27–493 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 109–465 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND 

RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATION BILL, 2007 

MAY 15, 2006.—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. 5386] 

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, 2007. 

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 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service ........................................... 11 24 

National Park Service ......................................................................... 19 37 

United States Geological Survey ....................................................... 27 55 

Minerals Management Service .......................................................... 30 61 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement ................. 32 65 

Bureau of Indian Affairs .................................................................... 34 69 

Departmental Offices .......................................................................... 43 79 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
2 

Page number 

Bill Report 

General Provisions, Department of the Interior ............................... 51 90 

TITLE II—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: 

Science and Technology ...................................................................... 63 94 

Environmental Programs and Management ..................................... 63 101 

Office of Inspector General ................................................................. 64 113 

Buildings and Facilities ...................................................................... 65 115 

Hazardous Substance Superfund ....................................................... 65 117 

Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program ................................. 66 123 

Oil Spill Response ............................................................................... 66 127 

State and Tribal Assistance Grants .................................................. 66 129 

Administrative Provisions .................................................................. 72 139 

General Provisions, Environmental Protection Agency ................... 73 

TITLE III—RELATED AGENCIES: 

Forest Service, USDA ......................................................................... 73 139 

Indian Health Service, DHHS ........................................................... 88 165 

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences ..................... 96 173 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ......................... 96 173 

Other Related Agencies: ..................................................................... 98 174 

Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental 

Quality .............................................................................................. 98 174 

Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board ........................... 98 175 

Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation ................................... 99 175 

Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts 

Development .................................................................................... 100 176 

Smithsonian Institution ..................................................................... 100 176 

National Gallery of Art ....................................................................... 104 181 

John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts ............................ 106 183 

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars ........................ 106 184 

National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities .................... 106 184 

Commission of Fine Arts .................................................................... 109 188 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ....................................... 109 189 

National Capital Planning Commission ............................................ 110 189 

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum .................................... 110 189 

Presidio Trust ...................................................................................... 111 190 

White House Commission on the National Moment of Remembrance ............................................................................................... 111 190 

TITLE IV—GENERAL PROVISIONS ...................................................... 111 190 

TITLE V—SUSPENSION OF ROYALTY RELIEF ................................. 126 192 

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 ............................................................ 25,889 54 25,889 58 

Outlays ........................................................................... 26,906 54 26,906 58 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
3 

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 2007. The hearings are contained 

in 8 published volumes totaling over 10,000 pages. 

During the course of the hearings, testimony was taken at 12 

hearings on 10 days, not only from agencies which come under the 

jurisdiction of the Interior Subcommittee, but also from private citizens, and, in written form, from Members of Congress, State and 

local government officials, and private citizens. 

The bill that is recommended for fiscal year 2007 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 2007 

Committee bill, 

fiscal year 2007 

Committee bill compared with budget estimates 

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

authority ............................................................................... $9,612,568,000 $9,664,186,000 +$51,618,000 

Title II, Environmental Protection Agency: New Budget 

(obligational) authority ......................................................... 7,315,475,000 7,572,870,000 +257,395,000 

Title III, related agencies: New Budget (obligational) authority .......................................................................................... 8,604,072,000 8,707,069,000 +102,997,000 

Grand total, New Budget (obligational) authority ........... 25,532,115,000 25,944,125,000 +412,010,000 

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 2006, these activities are estimated to total 

$3,568,891,000. The estimate for fiscal year 2007 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 2006 and 2007. 

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

TOTAL BUDGET AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEARS 2006–2007 

Item Fiscal year 2006 Fiscal year 2007 Change 

Interior, environment, and related agencies appropriations 

bill ........................................................................................ $26,085,934,000 $25,944,125,000 ¥$141,809,000 

Permanent appropriations, Federal funds ................................ 3,045,310,000 3,169,787,000 +124,477,000 

Permanent appropriations, trust funds .................................... 578,600,000 641,809,000 +63,209,000 

Total budget authority ..................................................... 29,711,612,000 29,755,721,000 +44,109,000 

REVENUE GENERATED BY AGENCIES IN BILL

The following tabulation indicates total new obligational authority to date for fiscal years 2005 and 2006, and the amount recommended in the bill for fiscal year 2007. It compares receipts genVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:31 May 16, 2006 Jkt 027493 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR465.000 HR465

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
4 

erated by activities in this bill on an actual basis for fiscal year 

2005 and on an estimated basis for fiscal years 2006 and 2007. The 

programs in this bill are estimated to generate $17 billion in revenues for the Federal Government in fiscal year 2007. Therefore, the 

expenditures in this bill will contribute to economic stability rather 

than inflation. 

Item 

Fiscal year—

2005 2006 2007 

New obligational authority ........................................................ $27,017,724,000 $26,087,702,000 $25,944,125,000 

Receipts: 

Department of the Interior ............................................... 12,362,043,000 16,543,864,000 16,628,022,000 

Forest Service ................................................................... 506,251,000 365,870,000 369,020,000 

Total receipts .......................................................... 12,868,294,000 16,909,734,000 16,997,042,000 

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 2007, is defined 

by the Committee as follows: 

As provided for by section 256(l)(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 2007. 

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 authority aggregating $5.9 billion for Indian programs in this bill in 

fiscal year 2007. This is an increase of $62 million above the budget request and an increase of $204 million above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2006. Spending for Indian services by the 

Federal Government in total is included in the following table. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
5 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Approps bills FY 2005 actual FY 2006 enacted FY 2007 budget request 

Department of Agriculture ........................................................ 941,973 948,068 954,969 

Army Corps of Engineers .......................................................... 23,798 22,829 22,829 

Department of Commerce ......................................................... 30,046 23,524 23,524 

Department of Defense ............................................................. 18,000 18,000 237 

Department of Education .......................................................... 2,514,369 2,561,947 2,592,639 

Department of Health & Human Services ................................ 4,390,986 4,480,692 4,646,339 

Department of Housing & Urban Development ........................ 641,392 686,668 689,040 

Department of the Interior ........................................................ 2,918,680 2,832,497 2,819,962 

Department of Justice ............................................................... 219,855 228,639 230,295 

Department of Labor ................................................................. 89,032 67,804 64,066 

Department of Transportation .................................................. 315,153 348,594 388,897 

Department of Veterans Affairs ................................................ 567 325 615 

Environmental Protection Agency ............................................. 238,988 220,998 202,555 

Small Business Administration ................................................ 3,500 4,347 4,200 

Smithsonian Institution ............................................................ 49,047 51,280 53,428 

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

Other Agencies & Independent Agencies ................................. 148,733 166,249 40,108 

Grand Total ...................................................................... 12,528,119 12,667,771 12,733,703 

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 

modify the threshold and approval requirements for the National 

Park Service construction account. This added flexibility is provided in light of the volatile nature of the construction market and 

the need to manage projects in a timely way consistent with the 

contracting requirements of the Federal Acquisition Regulations. 

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

1. Definitions.—

(a) ‘‘Reprogramming,’’ as defined in these procedures, includes the reallocation of funds from one budget activity to another. In cases where either the House or Senate 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 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
6 

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. 

(b) ‘‘Committees’’ refer to the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations and, specifically, the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. 

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 appropriation 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 

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

and justified. 

(d) Reprogramming proposals submitted to the Committees 

for approval shall be considered approved 30 calendar days 

after receipt if the Committees have 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 Committees 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, Operation 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 6 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 Committees 

for approval should such grants exceed the normal reprogramming limitations. In addition, the Agency need not submit a reVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:31 May 16, 2006 Jkt 027493 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR465.000 HR465

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
7 

quest to move funds between wastewater and drinking water 

objectives for those grants targeted to specific communities. 

(c) With regard to National Park Service construction, the 

threshold is $2,000,000 or 25 percent per project. For actions 

between $500,000 and $2,000,000, or between 10 and 25 percent, the Service should notify the Committee when it redirects 

dollars between projects or reduces the scope in order to accomplish contract awards. Reallocations that will result in a 

project cancellation or deferral must be submitted in writing 

through the Department. In lieu of scope reductions, the Service may apply other non-operational funding resources towards 

the implementation of a construction project if the use of such 

funds has been approved through the normal requirements for 

the other fund sources (such as recreation or concessions fees, 

Federal Lands Highways funds or maintenance improvement 

funds) and the aggregate application is within these reprogramming thresholds. 

4. Quarterly Reports.—

(a) All reprogrammings shall be reported to the Committees 

quarterly and shall include cumulative totals. 

(b) Any significant shifts of funding among object classifications also should be reported to the Committees. 

5. Administrative Overhead Accounts.—For all appropriations 

where costs of 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 

contingencies the Committees expect a full explanation, as part of 

the budget justification, consistent with section 405 of this Act. The 

explanation shall show the amount of the assessment, the activities 

assessed, and the purpose of the fund. The Committees expect 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. 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. 

8. 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 and are approved by such Committees, in compliance with 

these procedures. 

9. Land Acquisitions and Forest Legacy.—

(a) 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, 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
8 

unless such acquisitions are submitted to the Committees for 

approval in compliance with these procedures. 

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to the National Park Service for tracts with an appraised value of $500,000 or less. 

10. 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 have 

had a 30–day period in which to examine the proposed exchange. 

11. Appropriations Structure.—The appropriation structure for 

any agency shall not be altered without advance approval of the 

Committees. 

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 monitored 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 2007 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 (5) 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. 

The 9 largest agencies in this bill have absorbed about $800 million in pay costs and over $440 million in other fixed cost increases, 

such as rent, utility, and fuel costs, over the past 6 years. As a result, the 9 largest agencies in the bill have received over $1.2 billion in ‘‘hidden’’ decreases over the 6-year period from 2001 

through 2006. These fixed cost and other funding absorptions have 

had a dramatic effect on critical staffing for the land management 

agencies in particular. For example, over the past 2 years, the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service has lost 600 staff, which equates to a 7% 

staffing reduction. Fixed cost absorption by the remaining 28 

smaller agencies and accounts in the bill is also creating program 

and staffing shortfalls in those agencies. The Committee urges the 

Administration to fund full pay and fixed cost increases in each fuVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:31 May 16, 2006 Jkt 027493 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR465.000 HR465

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
9 

ture budget request to stem the staffing and program declines experienced by the agencies throughout the bill. 

Reductions to programs in Indian Country, including education 

grants, welfare, road maintenance, fire protection 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 2007. The budget documents continue to indicate that talks regarding a possible settlement of the Cobell case. However, there has been a continued use 

of Bureau of Indian Affairs, Operation of Indian Programs (OIP) 

appropriation to pay for ongoing litigation support costs. This, does 

not in anyway, maintain our commitment to American Indian and 

Alaska Natives and the critically needed education and health programs that are central to our ability to meet those commitments. 

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 2007 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 

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 

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 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
10 

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 $14.8 million in fiscal year 2007, 

the same as the estimate for fiscal year 2006 and actual receipts 

of $14.5 million in fiscal year 2005. 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 collections (in- cluding salvage) are estimated to be $47.0 million in fiscal year 

2007 compared to estimated collections of $33.7 million in fiscal 

year 2006 and actual collections of $26.9 million in fiscal year 2005. 

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, 2006 .............................................................. $847,632,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 863,244,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 867,738,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +20,106,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +4,494,000 

The Committee recommends $867,738,000 for management of 

lands and resources, $4,494,000 above the budget request and 

$20,106,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
11 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 01 HR465.001
12 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 02 HR465.002
13 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 03 HR465.003
14 

Land Resources.—The Committee recommends $187,231,000 for 

land resources, $350,000 above the budget request and $382,000 

below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. Changes from the budget 

request include increases of: $700,000 in the soil, water and air 

management subactivity for the Upper San Pedro River, AZ, partnership; $500,000 in range management for invasive species work; 

$400,000 in forestry as a general increase; and $250,000 in riparian management to work on the Santa Ana River wash project, CA. 

The recommendation includes a decrease of $1,500,000 in cultural 

resources management for the requested new cultural resources enhancement initiative. The Committee recommends that the Bureau’s managers of the Southern Nevada Public Lands Act projects 

consider a grant application for hydroacoustic mapping of Lake 

Tahoe which would aid the lake conservation effort. 

Wildlife and Fisheries.—The Committee recommends $40,805,000 

for wildlife and fisheries as requested, an increase of $325,000 

above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The Committee notes that 

the funding limit for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

matching fund program is reduced to $2,750,000, a reduction of 

$250,000 below the request. 

Threatened and Endangered Species.—The Committee recommends $21,435,000 for threatened and endangered species as requested, an increase of $181,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted 

level. 

Recreation Management.—The Committee recommends 

$67,015,000 for recreation management, $3,250,000 above the 

budget request and $1,884,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted 

level. The wilderness subactivity includes $500,000 above the request to offset the requested program reduction. Changes from the 

budget request in recreation resources management include increases of: $500,000 for the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa National 

Monument plan implementation; $500,000 for implementation of 

various California desert plans; $250,000 for Imperial Dunes management, CA; $500,000 above the base for operation of various national scenic and historic trails, and a $1,000,000 general increase 

to assist management of units of the national landscape conservation system. 

The Committee directs the Bureau to include in subsequent 

budget justifications a clear exposition of funding requests in all 

subactivities and accomplishments of the trails system as well as 

the Bureau’s participation in the system of national scenic and historic trails. The Committee expects that the funding increase for 

national scenic and historic trails will become part of the base requested in the future. 

