects of naturally occurring asbestos, 

which is due to the Committee by September 30, 2006. 

OTHER RELATED AGENCIES 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND OFFICE OF

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) was established by 

Congress under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA). The Office of Environmental Quality (OEQ), which provides professional and administrative staff for the Council, was established in the Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970. 

The Council on Environmental Policy has statutory responsibility 

under NEPA for environmental oversight of all Federal agencies 

and leads interagency decision-making of all environmental matters. 

159 

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $3,258,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 2,717,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 2,717,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥541,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $2,717,000 for the Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental Quality, the same 

as the budget request and $541,000 below the enacted level. The 

Committee commends this office for achieving administrative savings. 

CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board was authorized by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 to investigate 

accidental releases of certain chemical substances resulting in, or 

that may cause, serious injury, death, substantial property damage, 

or serious adverse effects on human health. The Board became 

operational in fiscal year 1998. 

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $9,424,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 9,200,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 9,200,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥224,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $9,200,000, the budget request, for 

salaries and expenses of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, a decrease of $224,000 below the fiscal year 2005 

level. 

OFFICE OF NAVAJO AND HOPI INDIAN RELOCATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The dispute between the Hopi and Navajo tribes is centuries-old. 

The Hopi trace their origin on the land back to the Anasazi race 

whose presence is recorded back to 1150 A.D. Later in the 16th 

century Navajo settlement led to the isolation of the Hopi Reservation as an island within the area occupied by the Navajo reservation. In 1882, President Arthur issued an Executive Order, which 

granted the Hopi a 2.5 million acre reservation to be occupied by 

the Hopi and such other Indians as the Secretary of the Interior 

saw fit to resettle there. Intertribal problems arose between the 

Navajo tribe and the Hopi tribe revolving around the question of 

the ownership of the land as well as cultural differences between 

the two tribes. Efforts to resolve these conflicts were not successful 

and led Congress to pass legislation in 1958, which authorized a 

lawsuit to determine ownership of the land. When attempts at mediation of the dispute as specified in an Act passed in 1974 failed, 

the district court in Arizona partitioned the Joint Use Area equally 

between the Navajo and Hopi tribes under a decree that has required the relocation of members of both tribes. Most of those to 

be relocated are Navajo living on the Hopi partitioned land. 

160 

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $4,930,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 8,601,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 8,601,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +3,671,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $8,601,000 for salaries and expenses 

of the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation, the same as the 

budget request and $3,671,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted 

level. 

INSTITUTE OF AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE CULTURE AND

ARTS DEVELOPMENT

PAYMENT TO THE INSTITUTE

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $5,916,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 6,300,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 6,300,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +384,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $6,300,000 for the Institute of 

American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development, the same as the budget request and $384,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. 

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

The Smithsonian Institution is the world’s largest museum and 

research complex, with 17 museums and galleries, the National 

Zoo, and nine research centers around the world. Funded by both 

private and Federal sources, the Smithsonian is unique in the Federal establishment. Created by an act of Congress in 1846 to carry 

out the trust included in James Smithson’s will, it has been engaged for more than 150 years in the ‘‘increase and diffusion of 

knowledge.’’ In 2004, the Smithsonian attracted more than 

20,000,000 visitors to its museums, galleries, and zoological park. 

Additional millions also view Smithsonian traveling exhibitions 

and participate in the annual Folklife Festival on the National 

Mall. As custodian of the National Collections, the Smithsonian is 

responsible for more than 140 million art objects, natural history 

specimens, and artifacts. These scientific and cultural collections 

are a vital resource for global research and conservation efforts. 

The collections are displayed for the enjoyment and education of 

visitors and are available for research by the staff of the Institution 

and by hundreds of visiting students, scientists, and historians 

each year. 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $489,035,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 524,135,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 524,381,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +35,346,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +246,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 

161 


Insert graphic folio 059 20754A.059
162 

The Committee recommends $524,381,000 for salaries and expenses, an increase of $246,000 above the budget request and an 

increase of $35,346,000 above the enacted level. The recommendation includes $300,000 to continue the Tropical Research Institute’s 

work in microorganisms in tropical soil. The Committee notes that 

the new National Museum of African American History and Culture is just now beginning to hire staff and begin its planning effort, therefore its funding is maintained at the enacted level. 

The Committee supports the Smithsonian’s effort to focus Federal funding on basic maintenance and facilities operations, hence 

the recommendation includes the requested increases, above the 

enacted levels, of $6,309,000 for facilities maintenance and 

$12,268,000 for facilities operations, security and support. In addition, the Committee recommendation redirects into the facilities 

maintenance account $500,000 of the funding increase requested 

for institution-wide programs and $400,000 from the administration account. This still leaves the administration account with a 

2.5% increase above the enacted level. The facilities maintenance 

account includes other redirected funds and a small program increase, giving it a total funding level of $47,680,000; this is 

$2,000,000 above the request and $8,309,000 above the fiscal year 

2005 enacted level, representing a 21% increase over the enacted. 

FACILITIES CAPITAL

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $126,123,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 90,900,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 90,900,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... -35,223,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $90,900,000 for facilities capital, as 

requested, a reduction of $35,223,000 below the enacted level. The 

Committee recommendation redirects $1,000,000 of the requested 

increase for facilities planning and design into the revitalization account for use on the Asia II exhibit at the National Zoological Park. 

In addition, the Committee directs the Smithsonian to redirect 

$8,000,000 of the requested funding for the wetland exhibit into the 

Asia II exhibit project. It is important that the Asia II exhibit not 

be delayed; it is a vital part of the park and continued exhibition 

of elephants in a family group can not be maintained without the 

new project. The Committee also expects that the comprehensive 

planning effort currently underway at the zoological park is the appropriate tool to determine the best future concept and scope for 

any rebuilding of a wetlands exhibit. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

The Committee recommendation continues previous bill language 

included under Administrative Provisions which prohibits the 

Smithsonian from using funds to purchase any additional buildings 

without prior consultation with the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations. 

NATIONAL GALLERY OF ART

The National Gallery of Art is one of the world’s great galleries. 

Its magnificent works of art are displayed for the benefit of milVerDate Aug 04 2004 07:10 May 14, 2005 Jkt 021162 PO 00000 Frm 00162 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR080.XXX HR080
163 

lions of visitors from across this Nation and from other nations. 

The National Gallery of Art serves as an example of a successful 

cooperative endeavor between private individuals and institutions 

and the Federal Government. The many special exhibitions shown 

in the Gallery and then throughout the country bring great art 

treasures to Washington and the Nation. In 1999, the Gallery 

opened a sculpture garden, which provides a wonderful opportunity 

for the public to have an outdoor artistic experience in a lovely, 

contemplative setting. 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $91,708,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 97,100,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 97,100,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +5,392,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ 0 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 

164 


Insert graphic folio 060 20754A.060
165 

The Committee recommends $97,100,000, the budget request, for 

salaries and expenses of the National Gallery of Art, an increase 

of $5,392,000 above the fiscal year 2005 level. 

REPAIR, RESTORATION AND RENOVATION OF BUILDINGS

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $10,946,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 16,200,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 16,200,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +5,254,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $16,200,000, the budget request, for 

repair, restoration and renovation of buildings at the National Gallery of Art, an increase of $5,254,000 above the fiscal year 2005 

level. 

JOHN F. KENNEDY CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS

The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts is a living 

memorial to the late President Kennedy and is the National Center 

for the Performing Arts. The Center consists of over 1.5 million 

square feet of usable floor space with visitation averaging 10,000 

on a daily basis. 

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $16,914,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 17,800,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 17,800,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +886,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $17,800,000 for operations and 

maintenance, the same as the budget request and $886,000 above 

the enacted level. 

CONSTRUCTION

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $16,107,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 15,200,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 10,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥6,107,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ¥5,200,000 

The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for construction, a decrease of $6,107,000 below the enacted level and $5,200,000 below 

the budget request. 

Oversight.—The Committee directed the General Accountability 

Office (GAO) to conduct an accounting of how the Kennedy Center 

has managed the $204 million in construction funds provided since 

1995 to deal with life safety issues, ADA compliance issues, and 

other major construction needs. As in previous reports, the GAO 

raised concerns about construction management, including significant and consistent cost overruns, unresolved life safety issues, and 

potential fire safety problems. 

In the past, the Committee has given the Kennedy Center great 

flexibility in how it manages Federal construction funds. However, 

this fexibility has resulted in incomplete life safety projects and incomplete construction projects, such as the Eisenhower Theatre. 

166 

Managing taxpayer dollars effectively and efficiently as well as ensuring the safety of its patrons should be the Center’s highest priorities. 

The Kennedy Center has stated that their priority is to not interrupt performances schedules. This is reasonable only if construction projects are managed to avoid significant cost overruns. If the 

cost-overrun trend continues, the Center will have to provide the 

balance of funds needed to complete these projects from non-Federal sources. 

In the meantime, the Committee strongly encourages the Kennedy Center to implement the GAO recommendations. In particular, future budgets will be required to tie funds requested to 

specific projects and timelines, similar to other agencies funded in 

this bill. The Committee also directs the Kennedy Center to make 

use of the Smithsonian Inspector General for annual oversight and 

provide quarterly reports to the Committee on the status of all construction projects. 

In an effort to resolve the different approaches between GAO and 

the Kennedy Center regarding fire safety issues, the Committee directs the Kennedy Center to contract with the General Services Administration for a qualified, third party opinion on the situation at 

the Center and report those findings to the Committee. 

The GAO recommendations are as follows: 

‘‘1. We recommend that the Chairman of the Board of Trustees 

for the Kennedy Center exercise greater oversight of the Center’s 

management through the Board of Trustees. The Kennedy Center 

should work with the Smithsonian OIG, or another independent 

federal government oversight organization, to provide strategic and 

annual audits, plans for ongoing oversight of the Kennedy Center’s 

use of Federal funds based on an analysis of risk, safety, and vulnerability to internal control weaknesses. These plans should also 

specify the audits to be provided on a reimbursable basis by the 

Smithsonian OIG or another independent Federal government 

oversight organization. 

2. To ensure the safety of the Kennedy Center, we recommend 

that the Chairman of the Board of Trustees direct the President of 

the Kennedy Center to implement the following two recommendations: 

a. Take steps to better comply with the fire safety code. At a 

minimum, these steps should include fully implementing the conditions of the modeling study, ensuring that doors in key areas provide adequate separation from fire, and addressing the code deficiencies at the Millennium Stages. 

b. Promptly seek peer review by a knowledgeable third party of 

the egress and fire modeling study used as a substitute for prescriptive code solutions and implement any recommendations. Additionally, consult with recognized experts, such as GSA, to determine whether the Kennedy Center is fully adhering to prevailing 

professional practices regarding fire life safety issues. 

3. To better align the Kennedy Center’s management of capital 

projects, we recommend that the Chairman of the Board of Trustees direct the President of the Kennedy Center to implement the 

following five recommendations: 

a. Provide more timely and accurate information about capital 

projects by detailing their budget, scope, cost, and schedule, and 

167 

providing to stakeholders an annual reconciliation of the status of 

all planned, delayed, eliminated, and actual projects. 

b. Take steps to control cost growth and schedule changes in future capital projects by setting more flexible schedules and improving its management of contract modifications. 

c. Strengthen the Kennedy Center’s financial management controls by designing and implementing comprehensive contract, financial, and project management policies and procedures in accordance with prescribed Federal guidance. These policies and procedures should ensure that: • the Project Management Office prepares inspection reports, or 

similar documents, when services are performed that include a description of the services performed and the date(s) or period of performance and use this information to verify the validity of contractors’ invoices; • complete, up to date costs for construction and other services 

are recognized and used to prepare quarterly financial reports and 

manage project costs; • reasonable efforts are made to match invoices with inspection 

reports and previously paid invoices to prevent or detect duplicate 

payments; • contractors’ invoices meet minimum requirements and contain 

sufficient detailed information to clearly support the accuracy and 

validity of invoices; and • for Economy Act transactions, payments to other Federal agencies are for actual costs consistent with the Economy Act agreement. 

d. Establish and enforce a documents retention policy that allows 

for accountability of the Kennedy Center’s Federal funds; 

e. Have relevant Kennedy Center offices develop as built drawings and better track future changes to the Center.’’ The Kennedy Center should report to the Committee by February 15, 2006, and again on December 15, 2006, on the status of 

implementing the GAO recommendations. 

WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars is a 

unique institution with a special mission to serve as a living memorial to President Woodrow Wilson. The Center performs this mandate through its role as an international institute for advanced 

study as well as a facilitator for discussions among scholars, public 

officials, journalists and business leaders from across the country 

on major long-term issues facing this Nation and the world. 

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $8,863,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 9,201,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 9,085,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +222,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ¥116,000 

The Committee recommends $9,085,000 for salaries and expenses, $116,000 below the budget request and $222,000 above the 

2005 enacted level. This increase is 2.5% above the enacted funding 

level. 

168 

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS

GRANTS AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $121,264,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 121,264,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 121,264,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... 0 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ 0 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 

169 


Insert graphic folio 061 20754A.061
170 

The Committee recommends $121,264,000 for the National Endowment for the Arts, the same as the budget request and the 2005 

enacted level. 

Bill language is included, under Title IV—General Provisions, retaining provisions in last year’s bill regarding restrictions on individual grants, subgranting, and seasonal support; authority to solicit and invest funds; priority for rural and underserved communities; priority for grants that encourage public knowledge, education, understanding, and appreciation of the arts; designation of 

a category for grants of national significance; and a 15 percent cap 

on the total amount of grant funds directed to any one State. 

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES

GRANTS AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $122,156,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 122,605,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 122,605,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +449,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ 0 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 

171 


Insert graphic folio 062 20754A.062
172 

The Committee recommends $122,605,000 for grants and admin- istration, the same as the budget request and $449,000 above the 

fiscal year 2005 enacted level. 

MATCHING GRANTS

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $15,898,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 15,449,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 15,449,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥449,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $15,449,000 for matching grants, 

the same as the budget request and the fiscal year 2005 level. 

COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS

The Commission of Fine Arts was established in 1910 to meet 

the need for a permanent body to advise the government on matters pertaining to the arts, and particularly, to guide the architectural development of Washington, DC. Over the years the Commission’s scope has been expanded to include advice on areas such as 

plans for parks, public buildings, location of national monuments 

and development of public squares. As a result, the Commission 

annually reviews approximately 500 projects. In fiscal year 1988 

the Commission was given responsibility for the National Capital 

Arts and Cultural Affairs program. 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $1,768,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 1,893,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 1,893,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +125,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $1,893,000 for salaries and expenses 

of the Commission of Fine Arts, as requested, an increase of 

$125,000 over the enacted funding level. 

NATIONAL CAPITAL ARTS AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $6,902,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 7,000,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 7,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +98,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ 0 

The National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs program was established in Public Law 99–190 to support artistic and cultural programs in the Nation’s Capital. The Committee recommends 

$7,000,000, an increase of $98,000 above the 2005 level and the 

same as the budget request. The Committee accepts the Administration’s proposal to limit grants to $400,000 in a single year. 

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 established the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The Council was reauVerDate Aug 04 2004 07:10 May 14, 2005 Jkt 021162 PO 00000 Frm 00172 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR080.XXX HR080
173 

thorized as part of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–333). The Council’s mandate is 

to further the national policy of preserving historic and cultural resources for the benefit of present and future generations. The 

Council advises the President and Congress on preservation matters and provides consultation on historic properties threatened by 

Federal action. 