Energy and Minerals.—The Committee recommends 

$133,005,000 for energy and minerals, $1,700,000 below the budget 

request and $24,848,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

The recommendation includes the full increases requested for energy programs and projects, including increases, above the enacted, 

of $9,244,000 for energy permitting at non-pilot offices, $3,300,000 

for oil shale leasing, $425,000 for gas hydrates, and $739,000 for 

National Petroleum Reserve Alaska well capping. The Committee 

recommendation reduces the request for Alaska north slope oil and 

gas energy by $2,500,000; this reduction should be taken from the 

remediation of old wells. The Committee notes that this recVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:31 May 16, 2006 Jkt 027493 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR465.000 HR465

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
15 

ommendation therefore includes $9,900,000 above the enacted 

funding level for exploration and development of energy located on 

Alaska’s north slope, including the National Petroleum Reserve 

and the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, if authorized. The other 

minerals subactivity includes an increase of $800,000 above the request to facilitate development of policy and operations for potash 

and oil and gas development in New Mexico. As requested, funds 

are not provided for the Alaska minerals subactivity. 

Realty and Ownership Management.—The Committee recommends $82,816,000 for realty and ownership management, 

$300,000 above the budget request and $6,162,000 below the fiscal 

year 2006 enacted level. This includes a $200,000 reduction, which 

is funding transferred to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, for the Nez 

Perce Tribe/Snake River water rights settlement. The recommendation includes $500,000 above the request to help implement sections 121 and 122 of the Steens Mountain Act (P.L. 106–399). The 

Committee urges the Bureau to comply with the Steens Mountain 

Act and allow landowner, lessee and inholder access to their property within the boundary of the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area, OR. 

Resource Protection and Maintenance.—The Committee recommends $85,175,000 for resource protection and maintenance, 

$1,544,000 above the budget request and $817,000 above the fiscal 

year 2006 enacted level. The Committee recommendation includes 

an increase of $1,000,000 to the base for law enforcement activities 

along the southwestern border in New Mexico, Arizona, and California, and a general program increase of $544,000. The Committee 

notes that the Bureau’s base budget includes previous funding increases for California desert rangers, a vital public service because 

of the incredibly high seasonal use of public lands in California. 

Transportation and Facilities Maintenance.—The Committee recommends $75,631,000 for transportation and facilities maintenance, $250,000 above the budget request and $1,015,000 below 

the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The $250,000 increase within 

the annual maintenance subactivity is to enhance the system of 

National scenic and historic trails. 

Land and Resource Information Systems.—The Committee recommends $17,585,000 for land and resource information systems, 

the same as the budget request and $364,000 below the fiscal year 

2006 enacted level. 

Mining Law Administration.—The Committee recommends 

$32,696,000 for mining law administration as requested. Offsetting 

fees are equal to the amount made available to support this activity. 

Workforce and Organizational Support.—The Committee recommends $147,183,000 for workforce and organizational support, 

the same as the budget request and $1,737,000 above the fiscal 

year 2006 enacted level. 

Challenge Cost Share.—The Committee recommends $9,857,000 

for the Bureau’s traditional challenge cost share program, the same 

as the fiscal year 2006 enacted funding level and $500,000 above 

the budget request. The Committee notes that the Bureau has very 

successfully used this funding to leverage private contributions and 

provide numerous projects which enhance public lands and public 

service. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
16 

Bill language.—Language is included in Title IV.—General Provisions concerning E-government initiatives and competitive 

sourcing studies. 

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $755,286,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 769,560,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 769,253,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +13,967,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ¥307,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
17 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 04 HR465.004
18 

The Committee recommends $769,253,000 for wildland fire management, $307,000 below the budget request and $13,967,000 above 

the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The appropriation includes 

$274,801,000 for preparedness, $257,041,000 for fire suppression 

operations, $199,787,000 for hazardous fuels reduction, $24,286,000 

for burned area rehabilitation, $7,338,000 for fire facilities and 

$6,000,000 for the joint fire science program. 

The Committee is concerned that the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior do not have a suitable or comprehensive 

plan and strategy to deal with the Nation’s wildfire management 

needs. The previous momentum for the national fire plan seems to 

have waned within the Administration based on the selective recognition of its main features. Accordingly, the Committee directs 

the wildland fire management council, in partnership with the 

State wildfire agencies, to develop and implement a comprehensive 

and cohesive strategy that identifies long-term options and funding 

needed to respond to wildfire needs. This strategy should incorporate previous documents suggested by the States, and should indicate how the various planning tools, such as fire program analysis and LANDFIRE, fit. The strategy should address all four of 

the original national fire plan goals, as well as the research and 

development needs and management needs required to support this 

effort. As a beginning, the Committee requires a report by the two 

departments, by January 31, 2007, providing the tactical details on 

how this fundamental plan, with associated funding needs, will be 

produced by June 30, 2007. 

Wildfire Preparedness.—The Committee recommends 

$274,801,000 for wildfire preparedness as requested, an increase of 

$5,962,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The Committee 

is concerned that the Department maintains sufficient readiness 

with its preparedness program. Accordingly, bill language is provided in Title IV, which limits competitive sourcing activities for 

wildfire program activities. While contracting is encouraged for 

wildfire management activities, at this time it is not warranted to 

spend limited resources and time to fulfill competitive sourcing 

quotas. The Committee also expects that the Department will be 

very cautious in using limited preparedness funding for its ready 

reserve program, and only provide Federal funds to support nonFederal firefighters where it is clear that there are measurable 

benefits. 

The Committee is very concerned about the cost and utility of the 

fire program analysis system that is being jointly developed with 

the Forest Service. It is not clear why this system is so expensive, 

and furthermore, it is not clear that the system being developed 

will actually be useful for its original purpose of determining the 

most cost efficient and effective distribution of firefighting resources. The overall goals of the system still are important to 

achieve so the Committee is not prepared at this time to halt development. However, the Committee has included bill language which 

limits funding for this effort unless and until the Secretary of the 

Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture certify in writing that the 

fire program analysis system will be completed in a timely fashion 

and include the full participation of State partners. The Committee 

understands that expert, independent technical reviews are currently underway, but it is especially critical that management parVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:31 May 16, 2006 Jkt 027493 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR465.000 HR465

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
19 

ticipate at a high level to ensure the public that overarching goals 

are attainable in a cost effective manner. 

Wildfire Suppression Operations.—The Committee recommends 

$257,041,000 for wildfire suppression operations as requested, an 

increase of $26,320,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted funding 

level. The Committee recommendation fully meets the 10–year average expenditure which actually occurred, adjusted for inflation. 

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 required previously and to examine, using independent panels, any individual wildfire incident which results in 

expenses greater than $10,000,000. 

Hazardous Fuels.—The Committee has provided $199,787,000 for 

hazardous fuels reduction work as requested, a decrease of 

$8,326,000 below the fiscal year 2006 level. Within the allocation, 

the Committee directs that no less than $4,500,000 be used for fire 

safe councils and community-based projects in California; this 

funding level is similar to that provided in earlier years for this important partnership. 

The Committee commends the Department for its work on the 

hazardous fuels program but it is still not clear that funding is 

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

The Committee continues to stress that the Department must coordinate all hazardous fuels activities with the Department of Agriculture, State fire agencies, and community wildfire protection 

plans. The Committee expects the Department to provide a report 

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations before distributing funds to the bureaus which indicates clearly how funding 

is prioritized and allocated to bureaus, to regions or States, and to 

projects. Furthermore, all subsequent budget justifications for this 

program should clearly indicate the budget formulation process and 

provide the recommended funding split and projected accomplishments by bureau, and by region or State. The Committee reiterates 

its previous directions for the Department of the Interior and the 

Department of Agriculture to have a common hazardous fuels allocation process to ensure funding goes to areas which protect communities, lives, property, and ecosystems, and which rewards successful field units that design projects in accordance with community wildfire protection plans or their equivalent and includes partnerships with States and others. The Departments need to implement in fiscal year 2007 additional program metrics beyond merely 

acres treated; these metrics must account for important tactical 

goals including protection of communities and populations, as well 

as mechanical treatments and biomass removed. 

Rehabilitation.—The Committee recommends $24,286,000 as requested for the burned area rehabilitation and restoration program, an increase of $170,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted 

level. The Committee notes that this funds the native plant materials program at the fiscal year 2006 level. The Committee encourages the Department and the Bureau to direct the native plant program to work closely with other programs which disrupt vegetation, especially the oil and gas program. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
20 

State and Local Fire Assistance.—The Committee has accepted 

the Administration’s request to eliminate funding for the State and 

local fire assistance program. However, the Committee has accordingly increased the funding for volunteer and State fire assistance 

within the Forest Service wildland fire management appropriation. 

The Committee expects that the Forest Service will work closely 

with Interior bureaus to ensure that assistance funding goes for 

the most meritorious State and local fire department projects. 

These rural and local fire units are extremely important for the 

Nation’s readiness and they should be commended for their hard 

work and success at initial attack and shared participation during 

emergencies. The Committee also expects that fire assistance provided through the Federal Emergency Management Agency will 

carefully consider the needs and success of rural fire assistance 

providers. 

Fire Facilities.—The Committee has provided $7,338,000 for fire 

facilities, a decrease of $396,000 below both the request and the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. This reduction eliminates the last 

project on the budget justification project list; this project should 

be considered under the Southern Nevada Public Lands Act. 

Joint Fire Sciences Program.—The Committee has provided 

$6,000,000 for the joint fire science program, an increase of $89,000 

above both the request and the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The 

Committee stresses that it is vital that both the Interior Department and the Forest Service work on these research efforts jointly, 

and that the program continue to stress practical solutions and collaborate with the Nation’s forestry schools and other partners. 

Bill Language.—Language is included under the wildland fire 

management account as in previous years. Additional language is 

included in Title IV, which limits funding for the fire program 

analysis system unless both Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture 

certify that this project will be completed in a timely manner and 

will include State partners, and which limits competitive sourcing 

for wildland fire management. 

CONSTRUCTION

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $11,750,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 6,476,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 11,476,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥274,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +5,000,000 

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

$5,000,000 above the budget request and $274,000 below the fiscal 

year 2006 enacted level. The increase above the budget request is 

for the Santa Ana River wash cooperative conservation program 

with the County of San Bernardino, CA. 

LAND ACQUISITION

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $8,621,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 8,767,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 3,067,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥5,554,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ¥5,700,000 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
21 

The Committee recommends $3,067,000 for land acquisition, a decrease of $5,554,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level, and 

a decrease of $5,700,000 below the budget estimate. 

The Committee recommends the following distribution of funds: 

Coachella Valley, CA .......................................................................... $500,000 

Subtotal ........................................................................................ 500,000 

Acquisition Management ................................................................... 1,567,000 

Emergencies and Hardships .............................................................. 1,000,000 

Total ...................................................................................... $3,067,000 

OREGON AND CALIFORNIA GRANT LANDS

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $108,451,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 112,408,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 111,408,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +2,957,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ¥1,000,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
22 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 05 HR465.005
23 

The Committee recommends $111,408,000 for the Oregon and California grant lands, $1,000,000 below the budget request and 

$2,957,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

RANGE IMPROVEMENTS

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $10,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 10,000,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 10,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... 0 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ 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. The 

Committee has retained bill language as in previous years even 

though the Administration had requested its deletion. 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 $25,483,000, 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

The Committee recommends an indefinite appropriation esti- mated 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. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommendation includes the administrative provisions as requested, plus a new provision which allows refunds or 

rebates received on an ongoing basis from an information technology vender to be deposited into the Bureau’s management of 

lands and resources fund to be used to offset the Bureau’s costs inVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:31 May 16, 2006 Jkt 027493 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR465.000 HR465

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
24 

curred in providing this service. The requested provisions includes 

a new item which provides a technical change to mining law which 

clarifies the time of day annual work on claims must be registered, 

and extending claim maintenance fees. 

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. 

Throughout the Service’s budget, the Committee has recommended reductions to grant programs in order to restore funding 

for mission-essential Federal programs managed by the Service. 

This was a difficult but necessary decision to slow the staffing decline the Service has experienced over the past two years. Given 

the constrained allocation for fiscal year 2007, the Committee cannot sustain past levels for grant programs at the expense of mission-essential programs. 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $1,001,435,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 995,594,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 1,016,669,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +15,234,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +21,075,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
25 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 06 HR465.006
26 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 07 HR465.007
27 

The Committee recommends $1,016,669,000 for resource manage- ment, an increase of $21,075,000 above the budget request and 

$15,234,000 above the fiscal year 2006 level. Changes to the budget 

request are detailed below. 

Ecological Services.—The Committee recommends $254,091,000 

for ecological services, an increase of $11,467,000 above the budget 

request. 

Changes for endangered species candidate conservation programs include increases of $300,000 for Idaho sage grouse and $300,000 

for the fisher (Martes pennanti) and a general program decrease of 

$500,000. 

There is an increase of $681,000 to address unmet need in the 

consultation program. Increases for recovery programs include $146,000 to restore the base program, $800,000 for wolf monitoring that is transferred 

from the habitat conservation program, $700,000 for wolf monitoring in Idaho, $1,500,000 for Pacific salmon grants to be administered through the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, $500,000 

for Florida manatee protection and recovery, $150,000 for Northern 

Aplomado falcon recovery efforts through the Peregrine Fund, 

$500,000 for Southern sea otter recovery, and $495,000 for grizzly 

bear conservation that is moved from the habitat conservation program. 

For the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program, there are de- creases $495,000 for grizzly bear conservation and $800,000 for 

wolf monitoring that have been moved to the recovery program and 

increases of $1,400,000 for the Washington regional fisheries enhancement groups, $500,000 for the environmental data quality 

and access project with the Washington State Department of Fish 

and Wildlife (salmon recovery), $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 Georgia streambank restoration, $500,000 

for nutria eradication at the Blackwater NWR, MD, and $1,500,000 

to continue the 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 Bosque initiative, $100,000 to continue operations at the 

Cedar City, UT ecological services office, and $140,000 to restore 

the base program. 

In coastal programs there are increases of $500,000 for Coastal 

Barrier Resource System map digitization and $300,000 to restore 

funding for the Tampa and Florida panhandle field offices. 

Refuges and Wildlife.—The Committee recommends $486,572,000 

for refuges and wildlife, an increase of $6,213,000 above the budget 

request. 

In refuge operations, there is a net increase of $4,444,000; which 

includes a decrease of $4,278,000 for the departmental challenge 

cost share program and increases of $622,000 to restore funds associated with the proposed ‘‘management savings’’ reduction, 

$3,500,000 for refuge operating needs/staffing shortfalls, $1,500,000 

to continue the Spartina grass control program at the Willapa 

NWR, WA, $1,000,000 to continue cooperative projects with friends 

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


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
28 

facility enhancement program, and $1,100,000 to restore the refuge 

law enforcement program. In refuge maintenance, there is an increase of $2,500,000. 

In migratory bird management, there is a decrease of $955,000 

for the joint ventures program. In law enforcement operations, there are increases of $124,000 to restore the operations base program and $100,000 to restore the 

maintenance base program. 

Fisheries.—The Committee recommends $121,359,000 for fisheries, an increase of $6,747,000 above the budget request. For fish 

and wildlife management, increases include $1,177,000 to restore 

funds associated with the proposed general reduction, $75,000 to 

restore the aquatic nuisance species program, $500,000 to restore 

the Great Lakes fish and wildlife restoration program, $1,500,000 

for Washington State salmon mass marking of hatchery fish, 

$400,000 for Washington salmon enhancement activities to be divided equally between the Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement 

Group and Long Live the Kings, $250,000 for the Regional Mark 

Processing Center, $660,000 for the Potomac River Snakehead 

Management Plan, and $185,000 for the South River, MD brown 

bullhead cancer study. There is also an increase of $2,000,000 to 

restore the marine mammals program. 

General Administration.—The Committee recommends 

$154,647,000 for general administration, a net decrease of 

$3,352,000 below the budget request. For the National Conservation Training Center, there is an increase of $804,000 to restore 

base funding and a decrease of $1,800,000 for performance training. For the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, there is a decrease of $2,656,000. In the international affairs program there is 

an increase of $300,000 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 $17,759,000, as requested, is earmarked for listing, 

of which $12,581,000 is earmarked for critical habitat designation. 

The Committee agrees to the following: 

1. The Department reported to the Committee that 100 percent 

of non-pay related fixed costs were funded in the budget request; 

however, no fixed cost increases were requested for facilities owned 

by the Service, such as those at National Wildlife Refuges and National Fish Hatcheries. This practice of excluding fixed cost funding 

for Service-owned buildings has exacerbated the staffing situation 

in the Service, and 600 positions have been lost over the past 2 

years. The Service should budget for all facility fixed cost increases 

and not just for fixed costs increases for leased space in GSA owned 

buildings. The Department should fully support the Service in this 

effort. 

2. The Service reported to the Committee that it spent $708,000 

on competitive sourcing efforts in the first half of fiscal year 2006 

and that it will not exceed the $980,000 budgeted for these studies 

for the entire fiscal year. The Committee cautions the Service that 

there is a statutory limitation on how much can be spent for competitive sourcing studies by the Department of the Interior and 

that limitation applies to the full cost for competitive sourcing, including ‘‘developing, implementing, supporting, managing, monitoring, and reporting on competitive sourcing, including personnel, 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
29 

consultant, travel, and training costs associated with program management.’’

3. Funds provided for specific programs, such as invasive species 

control, and in specific accounts, such as endangered species recovery, should not be diverted to address operational funding deficiencies or realigned to other budget line items, even if the realignment is less than the reprogramming threshold, unless the Committee is notified in advance and approves such realignment. 

4. The Service proposed administrative reductions in many programs using an activity based costing methodology. The Committee 

notes that activity based costing is used throughout the Department of the Interior but no other bureau used this system to impose arbitrary reductions to programs and neither should the Service in the future. The Committee has restored many of the proposed reductions and expects the Service to achieve savings, to be 

used to offset the others, by establishing Service Support Centers 

in the regions and eliminating unnecessary rental space as explained in the next two items. 

5. The Service should pursue the establishment of Service Support Centers to achieve administrative efficiencies; similar to the 

arrangement between Region 1 in Portland, OR and the California/ 

Nevada Operations Office. By consolidating personnel, contracting 

and other administrative functions in certain Regions, the Service 

should be able to halt or slow the loss of FTEs in the field. The 

Service should report to the Committee by December 31, 2006, with 

a plan for instituting Service Support Centers, including the expected costs and savings over time. 

6. Also, to achieve administrative savings, the Service should 

strictly enforce standard space requirements for all employees and 

eliminate excess rental space. 

7. Staffing for ecological services has undergone considerable 

downsizing over the past 2 years; whereas the demand for those 

programs continues to increase. The Service should examine using 

other Service program resources to help address the backlog of consultation and recovery activities and should work with the States 

to direct a portion of the State Wildlife Grant funds to address candidate conservation requirements. 

8. Funds provided for wolf monitoring in Idaho include the 

$400,000 in the budget request and an additional $700,000 recommended by the Committee. The total of $1,100,000 includes 

$715,000 for the Idaho Office of Species Conservation and $385,000 

for the Nez Perce Tribe. 

9. The Peregrine Fund should be funded at $550,000 in fiscal 

year 2007, which includes $150,000 for Northern Aplomado Falcon 

recovery activities. 

10. Funds for the Klamath River Basin Restoration Program 

should be used for restoration efforts and should not be used for 

the Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force or for the Klamath 

Fisheries Management Council unless these two Federal Advisory 

Committees are reauthorized. Administrative costs should be minimized to the greatest extent possible. 

11. Increased funding recommended for National Wildlife Refuge 

operating needs should be used to pay critical energy and other 

cost increases and to fill the most critical staffing vacancies. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
30 

12. Funds provided for the ongoing Willapa NWR Spartina eradi- cation program include $300,000 for eradicating Spartina in Grays 

Harbor County, WA. 

13. The Committee is aware of the Fergus Falls Wetlands Management District’s Prairie Wetland Learning Center’s innovative 

environmental education program. Programs such as these are a 

critical component in providing students with the tools they need 

to become informed and enthusiastic about the future of America’s 

wildlife resources. 

14. The Service should work with the Boys and Girls Clubs of 

America to encourage participation in activities at National Wildlife Refuges and National Fish Hatcheries. Coordination with the 

Boys and Girls Clubs and other youth organizations will be mutually beneficial to the youth who participate and the Service and 

should ultimately increase public awareness and support for Service programs. 

15. The Committee understands that the Service is considering 

further ‘‘complexing’’ of National Wildlife Refuges as a result of declining staff resources. Currently 188 of the 545 NWRs are unmanned and there are 116 refuge complexes, in which staff service 

2 or more refuges. The Committee is concerned that there may already be too many refuge complexes and expects the Service to consult with the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 

prior to instituting any new NWR complexes. 

16. No program increase is provided for joint venture programs. 

The Committee will consider funding increases after completion 

and review of the program assessment being conducted by the 

Service. 

17. 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 

2008 budget justification should include an update on the Service’s 

efforts in this area. Additional reimbursements received may be 

used to fill critical staffing vacancies in the fisheries program. 

18. The Committee continues to expect the Service to address inequities in field station funding in the fisheries program when allocating base budget increases. The Service should consider reimbursable funding; incorporate the results of the workforce planning 

effort; and maintain salary and benefit costs, as a percent of total 

budget, at the same levels for each field station. 

19. 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. 

20. West Nile virus remains a serious health threat. Diagnoses 

of and fatalities from the virus have increased nationwide, with a 

high concentration of human illness and fatality occurring in California, and the Centers for Disease Control predict further increases. The Service should address vector control in California and 

other highly susceptible areas by managing wetlands to minimize 

mosquito production and should focus on water control infrastructure and operations and maintenance activities that optimize the 

management of wetlands. 

21. Funding provided in 2007 for Avian Influenza, in addition to 

monitoring and testing of birds in Alaska, should be used for vector 

control efforts in other areas. The Service should keep the ComVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:31 May 16, 2006 Jkt 027493 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR465.000 HR465

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
31 

mittee advised, through periodic briefings, on its efforts to halt the 

spread of Avian Influenza. 

CONSTRUCTION

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $75,216,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 19,722,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 39,756,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥35,460,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +20,034,000 

The Committee recommends $39,756,000 for construction, a decrease of $35,460,000 below the fiscal year 2006 level and an increase of $20,034,000 above the budget request. 

The Committee agrees to the following distribution of funds: 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Project Description Budget 

request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Difference 

Allegheny NFH, PA ...................................... Raceway Restoration & Covering [cc] ...... 0 $1,500 $1,500 

Wichita Mountains WR, OK ........................ Lake Rush Dam Rehabilitation [cc] ......... $375 375 0 

National Elk Refuge, WY ............................ Old Timbers Lake Dam Rehabilitation—

Phase II [d/cc].

545 545 0 

Leavenworth NFH, WY ................................ Nada Dam, Upper Snow Dam & Lower 

Snow Dam—Phase II [cc].

500 500 0 

Jackson NFH, WY ........................................ Seismic Rehabilitation of Two Buildings—Phase III [ic].3,499 3,499 0 

Office of Aircraft Services (Migratory Bird 

Surveys).

Replacement of Survey Aircraft—Phase II 500 1,000 500 

Jordan River NFH, MI ................................. Replace Effluent Settling System ............. 800 800 0 

Klamath Basin NWR Complex, CA ............. Water Supply & Management—Phase VI 1,735 1,735 0 

Midway Atoll NWR ...................................... Fuel Farm Replacement [cc] ..................... 0 2,500 2,500 

Neosho NFH, MO ........................................ Visitor Center [c] ....................................... 0 2,534 2,534 

Northwest Power Planning Area ................ Fish Screens, etc ....................................... 0 4,000 4,000 

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

Servicewide ................................................ Dam Safety Programs & Inspections ........ 717 717 0 

Servicewide ................................................ Visitor Contact Facilities and Facility Enhancements.1,000 10,000 9,000 

Subtotal, Line Item Construction ..... .................................................................... 10,241 30,275 20,034 

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.

.................................................................... 5,795 5,795 0 

Seismic Safety Program .................... .................................................................... 100 100 0 

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

Subtotal, Nationwide Engineering 

Services.

.................................................................... 9,481 9,481 0 

Total ......................................... .................................................................... $19,722 $39,756 $20,034 

The Committee agrees to the following: 

1. The Service should use a standardized design approach for all 

visitor center construction and should request funds for the highest 

priority projects. The National Wildlife Refuge visitor center priority construction list should be updated to remove completed 

projects; a similar list should be developed for National Fish Hatchery visitor centers; and the two lists should be integrated so that 

construction priorities are clearly identified. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
32 

2. Funds for ongoing construction projects and for projects not 

yet started that were transferred to respond to hurricanes and 

other emergencies must be repaid using a portion of the 

$162,400,000 provided in the two hurricane supplemental appropriations for the Service. 

LAND ACQUISITION

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $27,990,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 27,079,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 19,751,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 ........................................................................ ¥8,239,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................... ¥7,328,000 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $19,751,000 for 

land acquisition, a decrease of $8,239,000 below the fiscal year 

2006 enacted level, and a decrease of $7,328,000 below the budget 

estimate. 

The following table shows the Committee’s recommendations: 

Cape May NWR, NJ ........................................................................... $1,000,000 

Eastern Shore NWR, VA ................................................................... 2,300,000 

Great Swamp NWR, NJ ..................................................................... 1,000,000 

Highlands Conservation Act, CT/NY/NJ/PA .................................... 1,000,000 

Rachel Carson NWR, ME .................................................................. 500,000 

Silvio Conte NFWR, CT/MA (Johnson Tract) .................................. 3,000,000 

Subtotal ........................................................................................ 8,800,000 

Acquisition Management ................................................................... 7,171,000 

CAM ..................................................................................................... 1,802,000 

Inholdings ........................................................................................... 478,000 

Emergencies & Hardships ................................................................. 1,500,000 

Total ...................................................................................... $19,751,000 

LANDOWNER INCENTIVE PROGRAM

The landowner incentive program provides funds to States, territories and tribes for matching, competitively awarded grants to establish 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 Northern 

Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. 

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $21,667,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 24,400,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 15,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥6,667,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ¥9,400,000 

The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for the landowner incentive program, a decrease of $6,667,000 below the fiscal year 

2006 enacted level and $9,400,000 below the budget request. 