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $4,536,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 4,988,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 4,860,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +324,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ¥128,000 

The Committee recommends $4,860,000 for salaries and expenses 

of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, a decrease of 

$128,000 below the budget request and $324,000 above the enacted 

level. 

NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The National Capital Planning Act of 1952 designated the National Capital Planning Commission as the central planning agency 

for the Federal government in the National Capital Region. The 

three major functions of the Commission are to prepare and adopt 

the Federal elements of the National Capital Comprehensive Plan, 

prepare an annual report on a five-year projection of the Federal 

Capital Improvement Program, and review plans and proposals 

submitted to the Commission. 

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $7,888,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 8,344,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 8,177,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +289,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ¥167,000 

The Committee recommends $8,177,000, for salaries and expenses of the National Capital Planning Commission, a decrease of 

$167,000 below the budget request and an increase of $289,000 

above the enacted level. The Committee has included bill language 

allowing the use of up to one-quarter of one percent of funding for 

official representational activities to be used only when hosting 

international visitors associated with the international capitals 

working group. 

UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM

HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM

In 1980, Congress passed legislation creating a 65 member Holocaust Memorial Council with the mandate to create and oversee a 

living memorial/museum to victims of holocausts. The museum 

opened in April 1993. Construction costs for the museum came 

solely from donated funds raised by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial 

Museum Campaign and appropriated funds were used for planning 

and development of programmatic components, overall administrative support, and annual commemorative observances. Since the 

174 

opening of the museum, appropriated funds have been provided to 

pay for the ongoing operating costs of the museum as authorized 

by Public Law 102–529 and Public Law 106–292. 

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $40,858,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 43,233,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 41,880,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +1,022,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ¥1,353,000 

The Committee recommends $41,880,000 for the Holocaust Memorial Museum, a decrease of $1,353,000 below the budget request 

and $1,022,000 above the enacted level. This increase is 2.5% above 

the enacted funding level. The Committee encourages the Council 

to keep the Committee informed of substantive work plan changes 

and to inform the Committee if there is a need to move maintenance funds to repair damages to the Ross office building. 

PRESIDIO TRUST

PRESIDIO TRUST FUND

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $19,722,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 20,000,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 20,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +278,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the Presidio Trust 

fund, the same as the budget request and $278,000 above the enacted level. 

WHITE HOUSE COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL MOMENT OF

REMEMBRANCE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation enacted, 2005 .............................................................. $248,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 250,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 250,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +2,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ 0 

The White House Commission on the National Moment of Remembrance, established by Public Law 106–579, was created to (1) 

sustain the American spirit through acts of remembrance, not only 

on Memorial Day, but throughout the year; (2) institutionalize the 

National Moment of Remembrance; and (3) to enhance the commemoration and understanding of Memorial Day. The Committee 

recommends an appropriation of $250,000, an increase of $2,000 

above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level and the same as the level 

requested by the President. 

TITLE IV—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Section 401 continues a provision providing for public availability 

of information on consulting services contracts. 

Section 402 continues a provision prohibiting activities to promote public support or opposition to legislative proposals. 

175 

Section 403 continues a provision providing for annual appropriations unless expressly provided otherwise in this Act. 

Section 404 continues a provision limiting the use of personal 

cooks, chauffeurs or servants. 

Section 405 provides for restrictions on departmental assessments unless approved by the Committees on Appropriations. 

Section 406 continues a provision limiting the sale of giant sequoia. 

Section 407 continues a limitation on accepting and processing 

applications for patents and on the patenting of Federal lands; permits processing of grandfathered applications; and permits thirdparty contractors to process grandfathered applications. 

Section 408 continues a provision limiting payments for contract 

support costs in past years to the funds available in law and accompanying report language in those years for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service. 

Section 409 continues a provision specifying reforms and limitations dealing with the National Endowment for the Arts. 

Section 410 continues a provision permitting the collection and 

use of private funds by the National Endowment for the Arts and 

the National Endowment for the Humanities. 

Section 411 continues direction to the National Endowment for 

the Arts on funding distribution. 

Section 412 continues a limitation on completing and issuing the 

five-year program under the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act. 

Section 413 continues a provision prohibiting the use of funds to 

support government-wide administrative functions unless they are 

justified in the budget process and approved by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

Section 414 continues a provision permitting the Forest Service 

to use the roads and trails fund for backlog maintenance and priority forest health treatments. 

Section 415 continues a provision limiting the use of answering 

machines during core business hours except in case of emergency 

and requires an option of talking to a person. The American taxpayer deserves to receive personal attention from public servants. 

Section 416 continues a provision clarifying the Forest Service 

land management planning revision requirements. 

Section 417 continues a provision limiting preleasing, leasing, 

and related activities within the boundaries of National monuments. 

Section 418 extends the Forest Service Conveyances Pilot Program. 

Section 419 continues a provision providing the Secretary of the 

Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to enter into 

reciprocal agreements with foreign nations concerning the personal 

liability of firefighters. 

Section 420 continues a provision prohibiting the transfer of 

funds to other agencies other than provided in this Act. 

Section 421 continues a provision authorizing the Secretary of 

the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to give consideration 

to rural communities, local and non-profit groups, and disadvantaged workers in entering into contracts for hazardous fuels and 

watershed projects. 

176 

Section 422 continues a provision limiting the use of funds for filing declarations of takings or condemnations. This provision does 

not apply to the Everglades National Park Protection and Environmental Act. 

Section 423 provides guidance on competitive sourcing activities 

and clarifies annual reporting requirements to specify the reporting 

of the full costs associated with sourcing studies and related activities. Language is also included concerning the Forest Service so the 

problems associated with the previous, faulty competitive sourcing 

studies are not repeated in the future. 

Section 424 requires overhead charges, deductions, reserves or 

holdbacks to be presented in annual budget justifications, with 

changes presented to the Appropriations Committees for approval. 

Section 425 prohibits the expenditure of funds on Safecom and 

Disaster Management. 

Section 426 limits contracts for the operation of the National 

Recreational Reservation Center. 

Section 427 enhances Forest Service administration of rights-ofway and land uses. 

Section 428 extends the authorization for the Service First program. 

Section 429 allows the Secretary of Agriculture to complete an 

exchange of a leasehold interest at the San Bernardino International Airport for lands and buildings located adjacent to the 

former Norton Air Force Base in California.This exchange will 

allow the Secretary to relocate the forest supervisor’s office of the 

San Bernardino National Forest into buildings owned by the 

United States, which will result in lease cost savings and improved 

service to the public. 

Section 430 requires a report of the expenditure of funds pursuant to the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act. 

Section 431 continues a legislative provision limiting funds for oil 

and gas leasing or permitting on the Finger Lakes National Forest, 

NY. 

RESCISSIONS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2), rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the following table is submitted describing the rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill: 

Amounts 

recommended for 

Department and activity rescission 

Department of the Interior: Land and Water Conservation Fund 

(contract authority) ............................................................................ $30,000,000 

Environmental Protection Agency: various accounts (rescissions are 

under State and Tribal Assistance Grants heading) ....................... 100,000,000 

TRANSFERS OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2), rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the following table is submitted describing the 

transfers of funds provided in the accompanying bill. 

177 

APPROPRIATION TRANSFERS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

Account from which transfer is to be made Amount Account to which transfer is to be made Amount 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Wildland Fire Management.

$9,000,000 Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Wildland Fire Management.$9,000,000 

Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous 

Substance Superfund.

13,536,000 Office of Inspector General ........................... 13,536,000 

Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous 

Substance Superfund.

30,605,000 Science and Technology ................................ 30,605,000 

Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Wildland Fire Management.9,000,000 Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Wildland Fire Management.

9,000,000 

CHANGES IN APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW

Pursuant to clause 3, rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the following Statements are submitted describing the 

effect of provisions in the accompanying bill, which directly or indirectly change the application of existing law. In most instances 

these provisions have been included in prior appropriations Acts. 

The Bill includes the following changes in application of existing 

law: 

Overall Bill 

Providing that certain appropriations remain available until expended or extends the availability of funds beyond the fiscal year 

where programs or projects are continuing but for which legislation 

does not specifically authorize such extended availability. This authority tends to result in savings by preventing the practice of committing funds on low priority projects at the end of the fiscal year 

to avoid losing the funds. 

Limiting, in certain instances, the obligation of funds for particular functions or programs. These limitations include restrictions 

on the obligation of funds for administrative expenses, travel expenses, the use of consultants, and programmatic areas within the 

overall jurisdiction of a particular agency. 

Limiting official entertainment or reception and representation 

expenses for selected agencies in the bill. 

Continuing ongoing activities of those Federal agencies, which require annual authorization or additional legislation, which has not 

been enacted. 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

MANAGEMENT OF LANDS AND RESOURCES

Permitting the use of receipts from the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965. 

Providing funds to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

under certain conditions. 

Permitting the use of fees from communication site rentals. 

Permitting the collection of fees for processing mining applications and for certain public land uses. 

Permitting the use of mining fee collections for program operations. 

Providing for a Youth Conservation Corp. 

178 

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

Permitting the use of funds from other accounts for firefighting. 

Permitting the use of funds for lodging and subsistence of firefighters. 

Permitting the acceptance and use of funds for firefighting. 

Permitting the use of grants, contracts and cooperative agreements for hazardous fuels reduction, including cost-sharing and 

local assistance. 

Permitting reimbursement to the Fish and Wildlife Service and 

the National Marine Fisheries Service for consultation activities 

under the Endangered Species Act. 

Permitting the use of firefighting funds for the leasing of properties or the construction of facilities. 

Providing for the transfer of funds between the Department of 

the Interior and the Department of Agriculture. 

Providing funds for support of Federal emergency response actions. 

OREGON AND CALIFORNIA GRANT LANDS

Authorizing the transfer of collections from the Oregon and California Land Grants Fund to the Treasury. 

FOREST ECOSYSTEMS HEALTH AND RECOVERY FUND

Permitting the use of salvage timber receipts in the forest ecosystems health and recovery fund. 

RANGE IMPROVEMENT FUND

Providing for the use of receipts for the range improvement fund. 

SERVICE CHARGES, DEPOSITS, AND FORFEITURES

Allowing the use of service charges, deposits and forfeitures 

funds on any damaged public lands. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Permitting the payment of rewards for information on violations 

of law on Bureau lands 

Providing for costsharing arrangements for printing services. 

UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Allowing for the maintenance of the herd of longhorned cattle on 

the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge. Without this language, the 

longhorned cattle would have to be removed from the refuge. 

Providing for the Natural Communities Conservation Planning 

program and for a Youth Conservation Corps. 

Limiting funding for certain Endangered Species Act listing programs. 

Permitting payment for information or rewards in the law enforcement program. 

Earmarking funds for contaminant analysis. 

179 

LANDOWNER INCENTIVE PROGRAM

Providing matching landowner incentive grants to States and 

territories. 

PRIVATE STEWARDSHIP GRANTS PROGRAM

Providing private stewardship grants for private conservation efforts. 

STATE TRIBAL WILDLIFE GRANTS

Specifying the State and Tribal Wildlife grants distribution formula, the planning and cost-sharing requirements, requiring that 

funds unobligated after two years be reapportioned, and limiting 

administrative costs. 

CONSTRUCTION

Providing for repair of damage to public roads. 

LAND ACQUISITION

Providing options for the purchase of land not to exceed $1. 

Prohibiting the use of land acquisition project funds for certain 

administrative expenses. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Providing for installation of certain recreation facilities. 

Permitting the maintenance and improvement of aquaria and 

other facilities. 

Permitting costshared arrangements for printing services. 

Permitting the use of funds for employment related legal services. 

Permitting the acceptance of donated aircraft. 

Limiting the use of funds for establishing new refuges. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM

Allowing road maintenance service to trucking permitees reimbursable basis. This provision has been included in in annual appropriations Acts since 1954. 

Providing for a Youth Conservation Corps program. 

UNITED STATES PARK POLICE

Permitting reimbursement to the Park Police for special events 

under limited circumstances. 

NATIONAL RECREATION AND PRESERVATION

Prohibiting the use of cooperative agreements and any form of 

cash grant for the rivers, trail, and conservation assistance program. 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND

Providing grants for Save America’s Treasures to be matched by 

non-Federal funds, that individual projects are only eligible for one 

180 

grant and are subject to prior approval, and that funds for Federal 

projects are available by transfer to individual agencies. 

CONSTRUCTION

Limiting funds for Park Service Partnership projects with certain 

exceptions. 

Limiting donation or services associated with new facilities. 

Limiting funds for certain facilities at the Washington Monument. 

Providing funds for modified water deliveries to Everglades National Park with certain restrictions. 

Limiting funds for Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical 

Park. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

Rescinding $30,000,000 in land and water conservation fund contract authority. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Limiting funds for grants and contracts that don’t include the 

text of 18 U.S.C. 1913. 

Preventing the implementation of an agreement for the redevelopment of the southern end of Ellis Island. 

Allowing funds to be used to maintain certain parts of the District of Columbia near the White House. 

Limiting the use of funds for the United Nation’s Biodiversity 

Convention. 

Permitting the use of funds for workplace safety needs. 

Authorizing reimbursable agreements in advance of receipt of 

funds. 

Allowing the Secretary of the Interior to appeal value determinations. 

Allowing certain franchise fees to be available for expenditure 

without further appropriation to extinguish or reduce liability for 

certain possessory interests. 

UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

SURVEYS, INVESTIGATIONS, AND RESEARCH

Providing for two-year availability of funds for biological research 

and for the operations of cooperative research units. 

62. Prohibiting the conduct of new surveys on private property 

without permission. 

Requiring cost sharing for cooperative topographic mapping and 

water resource data collection activities. 

Permitting reimbursement of funds to the General Services Administration for security services. 

Permitting contracting for certain mapping and surveys. 

Permitting construction of facilities. 

Permitting acquisition of land for certain uses. 

Allowing payment of expenses for the National Committee on Geology. 

Permitting payments to interstate compact negotiators. 

181 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Permitting the use of certain contracts, grants, and cooperative 

agreements. 

Recognizing students and recent graduates as Federal employees 

for the purposes of travel and work injury compensation. 

MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE

ROYALTY AND OFFSHORE MINERALS MANAGEMENT

Permitting the use of excess receipts from Outer Continental 

Shelf leasing activities. 

Providing for reasonable expenses related to volunteer beach and 

marine cleanup activities. 

Providing for refunds for overpayments on Indian allottee leases. 

Providing for collecting royalties and late payment interest on 

amounts received in settlements associated with Federal and Indian leases. 

Permitting the use of revenues from a royalty-in-kind program. 

Providing that royalty-in-kind be equal to, or greater than, royalty-in-value. 

OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

REGULATION AND TECHNOLOGY

Permitting the use of moneys collected pursuant to assessment 

of civil penalties to reclaim lands affected by coal mining after August 3, 1977. 

Permitting payment to State and tribal personnel for travel and 

per diem expenses for training. 

ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION FUND

Earmarking Abandoned Mine Reclamation funds for acid mine 

drainage. 

Limiting grants to minimum program States. 

Allowing the use of debt recovery to pay for debt collection. 

Reallocates amounts in the Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation 

fund dedicated to the rural program (collected under section 

402(g)(2) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 

1977), which has not been used in 10 years, to the federal share 

portion of the fund (section 402(g)(3)). 

Allowing funds to be used for travel expenses while attending 

training. 

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

OPERATION OF INDIAN PROGRAMS

Limiting funds for contract support costs and for administrative 

cost grants for schools. 

Permitting the use of tribal priority allocations for general assistance payments to individuals, for contract support costs, and for repair and replacement of schools. 

Providing for an Indian self-determination fund. 