PRIVATE STEWARDSHIP GRANTS

The private stewardship grants program provides grants and 

other assistance to individuals and groups engaged in local, priVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:31 May 16, 2006 Jkt 027493 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR465.000 HR465

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
33 

vate, and voluntary conservation efforts that benefit federally listed, proposed, and candidate species, and other at risk species. 

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. 7,277,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 9,400,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 7,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥277,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ¥2,400,000 

The Committee recommends $7,000,000 for private stewardship 

grants, a decrease of $277,000 below the fiscal year 2006 level and 

$2,400,000 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, 2006 .............................................................. $80,001,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 80,001,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 80,507,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +506,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +506,000 

The Committee recommends $80,507,000 for the cooperative endangered species conservation fund, an increase of $506,000 above 

both the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and the budget request. 

Changes to the budget request include an increase of $5,573,000 for 

habitat conservation plan land acquisition and a decrease of 

$5,067,000 for the Nez Perce/Snake River water rights settlement 

that has been funded under the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

Bill Language.—Bill language is recommended 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. 

The Interior and Environment bill portion of the funding for fiscal year 2007 associated with the Nez Perce Settlement is included 

in full in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Land and Water 

Claim Settlements and Miscellaneous Payments to Indians appropriation account. 

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 $20,702,000 in fiscal year 

2007 with $14,202,000 derived from this appropriation and 

$6,500,000 from net refuge receipts estimated to be collected in fiscal year 2006. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
34 

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $14,202,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 10,811,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 14,202,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... 0 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +3,391,000 

The Committee recommends $14,202,000 for the National wildlife refuge fund, which is equal to the fiscal year 2006 enacted level 

and an increase of $3,391,000 above the budget request. 

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, 2006 .............................................................. $39,412,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 41,646,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 36,646,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥2,766,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ¥5,000,000 

The Committee recommends $36,646,000 for the North American 

wetlands conservation fund, a decrease of $2,766,000 below the fiscal year 2006 level and $5,000,000 below the budget request. Decreases to the budget request include $4,800,000 for wetlands conservation grants and $200,000 for program administration. 

Funds for this program are not derived from the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund as proposed by the Administration. 

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, 2006 .............................................................. $3,941,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 0 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 4,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +59,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +4,000,000 

The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for the neotropical migratory bird conservation program, an increase of $59,000 above 

the fiscal year 2006 level and $4,000,000 above the budget request. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
35 

The Administration proposed $3,960,000 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 notes that the 

Secretary of the Interior recently named the members of the advisory committee that will assist with program implementation. The 

Committee recommends that the Service transfer administrative 

responsibility for neotropical migratory bird conservation to the 

international affairs program. The international program has proven experience in effectively coordinating with the countries outside 

the U.S. that are the focus of a large part of the neotropical migratory bird program. Also, the Committee believes that project oversight will be better accomplished through the international program, which currently oversees projects in other countries through 

the wildlife without borders program and the multinational species 

conservation program. 

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, 2006 .............................................................. $6,404,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 8,217,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 6,057,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥347,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ¥2,160,000 

The Committee recommends $6,057,000 for the multinational 

species conservation fund, a decrease of $347,000 below the fiscal 

year 2006 enacted level and $2,160,000 below the budget request. 

Changes to the budget request include a decrease of $3,960,000 for 

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

and increases of $300,000 for African elephant conservation, 

$300,000 for Asian elephant conservation, $500,000 for rhinoceros 

and tiger conservation, $300,000 for great ape conservation, and 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
36 

$400,000 for marine turtle 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 implement wildlife management and habitat restoration 

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

comprehensive wildlife conservation plans in 2005. States are required to provide at least a 50 percent cost share for implementation grants and a 25 percent cost share for planning grants. Beginning in fiscal year 2006, the vast majority of these funds should be 

used to implement the State plans. 

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $67,492,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 74,666,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 50,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥17,492,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ¥24,666,000 

The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for State and tribal 

wildlife grants, a decrease of $17,492,000 below the fiscal year 2006 

enacted level and $24,666,000 below the budget request. Within the 

amount provided, $5,000,000 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 2007 funds remain unobligated at the 

end of fiscal year 2008, the unobligated funds will be reapportioned 

to all States and eligible entities, together with any new appropriations provided in fiscal year 2009. Bill language also is included 

providing direction on redistributing funds for States with disapproved plans. Language is not included earmarking $5,000,000 

for a competitive grants program for the States. The Committee endorses this approach but is unable to provide the additional funding for fiscal year 2007. 

The Committee agrees to the following: 

1. The Service should ensure that grant funds are used for species of greatest conservation need and, specifically, for habitats and 

actions identified in the approved plans. 

2. For wildlife conservation plans to be successful, the implementing officials need to ‘‘reach out’’ to the Federal, State, county, 

and local government, and private landowners within the State or 

Territory to ensure that habitat projects are consistently planned 

and implemented regardless of land ownership and to ensure that 

funds are leveraged to the maximum extent possible. This communication needs to occur at the grassroots level and not be limited 

to headquarters or regional coordination. For example, conservation 

actions included in approved plans that involve Federal lands 

should be coordinated with the Federal officials responsible for specific activities in the field and should be focused on important wildlife habitat. Wildlife agency staff and conservation partners should 

meet regularly to evaluate progress. The Committee recommends 

the use of a facilitator to ensure that meetings achieve results. This 

could be achieved through facilitation training of wildlife agency 

staff in the State or Territory. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
37 

3. The Service should develop guidance for the States and Territories to facilitate implementation of approved plans and should require regular performance reporting to measure the success of plan 

implementation. 

4. Cooperative projects that involve two or more States should be 

encouraged when habitat crosses State lines. 

5. The Service should encourage each State to develop a standardized mapping system so that States are documenting and measuring the same things in the same ways and comparisons across 

States are meaningful. 

6. The results of State wildlife projects (what works and what 

doesn’t) should be shared so that successful projects in one State 

can be replicated in other States and unsuccessful approaches in 

one State are not repeated in other States. 

7. States should update their plans as needed and not necessarily 

on a fixed schedule. 

8. Defenders of Wildlife conducted an independent assessment of 

most of the plans submitted and identified different strengths in 

different elements for many States. The assessment also identified 

12 exemplary plans. The assessment should be useful to States as 

they continue to refine their plans. 

9. The Service should approve plan revisions to ensure that the 

same standards continue to be applied across all States. 

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 

390 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, 2006 .............................................................. $1,718,940,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 1,742,317,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 1,754,317,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +35,377,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +12,000,000 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
38 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
39 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 08 HR465.008
40 

The Committee recommends $1,754,317,000 for operation of the 

National Park System, an increase of $35,377,000 above the fiscal 

year 2006 enacted level and $12,000,000 above the request. The 

Committee has appropriated an additional $12,000,000 for base increases above the request as well as denied most of the programmatic increases in the budget in order to provide a total of 

$20,000,000 for park base increases. The additional funds should 

be allocated in the following manner; $15,000,000 for across the 

board increases to all parks and $5,000,000 for critical needs. 

The Committee made this difficult choice despite the fact that 

many of the programmatic increases had merit. Unfortunately, because of inadequate budget requests, the parks have had to absorb 

$61,000,000 over the last six years in mandatory pay costs. This 

figure is exclusive of the other cost impacts sited by GAO including 

unfunded retirement and health benefit increases, and mandates 

for homeland security and information technology security. Despite 

the additional $300,000,000 provided by this Committee for park 

operations above the budget requests since 2001, along with revenue from the recreational fee program, the cumulative effect of 

these cuts has resulted in a reduction in visitor services. The park 

base must remain a priority above all other needs until this situation is resolved. 

Park Base Increase.—The Committee has provided $20,000,000 

for park base increases. This is in additiion to the $21,000,000 in 

the budget for pay and fixed cost increases. 

Resource Stewardship.—The Committee recommends 

$358,696,000 for resource stewardship, a decrease of $3,751,000 

below the request and $6,302,000 above the enacted level. Included 

in this amount are increases of $651,000 for air tour management 

plans and $1,000,000 to complete the vital signs inventory and 

monitoring networks. The Committee accepts the following reductions in the budget: $222,000 for support of Mammoth Cave 

Science center and $296,000 for vanishing treasures. Also included 

is $4,644,000 for uncontrollable expenses. 

Visitor Services.—The Committee recommends $343,862,000 for 

visitor services, a decrease of $952,000 below the request and 

$2,842,000 below enacted. Included in this amount are increases of 

$750,000 for FLETC training and $900,000 to improve concessions 

contracting oversight. The Committee reluctantly accepts the reduction of $1,600,000 related to future film revenue. The Committee strongly urges the Department to avoid these types of reductions in the future. There is a reduction in fixed costs of $2,892,000 

due to realignment of funds. 

Maintenance.—The Committee recommends $599,800,000 for 

maintenance, a decrease of $2,000,000 from the request and an increase of $6,726,000 above enacted. Included in this amount is an 

increase to cyclic maintenance of $8,000,000. The Committee reluctantly accepts the $10,000,000 reduction to the repair and rehabilitation program. The Committee would have assuredly restored this 

cut if it were not for the tight fiscal times and emphasis on park 

base increases. The Committee cautions the Department about recommending a further cut to this program in the fiscal year 2008 

budget. It will be restored: taking funds from Departmental Management. Also included is $8,726,000 for uncontrollable costs. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
41 

Within the amount provided for maintenance, there is $200,000 for continued landscape work at Gettysburg NMP, $428,000 for 

work at Amistad NRA, $300,000 for rehabilitation work along the 

GW Parkway, $330,000 to complete a trail project at Saratoga NB, 

$295,000 for architectural work at Ford’s Theatre, $250,000 for a 

pipe replacement at Fort Necessity NB and $200,000 for boundary 

survey work at Indiana Dunes NL. The Committee understands 

that the Service plans to fund the following projects in fiscal year 

2007: $600,000 in projects at San Juan NHS and $500,000 in 

projects at Indiana Dunes NL. 

Park Support.—The Committee recommends $297,880,000 for 

park support, a decrease of $310,000 below the request for partnership program oversight. These funds have been provided in the 

construction account. This amount is also $273,000 above the enacted level. Included in this amount is an increase of $120,000 for 

Roosevelt-Campobello International Park. The Committee accepts 

the following decreases: $2,463,000 for the Lewis and Clark cost 

share program, $719,0000 for the Lewis and Clark traveling exhibition, $33,000 for Beringia support, $1,423,000 for service-wide 

training, $247,000 for wild and scenic river partnerships and 

$1,762,000 for non-recurring IT funding. Also included is 

$6,800,000 for uncontrollable costs. 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. 

External Administrative Costs.—The Committee recommends 

$134,079,000 for external administrative costs, a decrease of 

$987,000 below the request and $5,443,000 above the enacted level. 

Included in this amount is an increase of $1,644,000 for working 

capital fund changes. Also included is $3,799,000 for uncontrollable 

expenses. 

South Florida Initiative.—The Committee continues to support 

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

South Florida. Since this initiative began over a decade ago, 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—including acquisition of lands for Storm Water Treatment Area 1 East—science, the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, Modified Water Deliveries, removal of invasive 

exotics and other habitat restoration projects, and the Department’s participation in implementing the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. 

The Committee appreciates the progress that has been made to 

restore the Everglades. The intergovernmental restoration effort is 

the largest of its kind ever undertaken and there are significant 

challenges in its implementation. The Committee notes that the 

Congress provided that the Department of the Interior shall have 

an enhanced role in implementing the Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan (CERP). This is based on the fact that the primary federal interest in this plan is the restoration of the federallymanaged Everglades. The Committee appreciates the efforts the 

State of Florida has made to provide up-front funding to move forward portions of a number of the key projects that were authorized 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
42 

in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. The Committee 

has provided Federal funding to acquire lands in many of the 

project areas that are the subject of the State’s Acceler8 initiative. 

These projects include, among others, the Everglades Agricultural 

Area storage reservoir, Picayune Strand restoration (Southern 

Golden Gates Estates), and the C–43 west reservoir (Berry Groves). 

The Committee urges the Department of the Interior to be an active participant in this process to ensure that the projects will 

achieve the necessary restoration goals. 

The Committee recognizes that one of the most significant challenges facing the intergovernmental restoration effort is realizing 

water quality that is protective of the Everglades environment. The 

State of Florida is to be commended for its efforts to construct and 

operate nearly 41,000 acres of storm water treatment areas (STAs) 

that are removing nutrients from the waters discharged from the 

Everglades Agricultural Area into the Everglades, including 

Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge and Everglades National 

Park. Further the State has implemented best management practices which have exceeded expectations in terms of removing phosphorus at its source. The Committee also understands that the 

State is expanding the STAs by 18,000 acres and implementing additional work that will take additional time to complete. The Committee is encouraged that additional work is underway. 

Despite this progress, the Committee remains deeply concerned 

that more work needs to be done to achieve the necessary improvements in water quality. The Committee’s views are consistent with 

those of the Departments of the Interior, Army and Justice, and 

the Environmental Protection Agency, which together jointly submitted a report to the Congress, as required by the Committee, noting that the State of Florida has not fully achieved all of its obligations in the consent decree in United States v. South Florida Water 

Management District. The joint federal report notes that the State 

has not fully met its requirements to reduce phosphorus loads to 

A.R.M. Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge; that the interim levels for total phosphorus concentration at the refuge have been exceeded once or more each year since the interim levels went into 

effect; and that more work is needed. 

The State’s own reports indicate that additional work is necessary to realize discharges that are protective of the Everglades. 