Allowing the transfer of certain forestry funds. 

182 

CONSTRUCTION

Providing that six percent of Federal Highway Trust Fund contract authority may be used for construction management costs. 

Providing Safety of Dams funds on a nonreimbursable basis. 

Providing for the transfer of Navajo irrigation project funds to 

the Bureau of Reclamation. 

Requiring the use of administrative and cost accounting principles for certain school construction projects and exempting such 

projects from certain requirements. 

Requiring conformance with building codes and health and safety 

standards. 

Specifying the procedure for dispute resolution. 

Allowing the Secretary to assume control of a construction 

project under certain conditions. 

Allowing reimbursement of construction costs from the Office of 

Special Trustee. 

MISCELLANEOUS PAYMENTS TO INDIANS

Permitting funding for the Quinault Indian Nation boundary settlement. 

INDIAN GUARANTEED LOAN PROGRAM

Limiting Indian guaranteed loan program funds for loans under 

certain circumstances and providing administrative expenses. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Allowing contracting for the San Carlos Irrigation Project. 

Limiting the use of funds for contracts, grants and cooperative 

agreements. 

Allowing tribes to return appropriated funds for distribution to 

other tribes. 

Prohibiting funding of Alaska schools. 

Limiting the number of schools and the expansion of grade levels 

in individual schools. 

DEPARTMENTAL OFFICES

INSULAR AFFAIRS, ASSISTANCE TO TERRITORIES

Requiring audits of the financial transactions of the Territorial 

governments by the GAO. 

Providing grant funding under certain terms of the Agreement of 

the Special Representatives on Future United States Financial Assistance for the Northern Mariana Islands. 

Allowing grants for the Pacific Basin Development Council. 

Providing a grant to the Close Up foundation. 

Providing for capital infrastructure in various Territories. 

Allowing appropriations for disaster assistance to be used as nonFederal matching funds for hazard mitigation grants. 

DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT, SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Permitting payments to former Bureau of Mines workers. 

Limiting the establishment of additional reserves in the working 

capital fund. 

183 

PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES

Excluding any payment pursuant to the Payments in Lieu of 

Taxes that is less than $100. 

CENTRAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS FUND

Providing that sums received from a party for remedial 

actionsshall be credited to the account, and defining nonmonetary 

payments. 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL TRUSTEE FOR AMERICAN INDIANS, FEDERAL TRUST

PROGRAMS

Limiting the amount of funding available for the historical accounting of Indian trust fund accounts. 

Specifying that the statute of limitations shall not commence on 

any claim resulting from trust funds losses. 

Exempting quarterly statements for Indian trust accounts less 

than $1. 

Requiring annual statements and records maintenance for Indian 

trust accounts. 

Limiting use of funds to correct administrative errors in Indian 

trust accounts. 

Permitting the use of recoveries from erroneous payments pursuant to Indian trust accounts. 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL TRUSTEE FOR AMERICAN INDIANS, INDIAN LAND

CONSOLIDATION

Permitting transfers of funds from Indian land consolidation for 

administrative expenses. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Allowing the sale of existing aircraft with proceeds used to offset 

the purchase price of replacement aircraft. 

Prohibiting the use of working capital or consolidated working 

funds to augment certain offices 

Requiring description of working capital fund charges in annual 

budget justifications. 

Requiring Committee approval of departures from Working Capital Fund estimates. 

Requiring reports on National Business Center activities. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Allowing transfer of funds in certain emergency situations and 

requiring replacement with a supplemental appropriation request. 

Permitting the Department to consolidate and receive reimbursement for services. 

Restricting various oil and gas preleasing, leasing, exploration 

and drilling activities within the Outer Continental Shelf in the 

Georges Bank North Atlantic planning area, Mid Atlantic and 

South Atlantic planning areas, Eastern Gulf of Mexico planning 

area, North Aleutian Basin planning area, Northern, Southern and 

Central California planning areas, and Washington/Oregon planning area. 

184 

Prohibiting fee exemptions for non-local traffic through National 

Parks. 

Permitting the transfer of funds between the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs and the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians. 

Providing for administrative law judges to handle Indian probate 

issues. 

Permitting the redistribution of certain Indian funds with limitations. 

Directing allocation of funds for Bureau of Indian Affairs funded 

postsecondary schools. 

Permitting the conveyance of the Twin Cities Research Center. 

Allowing the use of helicopters and motor vehicles on Sheldon 

and Hart National Wildlife Refuges. 

Authorizing funding transfers for Shenandoah Valley Battlefield 

NHD and Ice Age NST. 

Prohibiting the closure of the underground lunchroom at Carlsbad Caverns NP. 

Prohibiting demolition of the bridge between New Jersey and 

Ellis Island. 

Limiting compensation for the Special Master and Court Monitor 

for the Cobell v. Norton litigation. 

Allowing payment of attorney fees for Federal employees related 

to the Cobell v. Norton litigation. 

Requiring the Fish and Wildlife Service to mark hatchery salmon. 

Allowing for the transfer of certain Departmental Management 

funds to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the Midway Island 

refuge airport. 

Addressing the use of certain Indian lands for gaming purposes. 

Preventing funds to study or reduce the water level at Lake Powell. 

Limiting the amount of fees that may be collected by the National Indian Gaming Commission. 

Providing for a tribal trust demonstration program. 

Providing for the renewal of certain grazing permits in the 

Jardbidge Field office of the Bureau of Land Management. 

Authorizing the acquisition of lands and leases for Ellis Island. 

Permitting the Secretary of the Interior to issue grazing permits 

within the Mojave National Preserve. 

Implementing rules concerning winter snowmobile use at Yellowstone National Park. 

Limiting staff and funding for the Department of the Interior, 

Office of Law Enforcement and Security. 

TITLE II—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND

Providing for the allocation of funds to other Federal agencies 

under certain circumstances. 

Providing for the transfer of funds within certain agency accounts. 

185 

STATE AND TRIBAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Providing for grants to State, Tribal, and local governments for 

school bus services, pollution prevention, particulate matter monitoring, and for environmental information exchange grants. 

Providing for State authority under Public Law 104–182. 

Exempting limitations on State administration expenses at the 

discretion of the Administrator. 

Providing for administrative expenses for the State Revolving 

Fund. 

Limiting funding for certain United States—Mexico border programs under certain conditions. 

Providing for the transfer of special project funds, unawarded 

after 7 years, to the appropriate State Revolving Funds. 

Providing that excess funds from completed special projects or 

from projects determined to be ineligible for a grant be deposited 

in State Revolving Funds. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Allowing awards of grants to federally recognized Indian tribes. 

Authorizing the collection of pesticide registration service fees. 

Providing funds for grants and loans under CERCLA. 

Permitting the Administrator to make up to five scientist appointments to the Office of Research and Development. 

TITLE III—RELATED AGENCIES 

FOREST SERVICE

STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY

Deriving forest legacy funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

Requiring notification to the House and Senate Appropriations 

Committee before releasing forest legacy project funds. 

NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM

Allowing 50 percent of the fees collected under the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund Act to remain available until expended. 

Requiring the budget justification to display unobligated balances available at the start of fiscal year. 

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

Allowing the use of wildland fire funds to repay advances from 

other accounts. 

Allowing reimbursement of States for certain wildfire emergency 

activities. 

Requiring 50 percent of any unobligated balances remaining at 

the end of fiscal year 2005, except hazardous fuels funding, to be 

transferred to the Knutson-Vandenberg Fund as repayment for 

past advances. 

Permitting the use of funds for the joint fire science program. 

Permitting the use of forest and rangeland research funds for fire 

science research. 

186 

Permitting the use of funds for emergency rehabilitation and restoration and hazardous fuels reduction to support emergency response and wildfire suppression. 

Providing for grants and cooperative agreements with local communities for wildland fires. 

Requiring Committee approval for funding transfers. 

Providing for the transfer of hazardous fuels funding to the National Forest System. 

Providing for use of funds on adjacent, non-Federal lands for hazard reduction. 

Providing that funds for wildfire suppression shall be assessed 

for indirect costs. 

Providing for the transfer of wildland fire funds between the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture. 

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE

Allowing capital improvement and maintenance funds to be used 

for road decommissioning. 

Requiring that no road decommissioning be funded until notice 

and an opportunity for public comment has been provided. 

RANGE BETTERMENT FUND

Providing that six percent of range betterment funds may be 

used for administrative expenses. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Providing that proceeds from the sale of aircraft may be used to 

purchase replacement aircraft. 

Allowing funds for certain employment contracts. 

Allowing funds to be used for purchase and alteration of buildings. 

Allowing for acquisition of certain lands and interests. 

Allowing expenses for certain volunteer activities. 

Providing for the cost of uniforms. 

Providing for debt collections on certain contracts. 

Prohibiting the demolition or closing of regional offices. 

Permitting the transfer of funds for emergency firefighting from 

other forest service accounts under certain circumstances. 

Providing that the first transfer of funds for emergency firefighting shall include land acquisition and forest legacy funds. 

Allowing funds to be used through the Agency for International 

Development and the Foreign Agricultural Service for work in foreign countries and to support other forestry activities outside of the 

United States. 

Prohibiting the transfer of funds under the Department of Agriculture transfer authority under certain conditions. 

Prohibiting reprogramming of funds without approval. 

Limiting funds to be transferred to the USDA Working Capital 

Fund. 

Providing for a Youth Conservation Corps program. 

Providing for matching funds and administrative expenses for 

the National Forest Foundation and matching funds for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. 

Providing funds for sustainable rural development. 

187 

Allowing the limited use of funds for law enforcement emergencies. 

Providing Federal employee status for certain individuals employed under the Older American Act of 1965. 

Permitting the use of funds for education of dependents of personnel stationed in Puerto Rico. 

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICES

Providing that certain contracts and grants may be performed in 

two fiscal years. 

Exempting certain Tribal funding from fiscal year constraints. 

Limiting funds for catastrophic care, loan repayment and certain 

contracts. 

Limiting contract support cost spending. 

Providing for use of collections and reporting of collections under 

Title IV of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. 

Permitting the use of Indian Health Care Improvement Fund 

monies for facilities improvement. 

Providing for the collection of individually identifiable health information relating to the Americans with Disabilities Act by the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

Limiting the use of funds for tribal courts. 

Limiting the use of funds for overhead expenses. 

INDIAN HEALTH FACILITIES

Providing that facilities funds may be used to purchase land, 

modular buildings and trailers. 

Providing for TRANSAM equipment to be purchased from the 

Department of Defense. 

Prohibiting the use of funds for sanitation facilities for new 

homes funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

Allowing for the purchase of ambulances. 

Providing authority for contracts for small ambulatory facilities. 

Providing for land purchases for facilities in Alaska. 

Providing for certain purchases and for a demolition fund. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Providing for payments for telephone service in private residences in the field, purchase of motor vehicles, aircraft and reprints. 

Providing for purchase and erection of portable buildings. 

Providing funds for uniforms. 

Allowing funding for attendance at professional meetings. 

Providing that health care may be extended to non-Indians at Indian Health Service facilities. 

Providing that funds are not available for assessments by the Department of Health and Human Services. 

Allowing deobligation and reobligation of funds applied to selfgovernance funding agreements. 

Exempting certain activities from Federal transportation limitations. 

188 

Providing a limitation on the number of personnel at certain facilities. 

Prohibiting the expenditure of funds to implement new eligibility 

regulations. 

Providing that reimbursements for training provide total costs. 

Providing that funds be apportioned only in the appropriation 

structure in this Act. 

Prohibiting changing the appropriations structure without approval of the Appropriations Committees. 

AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY

TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC HEALTH

Providing for the conduct of health studies, testing, and monitoring. 

Providing deadlines for health assessments and studies. 

Limiting the number of toxicological profiles. 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND OFFICE OF

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Authorizing the appointment and duties of the chairman. 

CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Limiting the number of senior level positions. 

Authorizing the appointment of the inspector general of the 

board. 

Limiting the appointment of individuals to positions within the 

board. 

OFFICE OF NAVAJO AND HOPI INDIAN RELOCATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Defining eligible relocatees. 

Prohibiting movement of any single Navajo or Navajo family unless a new or replacement home is available. 

Limiting relocatees to one new or replacement home. 

Establishing a priority for relocation of Navajos to those certified 

eligible who have selected and received homesites on the Navajo 

reservation or selected a replacement residence off the Navajo reservation. 

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Providing that funds may be used to support American overseas 

research centers. 

Allowing for advance payments to independent contractors performing research services or participating in official Smithsonian 

presentations. 

Permitting the use of certain funds for the Victor Building. 

189 

FACILITIES CAPITAL

Permitting the Smithsonian Institution to select contractors for 

certain purposes on the basis of contractor qualifications as well as 

price. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Precluding any changes to the Smithsonian science program 

without prior approval of the Board of Regents. 

Limiting the design or expansion of current space or facilities 

without prior approval of the Committee. 

Limiting the use of funds for the Holt House. 

Limiting reprogramming of funds. 

Prohibiting purchase of buildings without prior consultation. 

NATIONAL GALLERY OF ART

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Allowing payment in advance for membership in library, museum, and art associations or societies. 

Providing uniform allowances and for restoration and repair of 

works of art by contract without advertising. 

Providing no-year availability of funds for special exhibitions. 

REPAIR, RESTORATION, AND RENOVATION OF BUILDINGS

Permitting the Gallery to perform work by contract or otherwise 

and to select contractors for certain purposes on the basis of contractor qualifications as well as price. 

Permitting the Gallery to issue a single procurement for the full 

scope of the Work Area #3 contract. 

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS, GRANTS AND ADMINISTRATION

Permitting transfer of funds within certain accounts. 

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES, MATCHING GRANTS

Allowing obligation of National Endowment for the Humanities 

current and prior year funds from gifts, bequests, and devises of 

money for which equal amounts have not previously been appropriated. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Limiting the use of funds for grants and contracts which do not 

include the text of 18 U.S.C. 1913; requiring certain language in 

contracts and grants; and permitting the use of nonappropriated 

funds for reception expenses. 

Prohibiting the use of funds for official reception and representation. 

Allowing the chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts 

to approve small grants under limited circumstances. 

190 

COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Permitting the charging and use of fees for its publications. 

NATIONAL CAPITAL ARTS AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS

Limiting the amount of grants awarded to an organization in a 

single year. 

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Restricting hiring at Executive Level V or higher. 

NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Allowing certain funds to be used for official representation expenses. 

TITLE IV—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Providing for availability of information on consulting services 

contracts. 

Prohibiting the use of funds to distribute literature either to promote or oppose legislative proposals on which Congressional action 

is incomplete. 

Specifying that funds are for one year unless provided otherwise. 

Prohibiting the use of funds to provide personal cooks, chauffeurs 

or other personal servants to any office or employee. 

Prohibiting assessments against programs funded in this bill. 

Prohibiting the sale of giant sequoia trees in a manner different 

from 2004. 

Continuing a limitation on accepting and processing applications 

for patents and on the patenting of Federal lands; permitting processing of grandfathered applications; and permitting third-party 

contractors to process grandfathered applications. 

Limiting the use of funds for contract support costs on Indian 

contracts. 

Making reforms in the National Endowment for the Arts, including funding distribution reforms. 

Permitting the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities to collect, invest and use private donations. 

Limiting funds for completing or issuing the five-year program 

under the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning 

Act. 

Limiting the use of funds for any government-wide administrative functions. 

Permitting the use of forest service road and trail funds for 

maintenance and forest health. 

Limiting the use of telephone answering machines. 

Clarifying the forest service land management planning revision 

requirements. 