For example, the 2006 South Florida Environmental Report, which 

is prepared by the South Florida Water Management District, indicates that several storm water treatment areas (STAs) are experiencing performance problems. Specifically, the STA-1W average 

discharge for the last 12 months was 98 parts per billion (ppb). 

STA-1W discharges directly into Loxahatchee National Wildlife 

Refuge, and this level of discharge, as confirmed by the Secretary 

of the Interior during the Committee’s hearings, will cause an imbalance of the flora and fauna of the Everglades. Additionally, the 

State’s report noted that STA-5, which discharges into the statemanaged Everglades, achieved an average discharge of 81 ppb during the last 12 months. These excessive discharges, if continued, 

will not allow restoration to occur and are inconsistent with the requirements of the consent decree, which has as a primary goal the 

restoration and maintenance of water quality that is protective of 

the Everglades. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
43 

Most troubling to the Committee is the fact that U.S. District 

Court Judge Federico Moreno agrees that the State has violated 

the consent decree. His June 1, 2005 Order finds that the State is 

in violation of the interim levels for total phosphorus concentration 

at the refuge. Judge Moreno’s Order requests that a list of specific 

acts by specific dates detailing what remedial measures will be undertaken to achieve the requirements of the decree be provided. 

The media have reported that the State and Federal governments 

are considering a proposal that would terminate the consent decree 

and substitute instead State law mechanisms as the primary enforcement tool to achieve water quality improvements. The Committee reminds the Department of its long-standing opposition to 

any changes that would weaken the consent decree, which was detailed in a July 2005 letter from the Committee to the President. 

After careful review of this matter, and based upon information 

supplied as part of the Committee’s hearing process by the Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency, the 

Committee remains opposed to efforts to terminate the consent decree before its requirements have been met. 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 and potentially put at risk the federal taxpayer resources that are being expended for the Everglades restoration effort. 

For all of these reasons, the Committee has included bill language this year that will make the funds to implement the Modified Water Deliveries Project unavailable for expenditure unless 

funds requested in the fiscal year 2007 budget for the Army Corps 

of Engineers for Everglades Restoration are fully appropriated and 

they will be unavailable should the consent decree be terminated 

before its requirements, including the 10 parts per billion numeric 

phosphorus criterion, have been achieved. The Committee recognizes that the water quality improvements may take more time to 

achieve than December 31, 2006 deadline; however the appropriate 

response to Judge Moreno’s June 1, 2005 Order is not to terminate 

the decree, but rather to work harder to achieve the decree’s requirements. In the interim, the Committee expects that the annual 

report, required by P.L. 108–108 and 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 on-time this year. Additionally, the Committee expects that prior directives requiring the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service to provide the Committee with the refuge’s annual and quarterly reports summarizing the implementation of the additional monitoring and modeling at the refuge will 

continue for the next fiscal year. 

The Committee also directs that the Department submit again a 

report by December 31, 2006 describing the scientific research 

projects to be funded in the National Park Service and the U.S. Geological Survey with the fiscal year 2007 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. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
44 

Other.—The Committee continues to support the decision by 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways (ONSR) 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 recommends a revised approval process for National Park Service (NPS) fee projects. In response to concerns 

early in the program’s implementation about the types of projects 

being funded, the Department of the Interior and the Committee 

agreed on a detailed review process for NPS recreation fee projects. 

However, since that time, the Service has instituted significant review and accountability measures to assure that fee dollars are 

spent on priority needs and are being used to address identified 

performance goals, such as reducing the average cost of collection 

and contributing towards improving the condition of park infrastructure assets. In addition, Congress passed new legislation extending the program and revising the allowable uses of fee dollars. 

As a result, the Committee agrees to a revised, streamlined process, as follows: (1) all parks will develop fee revenue comprehensive 

plans that are reviewed and approved at the regional and national 

levels; (2) once a park’s comprehensive plan is approved by headquarters, the park has discretion to re-sequence projects within the 

approved plan after regional review; (3) fee projects for new construction or expanded infrastructure improvements costing more 

than $500,000 will be identified annually in the budget justification, and will be considered approved if no response is provided by 

the Committee within 60 days; and (4) the budget justification will 

also contain summary information about the programmatic uses of 

fee dollars in the fiscal years covered by the justification. 

Law Enforcement.—This Committee has expressed repeatedly its 

concerns regarding the direction and cost of extraordinary security 

measures taken at the designated Icon parks and elsewhere in the 

Service since 9/11. Many of the measures taken to date have provided at best a limited reduction in risk to both the resource and 

the visitor while coming at a very high cost in operating and construction funds. The Committee directs that all Icon security measures already established and those contemplated for the future be 

reviewed to ensure they strike a rational balance among reduction 

of a clearly defined risk, visitor access, and cost. A report on these 

findings is to be submitted to this Committee for review no later 

than April 15, 2007. 

Furthermore, the Committee has not been convinced that there 

is a basis to hold law enforcement programs harmless above all 

other NPS operating programs, particularly during these times of 

limited budgets. The ‘‘no net loss’’ policy imposed on NPS and other 

bureaus by the Department is a policy that forces the Parks to hold 

harmless the number of law enforcement rangers while forcing all 

other visitor service, maintenance, and resources protection functions to deal with the absorption of fixed costs and other budgetary 

limitations. The Committee does not believe that a blanket policy 

leaving no room for management discretion is rational and the 

Committee has included bill language that will preclude it. Since 

9/11, the Administration has imposed nearly $30 million in additional costs for anti-terrorism measures without including any 

funds in the budget. In some cases the Committee has appropriated 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
45 

funds to the base, but the balance was absorbed along with pay 

and other fixed costs. This situation will not be tolerated in the future. 

Bill Language.—Language is included under the Operations account which provides that funds may be spent without regard to 

the ‘‘no net loss’’ of law enforcement personal policy. 

Valley Forge NHP.—The public has been patient as the NPS has 

worked through its process in regard to management of the overabundance of white-tailed deer at the park. Within existing funds, 

NPS is directed to begin the environmental impact statement for 

deer management. The Committee expects that the plan will be 

funded fully so that it can be completed in fiscal year 2008. The 

Committee further expects that implementation of the selected action will begin immediately upon signing of the Record of Decision. 

Budget efficiency.—The Committee is aware of steps taken at different levels across the Service to accomplish administrative 

streamlining and greater efficiency as budgetary resources decline. 

The Service is strongly encouraged to look for further opportunities, including more shared services from a common location 

(whether park or region), to assure continued provision of services 

needed by the parks but also to assure appropriate attention to 

oversight and accountability requirements. The traditional arrangement of every park being entirely self-sufficient may need to be rethought in light of the advances in technology and changes in business practice models that exist today, as well as the significant 

costs associated with supporting such a model. 

The Service should work with the Boys and Girls Clubs of America to encourage participation in activities at National Parks. Coordination with the Boys and Girls Clubs and other youth organizations will be mutually beneficial to the youth who participate and 

the public support for Service programs. 

The Committee urges the National Park Service to complete, in 

an efficient and timely manner, the rulemakings described in the 

final rule issued on March 21, 2000 (65 Fed. Reg. 15,077 (2000)), 

regarding personal watercraft use within certain units of the National Park System for all 21 of the park areas specifically identified in the rule. 

The Committee supports public-private partnerships that protect 

the interests of the National Park Service while promoting opportunities for the beneficial use of public lands. The Committee is 

aware of a proposal by the First Tee of Washington, DC to partner 

with the National Park Service and to provide funding for the construction of an educational and recreational facility whose primary 

purpose will be the development of life skills and character-enhancing values in the District of Columbia children on approximately 57 

acres of the National Park Service property at Kenilworth Park 

South. The Committee urges the National Park Service to act 

promptly on this partnership proposal. 

The National Park Service shall consider the feasibility of extending a third lane on the southbound lane of the George Washington Memorial Parkway from its present terminus near Key 

Bridge to Roosevelt Memorial Bridge in Arlington, Virginia, and, 

not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, shall 

submit to Congress a report on the feasibility of such extension. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
46 

UNITED STATES PARK POLICE

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $80,213,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 84,775,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 84,775,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +4,562,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $84,775,000 for the U.S. Park Police, an increase of $4,562,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted 

level and the same as the budget request. 

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, 2006 .............................................................. $54,156,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 33,261,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 47,161,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥6,995,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +13,900,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimate by activity are shown in the following table: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
47 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 09 HR465.009
48 

The Committee recommends $47,161,000 for national recreation 

and preservation, an increase of $13,900,000 above the request and 

a reduction of $6,995,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

Recreation Programs.—The Committee recommends $557,000 for 

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

expenses. 

Natural Programs.—The Committee recommends $9,437,000 for 

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

of $263,000 below the enacted level. The amount includes a programmatic decrease of $500,000 for the Rivers and Trails program 

and an increase of $237,000 for uncontrollable expenses. Within 

funds available for partnership wild and scenic rivers $75,000 is 

provided for Westfield Wild and Scenic River. 

Cultural Programs.—The Committee recommends $19,694,000 

for cultural programs, the same as the budget request and a decrease of $39,000 below the enacted level. The amount includes a 

programmatic decrease of $368,000 for the UGRR grants program 

and an increase of $329,000 for uncontrollable expenses. The Committee strongly urges the Service to provide whatever additional 

funds are necessary to complete work on the American Revolution 

Commemoration Act. Within the funds provided, $300,000 is provided for Heritage Preservation Inc. 

Chesapeake Bay Gateways Initiative.—The Committee has not 

provided funds for the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Water Trail 

initiative. Since fiscal year 2000, this Committee has provided 

$11,000,000 for this effort. A routine oversight program review conducted last year by the House Appropriations Committee’s Surveys 

and Investigative staff uncovered serious problems. Despite efforts 

by the Service to deal with these issues, a recent Inspector General 

(IG) report finds continued problems, including Service reluctance 

to terminate relationships with grantees who have failed to complete the terms of the grant agreement. According to the IG report, 

of 23 grant projects reviewed, 18 had experienced significant delays 

which ranged from nine months to three years. Some of the reasons 

given for the delay in executing grant agreements were, according 

to the IG, unacceptable. The report goes on to document that Service personnel acknowledged that the lack of monitoring the grant 

agreements contributed to some project delays. In addition, of another 23 grants that were reviewed by the IG, 18 lacked adequate 

reviews of the actual costs incurred by grantees to produce the 

goods and services stipulated in the grant agreement; lacked evidence of meeting the match; and, in some cases, indicated improper 

use of grant funds. 

Further, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) is about to 

release a report on the program in the summer of 2006. To date, 

GAO is documenting the same concerns about Service mismanagement and lack of oversight of the grant program and grantee compliance with regulations, lack of transparency of the process of becoming eligible for grants, and the questionable public benefit of 

multiple grants awarded to the same grant recipients and for the 

same purpose. There are also issues being raised about adequate 

grantee financial reporting and adequate documentation of 

progress. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
49 

It appears that the Service is having a difficult time properly 

managing the program. It is also apparent that many of the grantees have applied over and over for the same or similar projects. 

Given the very tight fiscal constraints on this bill and the fact that 

the parks have had to absorb $61,000,000 over six years in pay and 

other fixed costs, the Committee feels that this program should not 

be funded. 

International Park Affairs.—The Committee recommends 

$1,557,000 for international affairs, the same as the budget request 

and a decrease of $37,000 below the enacted level. The amount includes decreases of $34,000 for the office of international affairs 

and $34,000 for the international border program. There is an increase of $31,000 for uncontrollable expenses. 

Environmental and Compliance Review.—The Committee recommends $403,000 for environmental and compliance review, the 

same as the budget request and an increase of $10,000 above the 

enacted level. The increase is for uncontrollable expenses. 

Grant Administration.—The Committee recommends $1,613,000 

for grant administration, the same as the budget request and a decrease of $272,000 below the enacted level. The amount includes a 

programmatic decrease of $306,000 for UPARR grant administration and a $34,000 increase for uncontrollable expenses. 

Heritage Partnership Program.—The Committee recommends 

$13,900,000 for the heritage partnership program, an increase of 

$13,900,000 over the budget request and $599,000 above the enacted level. The Committee recommends the following distribution 

of funds: 

America’s Agricultural Heritage Partnership (Silos & Smokestacks) .............................................................................................. $700,000 

Augusta Canal National Heritage Area ........................................... 350,000 

Automobile National Heritage Area ................................................. 450,000 

Blue Ridge National Heritage Area .................................................. 800,000 

Cane River National Heritage Area .................................................. 800,000 

Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor .......................... 750,000 

Erie Canalway National Corridor ..................................................... 750,000 

Essex National Heritage Area ........................................................... 800,000 

Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area ................................. 450,000 

John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor ................................................................................................. 800,000 

Lackawanna Valley National Heritage Area ................................... 500,000 

Mississippi Gulf National Heritage Area ......................................... 200,000 

National Aviation Heritage Area ...................................................... 250,000 

National Coal Heritage Area ............................................................. 200,000 

Ohio and Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor ........................... 800,000 

Oil Region National Heritage Area ................................................... 300,000 

Quinnebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor ................................................................................................. 800,000 

Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area ............................................ 800,000 

Schuylkill River Valley National Heritage Area .............................. 450,000 

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

South Carolina National Heritage Corridor ..................................... 800,000 

Tennessee Civil War Heritage Area ................................................. 400,000 

Wheeling National Heritage Area ..................................................... 800,000 

Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area ........................................... 350,000 

Subtotal, Projects ........................................................................ 13,800,000 

Administration .................................................................................... 100,000 

Total ...................................................................................... $13,900,000 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
50 

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, 2006 .............................................................. $72,172,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 71,858,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 58,658,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥13,514,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ¥13,200,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following tables: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
51 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 010 HR465.010
52 

The Committee recommends $58,658,000 for historic preserva- tion programs, a decrease of $13,200,000 below the request and 

$13,514,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The Committee recommendation provides $35,717,000 for the state historic preservation offices, $3,941,000 for tribal grants, 

$15,000,000 for Save America’s Treasures grants, $3,000,000 for Preserve America grants and $1,000,000 for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) grants. While the Committee has 

been strongly supportive of HBCU grants, there have been significant carryover balances over the last three years, despite the fact 

that the Committee reduced the private cost share to 30 percent. 