Limiting leasing and preleasing activities within National Monuments. 

191 

Extending and expanding the pilot program allowing the forest 

service to dispose of certain excess structures and reinvest the proceeds for maintenance and rehabilitation. 

Providing the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to enter into reciprocal agreements with foreign nations concerning the personal liability of firefighters. 

Prohibiting the transfer of funds to other agencies other than 

provided in this Act. 

Providing contracting and grant authority for hazardous fuel 

projects in forest-dependent rural communities. 

Providing certain limitation of funds for Federal land takings excluding those under the Everglades National Park Protection and 

Expansion Act. 

Limiting the use of funds for competitive sourcing studies. 

Requiring display of certain information for government-wide activities in budget justifications. 

Limiting contracts for the operation of the National Recreational 

Reservation Service. 

Prohibiting use of funds for certain government-wide activities. 

Enhancing forest service administration of rights-of-way and 

land uses. 

Extending the authorization for the Service First program. 

Providing for the exchange of lands in San Bernardino, California, to relocate the forest supervisor’s office. 

Requiring a report on the expenditure of funds pursuant to the 

Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act. 

Limiting the use of funds to prepare or issue permits or leases 

for oil and gas drilling in the Finger Lakes National Forest, NY. 

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW 

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations in 

the accompanying bill which are not authorized by law: 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Last year of 

authorization Authorization level 

Appropriations 

in last year of 

authorization 

Appropriations 

in this bill 

Bureau of Land Management: 

All discretionary programs ......... 2002 Such sums as may be necessary ....... $1,681,437 $1,755,115 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

Resource Management: 

Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1988.1992 $41,500 ............................................... 35,721 146,909 

Great Lakes Fish & Wildlife Restoration Grants.2004 4,000 ................................................... 498 500 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

Amendments of 1994.

1999 10,296 ................................................. 2,008 4,485 

Fisheries Restoration Irrigation Mitigation Act 2005 25,000 ................................................. 2,000 3,000 

Great Ape Conservation 2005 5,000 ................................................... 1,381 1,400 

Neotropical Migratory Birds 2005 5,000 ................................................... 3,944 4,000 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Hazardous Substance Superfund ........ 1994 5,100,000 ............................................ 1,480,853 1,258,333 

State and Tribal Assistance Grants: 

Alaska Native Villages ................ 1979 2,000 ................................................... NA 15,000 

Clean Water SRF ......................... 1992 1,800,000 ............................................ 2,400,000 850,000 

Drinking Water SRF .................... 2003 1,000,000 ............................................ 844,500 850,000 

192 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Last year of 

authorization Authorization level 

Appropriations 

in last year of 

authorization 

Appropriations 

in this bill 

Clean Air Act .............................. 1997 Such sums as may be necessary ....... 167,230 234,600 

Radon Abatement Act ................. 1991 10,000 ................................................. 9,000 8,150 

Clean Water Act (FWPCA) ........... 1991 .............................................................. NA 426,000 

BEACH Act .................................. 2005 30,000 ................................................. 9,920 10,000 

Safe Drinking Water Act ............. 2003 115,000 ............................................... 108,343 116,600 

Solid Waste Disposal Act (RCRA) 1988 70,000 ................................................. 71,391 104,400 

Toxic Substances Control Act ..... 1983 1,500 ................................................... 5,100 18,850 

Pollution Prevention Act ............. 1993 8,000 ................................................... 6,800 5,000 

Indian Environmental General 

Assistance Program Act.

1998 Such sums as may be necessary ....... 38,585 57,500 

LUST Trust Fund ......................... 1988 10,000 ................................................. 14,400 11,950 

National Forest Foundation ................. 1998 1,000 ................................................... 1,000 3,000 

National Endowment for the Arts ........ 1993 Such sums as may be necessary ....... 174,460 121,264 

National Endowment for the Humanities.1993 Such sums as may be necessary ....... 177,403 138,054 

The Committee notes that authorizing legislation for many of 

these programs is in various stages of the legislative process and 

expects these authorizations to be enacted into law. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is a statement of general performance goals and objectives for which this measure authorizes funding: 

The Committee on Appropriations considers program performance, including a program’s success in developing and attaining 

outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing funding recommendations. 

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House 

of Representatives, the results of each roll call vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the names of those 

voting for and those voting against, are printed below: 

There were no rollcall votes in full committee. 

COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XIII, CL. 3(e) (RAMSEYER RULE) 

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman) : 

SECTION 331, SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b), OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000 (AS CONTAINED IN 

DIVISION C OF PUBLIC LAW 106–113) 

SEC. 331. Enhancing Forest Service Administration of Rights-ofway and Land Uses. (a) The Secretary of Agriculture shall develop 

and implement a pilot program for the purpose of enhancing forest 

service administration of rights-of-way and other land uses. The 

authority for this program shall be for fiscal years 2000 through 

193 

ø2005¿ 2009. Prior to the expiration of the authority for this pilot 

program, the Secretary shall submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, and the Committee on Energy 

and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives that evaluates whether the 

use of funds under this section resulted in more expeditious approval of rights-of-way and special use authorizations. This report 

shall include the Secretary’s recommendation for statutory or regulatory changes to reduce the average processing time for rights-ofway and special use permit applications. 

(b) Deposit of Fees.—Subject to subsections (a) and (f), during fiscal years 2000 through ø2005¿ 2009, the Secretary of Agriculture 

shall deposit into a special account established in the Treasury all 

fees collected by the Secretary to recover the costs of processing applications for, and monitoring compliance with, authorizations to 

use and occupy National Forest System lands pursuant to section 

28(1) of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 185(1)), section 504(g) 

of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 

U.S.C.1764(g)), section 9701 of title 31, United States Code, and 

section 110(g) of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 

470h–2(g)). 

SECTION 329 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002, 

AS AMENDED (16 U.S.C. 580 NOTE; PUBLIC LAW 107–63, 

AS AMENDED) 

SEC. 329. (a) PILOT PROGRAM AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF EXCESS FOREST SERVICE STRUCTURES.—The Secretary of Agriculture 

may convey, by sale or exchange, any or all right, title, and interest 

of the United States in and to excess buildings and other structures 

located on National Forest System lands and under the jurisdiction 

of the Forest Service. The conveyance may include the land on 

which the building or other structure is located and such other 

land immediately adjacent to the building or structure as the Secretary considers necessary. 

(b) LIMITATION.—Conveyances on not more than ø40¿ 60 sites 

may be made under the authority of this section, and the Secretary 

of Agriculture shall obtain the concurrence of the Committee on 

Appropriations of the House Representatives and the Committee on 

Appropriations of the Senate in advance of each conveyance. 

(c) USE OF PROCEEDS.—The proceeds derived from the sale of a 

building or other structure under this section shall be retained by 

the Secretary of Agriculture and shall be available to the Secretary, 

without further appropriation until expended, for maintenance and 

rehabilitation activities within the Forest Service Region in which 

the building or structure is located. Additionally, proceeds from the 

sale of conveyances on no more than ø13¿ 25 sites shall be available for construction of replacement facilities. 

(d) DURATION OF AUTHORITY.—The authority provided by this 

section expires on September 30, ø2008¿ 2009. 

194

SECTION 330 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001, 

(PUBLIC LAW 106–291, 114 STAT. 996)

Sec. 330. In fiscal years 2001 through ø2005¿ 2008, the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture may pilot test agency-wide 

joint permitting and leasing programs, subject to annual review of 

Congress, and promulgate special rules as needed to test the feasibility of issuing unified permits, applications, and leases. The Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture may make reciprocal delegations of their respective authorities, duties and responsibilities in 

support of the ‘‘Service First’’ initiative agency-wide to promote customer service and efficiency. Nothing herein shall alter, expand or 

limit the applicability of any public law or regulation to lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, National Park 

Service, Fish and Wildlife Service or the Forest Service. To facilitate the sharing of resources under the Service First initiative, the 

Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture may make transfers of 

funds and reimbursement of funds on an annual basis among the 

land management agencies referred to in this section, except that 

this authority may not be used to circumvent requirements and limitations imposed on the use of funds. 

FIVE-YEAR PROJECTION OF OUTLAYS

In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–344), as amended, the following 

table contains five-year projections associated with the budget authority provided in the accompanying bill:

[In millions] 

Budget authority (discretionary) ....................................................... $26,107

Outlays: 

Fiscal year 2006 .......................................................................... 27,496

Fiscal year 2007 .......................................................................... 16,037

Fiscal year 2008 .......................................................................... 5,609

Fiscal year 2009 .......................................................................... 2,469

Fiscal year 2010 .......................................................................... 1,258

ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–344), as amended, the financial 

assistance to State and local governments is as follows:

[In millions] 

New budget authority ........................................................................ $5,534

Fiscal year 2006 outlays resulting therefrom .................................. 2,241

195 


Insert offset folio 063 here 20754A.063
196 


Insert offset folio 064 here 20754A.064
197 


Insert offset folio 065 here 20754A.065
198 


Insert offset folio 066 here 20754A.066
199 


Insert offset folio 067 here 20754A.067
200 


Insert offset folio 068 here 20754A.068
201 


Insert offset folio 069 here 20754A.069
202 


Insert offset folio 070 here 20754A.070
203 


Insert offset folio 071 here 20754A.071
204 


Insert offset folio 072 here 20754A.072
205 


Insert offset folio 073 here 20754A.073
206 


Insert offset folio 074 here 20754A.074
207 


Insert offset folio 075 here 20754A.075
208 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF THE HONORABLE DAVID OBEY 

As the Ranking Minority Member of the Appropriations Committee, I cannot fault the fairness of the process followed by our 

Committee in producing the fiscal year 2006 Interior Appropriations bill. Minority Members were consulted throughout the process 

and the bill reflects our input in a number of important areas. But 

a fair process by itself does not produce an acceptable product. This 

bill’s principal responsibility is to provide for the environmental 

and conservation needs of America’s people and its natural resources. Notwithstanding increases in a few critical areas, the FY 

2006 Interior bill as currently presented simply does not fulfill that 

responsibility. Because of these failures, American families will be 

exposed unnecessarily to dirtier water and air and to the poisons 

of toxic Superfund sites. Because of its failures, many of America’s 

pristine natural landscapes and historic structures, as well as the 

variety of its wildlife, may be lost to future generations. 

The Interior bill’s failings did not occur by accident. The overall 

lack of funds to address national needs is the direct and inevitable 

result of the vote cast last month to approve a Republican Budget 

Resolution for 2006 that provides $11.7 billion less than the 

amount necessary just to maintain current service levels for domestic programs. As Majority Leader Tom Delay pointed out last 

month during debate on the Conference Report on the Budget Resolution, 

This is the budget that the American people voted for 

when they returned a Republican House, a Republican 

Senate and a Republican White House last November. 

After Republicans voted 218–12 in favor of a Budget Resolution 

with inadequate resources for domestic programs, I believe it is disingenuous for them to defend the Interior appropriations bill by 

saying, ‘‘We did the best we could with an inadequate allocation.’’

The Republican Members had a choice and they voted for the discretionary spending total which they now say forces these destructive choices. Not one Democrat voted for the current Budget Resolution because we understood the damage to essential services 

which it would cause. The 2006 Interior bill now presented to the 

House epitomizes the draconian results of the Republican fiscal 

philosophy which espouses super-sized tax cuts for the most welloff over critical priorities like protecting the environment. 

Among the many failings of the Interior bill reported by the 

Committee, the most destructive are its severe reductions in funding for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I am especially 

disturbed that the Interior Subcommittee, without a single hearing, 

has recommended cutting the Clean Water State Revolving Fund 

by $242 million below the 2005 funding level. This program serves 

every state and almost every community in this country. But, without a word of testimony by the EPA or affected communities, the 

Committee has cut the Clean Water Fund by more than 20 percent 

this year and by almost 40 percent over the last two years. If the 

Interior bill is approved as currently drafted, the $850 million provided in 2006 will be the lowest level of new capital assistance for 

this revolving fund since 1989. Majority Leader Delay was right. 

209 

This is the budget that the American people voted for 

when they returned a Republican House, a Republican 

Senate and a Republican White House last November. 

The need for investment in this country’s water systems is well 

documented and enormous. Two years ago EPA Administrator 

Whitman issued a formal report, entitled the ‘‘Water Gap Analysis,’’ which estimated the twenty-year fiscal shortfall between 

what we are currently spending and what is required at $388 billion. Everyone agrees that the Clean Water SRF program works. 

Over the last 16 years $21 billion of appropriations for the Clean 

Water SRF have generated $52 billion of construction projects in 

every state and in literally thousands of communities. 

The impact of the cut to the SRF recommended in the current 

bill on local communities will be very visible. Projects that have already been approved by State water authorities for future funding 

will, inevitably, be rejected, scaled back, or substantially delayed. 

A table showing the impact of these cuts to each state is included 

at the end of these remarks. As Members review this table for its 

impact on their own states, they should remember Majority Leader 

Delay’s prescient statement last month, 

This is the budget that the American people voted for 

when they returned a Republican House, a Republican 

Senate and a Republican White House last November. 

I am also very concerned by the decision reflected in this bill to 

reduce funding for environmental enforcement activities of the EPA 

by $12 million. I wish that every private company, every public 

utility company and every community water and sewer authority 

would willingly comply with the Clean Air Act and the Clean 

Water Act. I wish every industrial polluter who had dumped toxic 

PCB’s and other chemicals into our rivers or buried them in dumps 

outside their factories would enthusiastically clean up their Superfund sites. Unfortunately, 35 years of experience has taught us 

that aggressive enforcement is needed if we are to get compliance 

with our environmental laws. Enforcement has resulted in settlements with coal burning power plants that have cut emissions of 

sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides by nearly a million tons, reducing asthma attacks, lung disease and acid rain. Compliance agreements or enforcement orders with water and sewer authorities in 

cities across the United States have prevented billions of gallons of 

raw sewage from seeping into water supplies by requiring installation of upgrades at treatment plants. Members should not be surprised by these cutbacks in important environmental enforcement 

activities because Majority Delay was candid when he told us, 

This is the budget that the American people voted for 

when they returned a Republican House, a Republican 

Senate and a Republican White House last November. 

Not all the cuts in this bill are an artifact of it’s allocation. Some 

reflect ideological positions of the Subcommittee Chairman with 

which I very much disagree. In my opinion, the Chairman’s recommendation to eliminate $190 million of Land and Water Conservation funding, including funding for all new federal land acquisitions as well as all assistance to States, is a mistake for the country and for the Congress. The American people recognize the need 

210 

to preserve the remaining natural landscapes of this country for future generations. Those of us who visit our national parks and refuges know how precious they are. Five years ago 315 members of 

the House voted to make these programs an entitlement under the 

CARA bill because Congress didn’t keep its word to adequately 

fund conservation programs. The Subcommittee Chairman certainly has a right to his sincerely held views regarding land conservation programs, but I do not believe that his recommendation 

to eliminate all funding for the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund, as reflected in this bill, represents the will of the House. 

As I have noted throughout these remarks, these failings did not 

occur by accident, The Majority Leader of the House, Tom Delay, 

explained the reason for these cuts last month on the floor when 

the House adopted the Budget Resolution for 2006. 

This is the budget that the American people voted for 

when they returned a Republican House, a Republican 

Senate and a Republican White House last November. 

The FY 2006 Interior bill as reported to the House is not a bill 

that I believe Members of Congress can go home and tell people 

with a straight face, ‘‘We did the right thing.’’

I will not vote for it. 

211 


Insert offset folio 206F here 21162.001
212


Insert offset folio 206G here 21162.002