The Committee has rejected the budget proposal to reduce by 50 

percent the Heritage Partnership Program and include it along 

with Save America’s Treasures and Preserve America under the 

Historic Preservation Fund. Heritage areas can be found, as in previous years, under National Recreation and Preservation. 

The Committee recommends the following allocation for Save 

America’s Treasures grants. 

Alexandria Lyceum, VA ..................................................................... $50,000 

Alviso Adobe, CA ................................................................................ 250,000 

Anderson Hall, PA .............................................................................. 50,000 

Bellport/Brookhaven, NY ................................................................... 75,000 

Benjamin Franklin Memorial, PA ..................................................... 200,000 

Bennett College for Women, NC ....................................................... 75,000 

Bixby House, Barn and Carriage House, PA ................................... 200,000 

Boal Mansion, PA ............................................................................... 150,000 

Bremerton Public Library, WA ......................................................... 200,000 

Brown Mansion, KS ........................................................................... 100,000 

Capitol Music Hall, WV ..................................................................... 250,000 

Carnegie Free Public Library, WI ..................................................... 200,000 

Carnegie Public Library, SC .............................................................. 200,000 

Clay County Courthouse, NC ............................................................ 200,000 

Corinne Depot, UT ............................................................................. 80,000 

East Rock Soldiers & Sailors Monument, CT .................................. 200,000 

Elias Church, PA ................................................................................ 250,000 

Eureka Main Stage, AR ..................................................................... 250,000 

Gold Bug/Meagher House, CA ........................................................... 100,000 

Hay House, GA ................................................................................... 100,000 

Haywood County Courthouse, NC .................................................... 100,000 

Historic Huntley, VA .......................................................................... 75,000 

Immigration Station Hospital Building, CA .................................... 250,000 

John Henry Historical Park, WV ...................................................... 150,000 

Agriculture Reform Movement Building, TN ................................... 150,000 

Lloyd House Gardens, VA .................................................................. 50,000 

Lustron House, VA ............................................................................. 75,000 

Mason County Courthouse, WA ........................................................ 200,000 

Maverick Concert Hall, NY ............................................................... 250,000 

Moland House, PA .............................................................................. 100,000 

Nuestra Senora de Guadalupe Mission, NM .................................... 100,000 

Olmsted Park (pergola), KY .............................................................. 150,000 

Opera House Theater, TX .................................................................. 200,000 

Oroville Historic State Theatre Renovations, CA ............................ 100,000 

Poplar Hill on His Lordship’s Kindness, MD ................................... 200,000 

Quinn Chapel, IL ................................................................................ 100,000 

Revitalizing the Hamlet of Annandale, NY ...................................... 250,000 

Richard Howe House, OH .................................................................. 100,000 

St. Joseph’s College Theatre, IN ....................................................... 200,000 

Salisbury House, IA ........................................................................... 75,000 

Scottish Rite Temple, Bloomington, IL ............................................. 250,000 

Seabound Coastline RR Museum, FL ............................................... 150,000 

Spencer Ice Plant, WV ....................................................................... 50,000 

Spring Hill Home, OH ....................................................................... 200,000 

Stewart Family Home/Quail Hollow, OH ......................................... 20,000 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
53 

Tarrytown Lighthouse, NY ................................................................ 125,000 

Thompson-Neely Grist Mill, PA ........................................................ 50,000 

Tom Custer House, NC ...................................................................... 75,000 

W.A. Young & Son’s Foundry, PA ..................................................... 200,000 

Wesleyan College Building, GA ......................................................... 75,000 

William Cullen Bryant Home, MA .................................................... 150,000 

Wyandot County, OH ......................................................................... 100,000 

Total ............................................................................................. $7,500,000 

CONSTRUCTION

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $332,858,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 229,269,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 229,934,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥102,924,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +665,000 

The Committee recommends $229,934,000 for construction, an 

increase of $665,000 above the budget request and a decrease of 

$102,924,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

The Committee recommends the following distribution of funds: 

Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library & Museum, IL ................... $300,000 

Acadia National Park, ME (rehab sewage plant) ............................ 2,390,000 

Big Bend National Park, TX (treat drinking water) ....................... 2,216,000 

Boston National Historical Park, MA (replace barge) ..................... 1,527,000 

Carlsbad Caverns National Park, NM (replace sewer system) ...... 3,690,000 

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

Death Valley National Park, CA (water system) ............................. 8,754,000 

Everglades National Park, FL (modified water) .............................. 13,330,000 

Ford’s Theatre, DC ............................................................................. 1,500,000 

Gateway National Recreation Area (Miller Field), NY (restrooms 

& plan) ............................................................................................. 620,000 

Hamilton Grange National Memorial, NY (rehab & move) ............ 8,493,000 

Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, HI (replace cesspools) ................ 4,319,000 

Independence National Historical Park, PA (security fence) .......... 843,000 

Independence National Historical Park, PA (Deschler-Morris 

House) .............................................................................................. 2,272,000 

Moccasin Bend NAD, TN (streambank erosion) .............................. 2,000,000 

Mount Rainier National Park, WA (replace visitor center) ............ 2,791,000 

Mount Rainier National Park, WA (rehab Paradise Inn) ............... 8,084,000 

National Mall & Memorial Parks, DC (Ford’s Theatre) .................. 3,114,000 

Olympic National Park, WA (Elwha Dam) ...................................... 20,010,000 

Point Reyes National Seashore, CA (watershed restoration) ......... 2,444,000 

Redwood National Park, CA (remove roads) .................................... 2,255,000 

Saugus Iron Works National Historic Site, MA (replace dock) ...... 3,202,000 

Southwest Pennsylvania Heritage Commission, PA (rehabilitation) .................................................................................................. 2,500,000 

Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site, AL (Moton Airfield) ...... 3,388,000 

Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site, AL (Hangar 2) ............... 4,093,000 

USS Arizona Memorial, HI (rehabilitation) ..................................... 3,685,000 

Valley Forge National Historical Park, PA (Washington headquarters) .......................................................................................... 2,348,000 

White House, DC (structural/utility rehab) ..................................... 6,298,000 

Wind Cave National Park, SD (replace lighting system) ................ 2,965,000 

Subtotal ........................................................................................ 121,931,000 

Emergency/Unscheduled .................................................................... 2,956,000 

Housing ............................................................................................... 6,897,000 

Equipment replacement ..................................................................... 23,617,000 

Planning, construction ....................................................................... 19,649,000 

General management plans ............................................................... 13,601,000 

Line item construction & maintenance ............................................ 121,931,000 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
54 

Construction program management ................................................. 38,360,000 

Dam safety .......................................................................................... 2,623,000 

Managed partnership projects ........................................................... 300,000 

Total Construction ............................................................... 229,934,000 

Other.—The Committee has included $300,000 to continue work 

on the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Illinois, $2,500,000 for rehabilitation work at Cuyahoga Valley National Park in Ohio, $2,000,000 for streambank erosion work at 

Moccasin Bend NAD in Tennessee, and $2,500,000 for the Southwest Pennsylvania Heritage Commission in Pennsylvania. 

The Committee has also included $620,000 for Gateway National 

Recreation Area for comfort stations and an updated development 

plan for Miller Field. In considering alternatives for improvements 

at Miller Field, the Service should focus on the most critical and 

high priority requirements to improve conditions at this high-use 

area. Total costs for improvements must be realistic and attainable 

in the current budget environment. The components of the plan 

will have to be implemented in phases, so small increments must 

necessarily be a part of any plan. The Service should also use this 

planning process to pursue partnerships with the leagues and 

users of these recreational areas. 

The Committee is aware of delays in executing a line-item project 

funded in fiscal year 2004 for reconstruction of historic guard walls 

along the Blue Ridge Parkway and that these funds remain unobligated In view of the need to complete other construction projects 

underway at the Blue Ridge Parkway, and given the higher costs 

now contemplated for the guard wall project, the Service is directed 

to reprogram these funds, as necessary, to complete the construction of the visitor center under construction near Asheville, North 

Carolina. 

The Committee has included $365,000 in the General Management Plans account to complete the Manhattan Project Plan. 

Bill language.—Bill language on the South Florida Restoration 

project has been modified from current law to include a provision 

making funds contingent on the continuation of the consent degree 

in United States v. South Florida Water Management District. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

(RESCISSION)

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. ¥$30,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... ¥30,000,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... ¥30,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... 0 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends the rescission of $30,000,000 in the 

annual contract authority provided by 16 U.S.C. 46l–10a. This authority has not been used in years, and there are no plans to use 

it in fiscal year 2007. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
55 

LAND ACQUISITION AND STATE ASSISTANCE

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $46,954,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 24,343,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 29,995,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥16,959,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +5,652,000 

The Committee recommends $29,995,000 for land acquisition and 

State assistance, a decrease of $16,959,000 below the enacted level 

and an increase of $5,652,000 above the request. 

The Committee recommends the following distribution of funds: 

Chickamauga-Chattanooga NMP, TN .............................................. $2,000,000 

Cuyahoga Valley NP, OH .................................................................. 500,000 

Flight 93, PA ....................................................................................... 5,000,000 

Ice Age, WI .......................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Indiana Dunes NL, IN ....................................................................... 1,000,000 

Mt. Rainier Carbon Creek River Gateway, WA ............................... 1,500,000 

Shenandoah NB, VA .......................................................................... 2,000,000 

Subtotal ........................................................................................ 14,000,000 

Emergencies & Hardships ................................................................. 3,349,000 

Inholdings ........................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Acquisition Management ................................................................... 9,021,000 

Stateside Administration ................................................................... 1,625,000 

Total ...................................................................................... $29,995,000 

Funds provided for the Flight 93 Memorial are to be used to acquire authorized lands at fair market value established through 

the federal appraisal process. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Bill language has been included to allow the transfer of $66,000 

to the Washington Tennis and Education Foundation for recreation 

and education programs for at-risk school children in the District 

of Columbia. 

UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) 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 data 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
56 

bases 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. 

SURVEYS, INVESTIGATIONS, AND RESEARCH

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $970,645,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 944,760,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 991,447,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +20,802,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +46,687,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
57 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 011 HR465.011
58 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 012 HR465.012
59 

The Committee recommends $991,447,000 for surveys, investiga- tions, and research, an increase of $46,687,000 above the budget 

request and $20,802,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

The discussion below references changes to the budget request. 

Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing.—The 

Committee recommends $78,614,000 for geographic research and 

remote sensing, $2,000,000 above the budget request and 

$50,659,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The large reduction from the enacted is due to the transfer of funds for the 

former cooperative topographic mapping program to the Federal geographic data coordination subactivity within the enterprise information activity. The Committee agrees with Administration efforts 

to streamline geographic investigations and enhance national service; this is better accomplished by consolidating geographic funding 

in the enterprise activity as recommended in the request. The 

change to the request is an increase of $2,000,000 for the 

AmericaView cooperative geographic program; this program provides service to many States and communities and leverages Federal funding with many partners. 

The Committee has fully funded the requested funds, $15,950,000, for the Landsat Data Continuity Mission, which will 

place the next generation Landsat sensor in orbit. Long-term remote sensing data is vital to many aspects of the government and 

private sector and is strongly supported by this Committee. This 

funding will complement the larger commitment required by the 

NASA. 

Geologic Hazards, Resources and Processes.—The Committee recommends $241,861,000 for geologic hazards, resources, and processes, $24,443,000 above the budget request and $6,575,000 above 

the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The recommendation includes 

the requested increase of $2,000,000 for energy resources research 

activities. Changes from the request for the geologic landscape and 

coastal assessments program include an increase of $500,000 to restore partially the Florida shelf research effort and $1,000,000 for 

hurricane science to be established in the Survey’s Florida lab. This 

latter effort should be included in the future as a part of the multihazards science initiative. 

The Committee has restored fully the mineral resources program, 

including $18,443,000 for research and assessments and $4,500,000 

for minerals information. 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 and the Committee importunes the Administration to not propose this program elimination again. 

The recommendation includes all requested funds for the new 

multi-hazards demonstration initiative. This includes funding in 

this activity as well as all the other activities within the Survey’s 

budget. 

Water Resources Investigations.—The Committee recommends 

$213,791,000 for water resources investigations, $9,744,000 above 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
60 

the budget request and $2,027,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The recommendation includes the requested increase of 

$2,325,000 for the National streamflow information system. The 

recommendation also restores: (1) the technical support activities of 

the National water-quality assessment to the previous funding 

level (an increase of $940,000 above the request); (2) the Hood 

Canal, WA, water study ($100,000); (3) the Upper San Pedro River 

partnership, AZ ($300,000); (4) cooperative water program interpretive studies ($2,000,000); and (5) State water research institutes 

($6,404,000). 

Biological Research.—The Committee recommends $175,597,000 

for biological research, $3,000,000 above the budget request and 

$723,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The recommendation includes the requested increase of $1,000,000 for the 

NatureServe program. The recommendation also partially restores 

three requested program reductions; this includes $350,000 above 

the request for the Pacific northwest forest program, $300,000 for 

ivory-billed woodpecker research, and $1,000,000 for the national 

biological information infrastructure. The recommendation also includes an increase of $200,000 for the science excellence program 

in cooperation with the Fish and Wildlife Service, $150,000 for the 

anadromous fish research lab Connecticut River watershed project, 

MA, and an increase of $1,000,000 for the Great Lakes Science 

Center operations. 

The Committee urges the Survey to try to implement the Chesapeake Bay science plan, including the assessment of nutrient and 

sediment reduction strategies in the watershed, identifying sediment sources to improve implementation of sediment reduction 

practices, and assessing the causes for fish health problems in the 

Potomac Basin. 

Enterprise Information.—The Committee recommends 

$113,730,000 for enterprise information, $2,500,000 above the 

budget request, and $67,336,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted 

level. The change from the enacted is largely due to the transfer 

of funds from the former cooperative topographic mapping program 

within the mapping, remote sensing and geographic investigations 

activity to the Federal geographic data coordination subactivity. 

The change to the budget request includes $500,000 above the request to offset half of the operational efficiencies claimed in the request and $2,000,000 to improve the Nation’s geospatial data program and the geospatial one-stop (GOS) program by expanding the 

operational architecture of the GOS and integrating additional bureau and Federal mapping enterprises in the GOS. 

Science Support.—The Committee recommends $72,382,000 for 

science support, $5,000,000 above the budget request and 

$3,080,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The increase 

above the request is to make up for past fixed costs which have had 

to be absorbed by the Survey. 

Facilities.—The Committee recommends $95,472,000 for facilities, as requested, a $690,000 increase to the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

The Mid-Continent Mapping Center (MCMC) in Rolla, Missouri, 

was scheduled to be consolidated into a National Geospatial Technical Operations Center (NGTOC) on September 15, 2005. This action would close three regional centers in Rolla, Menlo Park, and 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
61 

Reston and create the NGTOC in Denver, eliminating the jobs, operations, and functions of the MCMC. According to the Department 

of Interior Inspector General, the site selection was ‘‘supported by 

the whole of the record.’’ However, the Committee has recognized 

that the Inspector General’s finding that ‘‘the U.S. Geological Survey failed to effectively and transparently demonstrate the entirety 

of its criteria or communicate the magnitude of its rationale.’’

The Committee is of the belief that the MCMC located in Rolla, 

Missouri, provides important data for mapping and responding to 

disasters and emergencies. The MCMC located in Rolla, Missouri, 

is critical to assessing threats and weaknesses prior to emergencies 

which can be forecast or anticipated. The MCMC in Rolla, Missouri, provides necessary overflow capability to keep USGS data 

available over the internet. The MCMC in Rolla, Missouri, provides 

critical support for the construction of the National Map. 

Provided the important purposes the Mid-Continent Mapping 

Center in Rolla, Missouri serves, and the subjective nature of the 

U.S. Geological Survey’s decision to close and consolidate the work 

being performed at MCMC, the Committee appropriates sufficient 

funds under to this Act to continue the function, activities, operations, and archives Mid-Continent Mapping Center (MCMC), located in Rolla, Missouri and prohibits Federal funds from being 

used to carry out the closure and consolidation of the Rolla MCMC. 

MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE

The Minerals Management Service (MMS) is responsible for collecting, distributing, accounting and auditing revenues from mineral leases on Federal and Indian lands. In fiscal year 2007, MMS 

expects to collect and distribute about $14.0 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. Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, MMS has new responsibilities over Federal offshore 

renewable energy and related uses of America’s offshore public 

lands. 

ROYALTY AND OFFSHORE MINERALS MANAGEMENT

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $167,391,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 156,651,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 157,496,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥9,895,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +845,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
62 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 013 HR465.013
63 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 014 HR465.014
64 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $157,496,000 for royalty and offshore minerals management, an increase of $845,000 

above the budget request and $9,895,000 below the fiscal year 2006 

enacted level. In addition, the Committee recommends use of 

$128,730,000 in receipts, which agrees with the Administration request to increase receipts by $6,000,000. The Committee recommendation provides $7,387,000 for new En- ergy Policy Act of 2005 responsibilities, a reduction of $1,000,000 

from the request. The reduction is from the leasing and environmental program subactivity; it reduces the increased funding request for OCS alternate energy use to $4,926,000. Other activities 

are funded at the request, except for the following small increases 

to offset partially fixed cost increases: $230,000 for policy and management improvement; $663,000 for administrative operations; and 

$952,000 for general support services. 

The Committee is aware that concerns have been raised about 

the MMS methods for collecting royalties for extraction of oil and 

gas from certain federal and Indian lands. The Committee believes 

it is imperative that the Interior Department’s inspection, audit 

and enforcement activities result in proper revenue collections. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Department of the Interior to 

provide a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by January 31, 2007. The report should include a proposed timetable and estimated costs associated with analyzing options for changing regulations for federal and Native American natural gas leases, to institute more accurate measurement and reporting of natural gas production volumes on public lands. This report should also examine whether and how MMS can improve the 

accuracy of gas flow measurements including but not limited to: requiring the use of digital meters on all leases which are calibrated 

monthly, checking for pipeline bypasses, ensuring condensates are 

reported, and regular inspection of measurements taken at company master meters which can then be compared to well-specific 

meters for accuracy. 

Bill Language.—The Committee has modified bill language requested by the Administration to allow three percent of the coastal 

impact assistance funds provided in section 31 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to be used for necessary administrative requirements of the service. The Committee notes that it is vital that 

this program be carefully administered to ensure maximum gain to 

the public and the energy producing States. The MMS should include information on activities and funding related to the coastal 

impact program in future budget justifications. 

OIL SPILL RESEARCH

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $6,903,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 6,903,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 6,903,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... 0 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $6,903,000 as requested 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 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
65 

Committee recommendation is equal to the budget request and the 

fiscal year 2006 enacted 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 

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 

are on Federal and Tribal lands. Through its Abandoned Mine 

Land (AML) reclamation 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 endanger public 

health and safety or prevent the beneficial use of land and water 

resources. 

REGULATION AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $108,810,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 112,109,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 112,109,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +3,299,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ 0 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
66 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 015 HR465.015
67 

The Committee recommends $112,109,000, the budget request, for regulation and technology. This is $3,299,000 above the fiscal 

year 2006 enacted level. 

ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION FUND

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $185,248,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 185,936,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 185,936,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +688,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ 0 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
68 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 016 HR465.016
69 

The Committee recommends $185,936,000 for the Abandoned 

Mine Reclamation Fund, which is the same as the budget request 

and $688,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. There is an 

additional $100,000 that is estimated to be available in 2007 from 

performance board forfeiture receipts. The Committee has retained 

language, as in past years, which limits funding for minimum program states to $1,500,000. 

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA).—The 

Committee wholly supports the inclusion of an extension to the 

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) through December 31, 2007 in the recent Emergency Supplemental Appropriations. However, a need for a more permanent solution is necessary. 

The Committee encourages the authorizing Committees to reach 

consensus and act on a legislative proposal, that would increase the 

rate at which dangerous abandoned sites would be reclaimed and 

provide a fair and reasonable method of compensating the states 

and other governments, which have completed abandoned mine reclamation activities. Without new legislative direction this problem 

and associated reclamation costs will continue to grow. 

Abandoned Coal Mine Sites.—The Committee is concerned that 

the known inventory of unfunded environmental (Priority 3) coal 

problems totals $1.8 billion and that Priority 3 problems have 

never been systematically inventoried. Therefore, the Committee 

directs the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

(OSM) to report to the Committee not later than December 31, 

2006, on the methodology used to determine the current cost of the 

known inventory for unfunded environmental coal problems by 

State with an estimate of the scope and cost of doing a systematic 

inventory that includes the use of statistical samples from the various States. 

Bill Language.—The Committee has included language which 

transfers the balance in the fund for the rural abandoned mine program (RAMP), which has not been used, to the Federal share fund, 

so the funds could be used in the future for emergencies and other 

Federal obligations. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION

The Committee has retained the administrative provision proposed by the Administration’s 2007 fiscal year budget request for 

the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement that allows the transfer of title for computer hardware, software and 

other technical equipment to State and Tribal regulatory and reclamation programs. 

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 1.6 million Native Americans through 

12 regional offices and 88 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 56 million acres of land held 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
70 

in trust status. Over 10 million of these acres belong to individuals 

and 46 million acres are held in trust for Tribes. 

OPERATION OF INDIAN PROGRAMS

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $1,962,190,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 1,966,594,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 1,973,403,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +11,213,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +6,809,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
71 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 017 HR465.017
72 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 018 HR465.018
73 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 019 HR465.019
74 

The Committee recommends $1,973,403,000 for the operation of Indian programs, $6,809,000 above the budget request and 

$11,213,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

The Committee commends the Bureau of Indian Affairs for presenting the President’s 2007 budget submission in the new budget 

structure. The old budget structure was confusing and complex and 

offered little opportunity to review funding levels and assess performance on a programmatic level, the Committee is hopeful that 

the new structure will enable a better working relationship between the Bureau and Tribal leaders and governments. 

The Committee however, remains concerned about the amount of 

carryover monies in many of the accounts and about complaints 

from Tribes that there was inadequate consultation with Tribes 

and Tribal leaders during preparation of this year’s budget. The 

Committee is also concerned that the process of making budgetary 

data available to Tribes is inadequate. 

Therefore, the Committee directs the Bureau to update the Committee on how the budget structure is: (1) being received by the 

tribes; (2) aligned programmatically to provide full transparency for 

Tribal priority allocation funding, (3) increases accountability for 

Bureau programs and program managers, and (4) clearly delineates funding levels of the central and regional offices. The Committee direct that this report be received not later than December 

31, 2006. 

Tribal Government.—The Committee recommends $401,738,000 

for Tribal Government activities and operations, the same as the 

budget request and $27,049,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted 

level. 

Human Services.—The Committee recommends $139,385,000 for 

human services, to include social services and welfare assistance, 

the same as the budget request and $11,031,000 below the fiscal 

year 2006 enacted level. 

The Committee included bill language as proposed by the Administration to allow the Secretary to exceed the welfare budget cap 

in cases of designated Federal disasters. 

Trust—Natural Resources Management.—The Committee recommends $141,510,000 for natural resources management and 

oversight, $1,000,000 below the budget request and $11,244,000 

below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. An increase of $1,000,000 

is provided for the Washington timber-fish-wildlife program, and 

should be used for the mass marking of salmon. A decrease of 

$2,000,000 is for Energy Policy Act of 2005 program implementation. 

Trust—Real Estate Services.—The Committee recommends 

$151,593,000 for real estate services and oversight, $1,056,000 

below the budget request and $9,751,000 above the fiscal year 2006 

enacted level. The Committee agrees with the requested increase 

for trust services to implement reforms to address the probate 

backlog; however, a reduction of $1,056,000 within the requested 

increase for probate backlog is necessary to restore decreases elsewhere in the 2007 budget request. 

Education.—The Committee recommends $652,214,000 for education, $13,059,000 above the budget request and $5,784,000 above 

the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The Committee has fully restored the proposed reduction of $16,371,000 to the JohnsonVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 16, 2006 Jkt 027493 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR465.001 HR465

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
75 

O’Malley assistance grants. The Committee feels that the justification for the reduction, that there are other programs in the government that could provide these funds, is unfounded because there is 

no guarantee of a one-for-one correlation between the Department 

of Education grant opportunities and what Johnson-O’Malley provides to the Tribes. The Committee has also reduced Education— Elementary and Secondary Programs by $3,311,000 because this is 

the amount of unused prior year funds available for fiscal year 

2007. 

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 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 

and disparities over funding formulas prior to submission of the fiscal year 2008 budget request. 

Public Safety and Justice.—The Committee recommends 

$209,535,000 for public safety and justice, $4,194,000 below the 

budget request and $2,607,000 below the 2006 enacted level. 

The funding provided for law enforcement should be used for 

high priority law enforcement needs in Indian country developed in 

consultation with the Tribes and Tribal leaders including, but not 

limited to, community policing programs and drug enforcement. 

The Bureau should provide the Committee a report detailing the 

use of law enforcement funds not later than December 31, 2006. 

Community and Economic Development.—The Committee recommends $39,175,000 for community and economic development, 

the same as the budget request and $12,607,000 below the 2006 enacted level. 

Executive Direction and Administration Services.—The Committee recommends $238,253,000, the same as the budget request 

and $6,118,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

CONSTRUCTION

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $271,582,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... $215,049,000 

Recommended 2007 ............................................................................ 215,799,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥55,783,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +750,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
76 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 020 HR465.020
77 

The Committee recommends $215,799,000 for construction, 

$750,000 above the budget request and $55,783,000 below the fiscal 

year 2006 enacted level. 

Education.—The Committee recommends $157,441,000 for education construction, the same as the budget request and 

$49,346,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

The Committee continues to support Indian school construction 

and repair funding. The Committee understands the need to slowdown new construction to allow planning and design to catch up 

with previously appropriated construction funding. The Committee 

does not, however, agree that the Bureau needs to reduce funding 

for new schools to finish ongoing projects. The Bureau has experienced large, unobligated carryover balances from prior years in the 

construction account. 

The Committee directs the Bureau to report not later than 

March 1, 2007 on the projected obligation, by project, of the existing balance of carryover dollars as discussed during the fiscal year 

2007 budget review; the time frame for obligation; the implementation of new policies and processes on enrollment projections and 

updated education space standards; and the modifications that 

have been made to strengthen existing planning and design policies. 

Public Safety and Justice.—The Committee recommends 

$11,611,000 for public safety and justice construction, the same as 

the budget request and $8,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted 

level. 

Resources Management.—The Committee recommends 

$38,560,000 for resources management construction, $750,000 

above the budget request and $6,539,000 below the fiscal year 2006 

enacted level. The funding increase of $750,000 is for upgrades and 

repairs for the Navajo Agriculture Products Industry irrigation 

project. This funding is in addition to the base funding provided in 

the budget for the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project. 

Navajo Indian Irrigation Project.—The Committee remains concerned about the management of the Navajo Indian Irrigation 

Project (NIIP). Overhead costs of the project have been excessive 

and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) management and oversight of 

the project has been confused and convoluted, with no one clearly 

in charge. As recently as 2004, nearly $2.3 of a $12.9 million appropriation was devoted to BIA staff and consultants, although the 

project is actually being constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation. 

Only $9.98 million was transferred to Reclamation construction activities. To address this unacceptable situation, the Committee directs the Secretary to take the following actions: 

1. Limit BIA staffing and other overhead costs from the construction appropriation for NIIP to not more than $700,000. 

2. Ensure that the balance of the amount provided for the project 

is made available to the Bureau of Reclamation immediately. 

3. Develop a streamlined management structure assigning clear 

responsibility within BIA for NIIP and providing for seamless coordination between BIA and the Bureau of Reclamation. 

4. Ensure that non-contract and indirect cost surcharges by the 

Bureau of Reclamation to the funds transferred from BIA are limited to the minimum amount necessary to support on-going construction and rehabilitation of NIIP. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
78 

The Committee further expects that the Secretary will give first 

priority within construction funding, including carryover, to correcting construction deficiencies and completing rehabilitation of 

the older blocks of NIIP. 

General Administration.—The Committee recommends 

$2,111,000 for general administration, the same as the budget request and $6,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

Construction Management.—The Committee recommends 

$6,076,000 for construction management, the same as the budget 

request and $88,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

INDIAN LAND AND WATER CLAIM SETTLEMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS

PAYMENTS TO INDIANS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $34,243,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 33,946,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 39,213,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +4,970,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +5,267,000 

The Committee recommends $39,213,000 for Indian land and 

water claim settlements and miscellaneous payments to Indians, 

$5,267,000 above the budget request and $4,970,000 below the 

2006 enacted level. Funding includes $625,000 for the White Earth 

land settlement, $250,000 for Hoopa-Yurok, $142,000 for Pyramid 

Lake, $7,500,000 for Rocky Boy’s, $10,339,000 for the Cherokee, 

Choctaw and Chickasaw settlement, $316,000 for Quinault, and 

$20,041,000 for Nez Perce/Snake River. The changes to the budget 

request reflect the addition of $5,067,000 which was requested in 

the Fish and Wildlife Service budget for the Idaho Salmon and 

Clearwater River Basins Habitat Account and $200,000 which was 

requested in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) budget for 

mitigation of BLM land transfers for the Nez Perce/Snake settlement. 

INDIAN GUARANTEED LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $6,255,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 6,262,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 6,262,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +7,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $6,262,000 for the Indian guaranteed loan program account, the same as the budget request and 

$7,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

The Committee has retained all administrative provisions proposed by the Administration’s 2007 fiscal year budget request for 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs including changes to a prior administrative provision, limiting the use of funds in the executive direction and administrative service account and the provision proposed 

by the Administration that allows the use of funds from Indian 

Student Equalization Program (ISEP) for costs associated with student enrollment increases at Bureau-funded schools. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
79 

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 Mariana 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, 2006 .............................................................. $76,160,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 74,361,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 77,561,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +1,401,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +3,200,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
80 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 021 HR465.021
81 

The Committee recommends $77,561,000 for assistance to territories, $3,200,000 above the budget request and an increase of 

$1,401,000 above the fiscal year 2006 level. 

Territorial Assistance.—The Committee recommends $26,961,000 

for territorial assistance, $3,200,000 above the budget request and 

$1,291,000 above the fiscal year 2006 level. Increases to the budget 

request include: $400,000 within the Office of Insular Affairs (OIA) 

for additional oversight of the implementation of the Compacts of 

Free Association and other increased territorial workload; $800,000 

within technical assistance for payments to replace the Prior Service Trust Fund, $1,000,000 for specific insular measures and assessments, and $1,000,000 in technical assistance to continue 

health care programs in the Marshall Islands. The funding for the 

Office of Insular Affairs has been changed to two-year availability 

to enhance office efficiencies. 

The Committee notes that the cost of infrastructure needs of the 

insular areas greatly exceeds Federal and Insular Government resources available to address those needs. Therefore, the Committee 

encourages the OIA to explore ways in which its grant funds for 

infrastructure can be leveraged through bond financings and other 

types of financing. Any such leveraging should not entail any express or implied guarantee by the Federal Government or otherwise provide any express or implied additional direct or contingent 

commitment of funds from the Federal Government. 

The Committee is encouraged by recent progress with the Prior 

Service Trust Fund and reiterates its support for the agreement 

among the pension systems of the Republic of Palau, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), the Republic of 

the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia 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 expects that this funding be reprogrammed 

for general technical assistance uses if there is a failure to implement fully the transfer of Prior Service Trust fund management to 

the insular nation and territorial governments. 

The Committee has also included $1,000,000 for continuation of 

health care programs in the Marshall Islands. 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. 

American Samoa.—The Committee recommends $22,880,000 for 

American Samoa operations as requested, an increase of $110,000 

above the fiscal year 2006 level. The Committee expects the government of American Samoa will use no less than $500,000 of this 

funding for physical education activities at schools. 

The Committee continues to be concerned about accountability 

for key Federal grants to American Samoa. The Secretary should 

enhance the inter-departmental, coordinated approach to oversight 

of all Federal grants awarded to American Samoa. The Committee 

is encouraged by recent developments by the American Samoa GovVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 16, 2006 Jkt 027493 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR465.001 HR465

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
82 

ernment (ASG) to control and limit Federal grants. The Committee 

also encourages the OIA to ensure that single audits are completed 

in a timely fashion and that the information contained therein is 

widely available to all branches of the territorial government. The 

OIA should consider requiring the American Samoan government 

to complete its capital investment plan for a 5-year duration, and 

include specific targets for the three main sectors of health, education and other government needs. The OIA should require a 

prioritized list of items needed by the ASG next year, and this list 

should be developed in an open fashion with the territorial government. 

The Committee encourages the American Samoan government to 

not allow commercial development of waterfront areas of Utulei 

Beach Park because this site has such high recreational and natural values, and it has enjoyed funding from the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund Program which indicates that this park land 

should be dedicated to public outdoor recreational use in perpetuity. 

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 2006 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 appropriately court-ordered infrastructure projects in the respective 

territories. 

COMPACT OF FREE ASSOCIATION

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $5,313,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 4,862,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 5,362,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +49,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +500,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
83 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 022 HR465.022
84 

The Committee recommends $5,362,000 for the compact of free association, $500,000 above the budget request and $49,000 above 

the fiscal year 2006 level. The Committee recommendation continues Enewetak support. 

DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $130,238,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 118,845,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 118,303,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥11,935,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ¥542,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
85 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 023 HR465.023
86 

The Committee recommends $118,303,000 for salaries and expenses for departmental management, a decrease of $11,935,000 

below the fiscal year 2006 enacted and $542,000 below the budget 

request. Changes to the request include decreases of $128,000 for 

environmental policy and compliance, $14,000 for indirect cost negotiations and $400,000 for hearings and appeals. The Committee 

was unable to provide programmatic increases due to the bill’s restrictive budget allocation. 

Departmental programs that have been denied requested programmatic 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. 

The Committee does not support the Department’s continued efforts to turn over responsibility for the three Indian museums, operated by the Department, to non-federal interests. The Committee 

strongly urges the Department to stop pursuing this course of action. 

Financial Management System.—The Committee continues to be 

concerned about the development of the new financial management 

system at a time when budget allocations are in serious decline. 

Staffing at the bureaus is being reduced at an alarming rate due 

in part to the absorption of pay and other fixed costs and insufficient budget requests. The Committee is aware that not only did 

the Interior system encounter problems, which delayed the project 

a year, but other major departments such as NASA and the Veterans Administration have also experienced delays and cost overruns. The current system must be replaced over time. The Committee cautions the Department to ensure that these funds are 

used wisely and that unnecessary costs and delays are avoided. 

These funds are coming at the expense of critical ongoing agency 

programs. 

Land Appraisal Office.—Several years ago, at the request of the 

Department, the Committee reluctantly agreed to consolidate the 

Interior Department’s land appraisal services into a central office 

in the Department. It has been the experience of the Committee 

that centralization of services often does not yield either the cost 

savings or efficiencies that are promised. This is certainly the case 

to date with the appraisal function consolidation. 

The Committee waited two years before asking the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) to review the new alignment for appraisal services. The report will be finalized in August, but the 

Committee is seriously concerned about the preliminary findings as 

of April 2006. There are issues of serious implementation challenges and a lack of leadership, guidance and procedures from the 

Appraisal Services Directorate. There are also serious compliance 

issues, problems with the quality of appraisals, and significant 

delays in processing. 

The Committee will not make a final determination until the release of the final report, but cautions the Department to take a serious look at the performance of its top managers before it attempts to attribute these problems to the individual bureaus. The 

evidence to date does not support the latter. 

The Committee is concerned by continuing reports from employees of the Department of the Interior about potential environmental health problems created as a result of the ten-year conVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 16, 2006 Jkt 027493 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR465.001 HR465

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
87 

struction and modernization project for the Department’s main 

building in Washington, D.C. The Committee requests that the Secretary conduct a review of these concerns on an expedited basis 

and submit a report of the results of this review to the Committee 

not later than September 1, 2006. This report is expected to reflect 

a formal evaluation of the existence of any worker safety problems, 

a corrective action plan for any problems which are documented, 

and specific responses to each of the recommendation of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health promulgated in 

their letter in their letter to the Department on February 3, 2006. 

In addition the Committee encourages the Secretary to establish as 

soon as possible a formal process through which these issues can 

be discussed with employees. 

PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES

Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) provide 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 local governments may be receiving. 

The recipients may use payments received for any governmental 

purpose. 

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $232,528,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 198,000,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 228,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥4,528,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +30,000,000 

The Committee recommends $228,000,000 for PILT, $30,000,000 

above the budget request and $4,528,000 below the fiscal year 2006 

enacted 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 and includes sums recovered from or paid by a party as reimbursement for remedial action or response activities. 

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $9,710,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 9,923,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 9,923,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +213,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $9,923,000 for the central hazardous materials fund, as requested, an increase of $213,000 above 

the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. Prior to fiscal year 2006 this account was located in the Bureau of Land Management. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
88 

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $54,624,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 56,755,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 56,755,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +2,131,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $56,755,000 for salaries and expenses of the Office of the Solicitor, the same as the budget request 

and an increase of $2,131,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted 

level. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $38,541,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 40,699,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 39,688,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +1,147,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ¥1,011,000 

The Committee recommends $39,688,000 for salaries and expenses of the Office of Inspector General, a decrease of $1,011,000 

from the budget request and an increase of $1,147,000 above the 

enacted level. The Committee could not provide funds for programmatic increases due to the bill’s restrictive budget allocation. 

The Committee greatly values this office and the important contributions it makes to the performance of the Department and its 

bureaus. 

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 46 million acres owned by Indian Tribes. On these lands, Interior manages over 100,000 leases for individual Indians and 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
89 

Tribes. Leasing, use permits, sale revenues, and interest of approximately $300 million per year are collected for approximately 

277,000 individual Indian money accounts, and about $518 million 

per year is collected for about 1,450 tribal accounts per year. In addition, the trust manages approximately $2.9 billion in tribal funds 

and $420 million in individual Indian funds. 

FEDERAL TRUST PROGRAMS

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $188,774,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 185,036,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 150,036,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥38,738,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ¥35,000,000 

The Committee recommends $150,036,000 for Federal Trust programs, $35,000,000 below the budget request and $38,738,000 

below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

Program Operations, Support, and Improvements.—The Committee recommends $162,886,000 for program operations, support 

and improvements, $20,000,000 below the budget request and 

$23,689,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The total 

change from the request is a reduction of $35,000,000 for historical 

accounting which includes the use of $15,000,000 of prior year unobligated funds to offset 2007 requirements. 

Executive Direction.—The Committee recommends $2,150,000 for 

executive direction the same as the budget request, and $49,000 

below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

Since 1996, the Committee has appropriated hundreds of millions of dollars for activities related to the Cobell litigation. The 

Committee believes that these funds would have been better used 

to fund greatly needed health, law enforcement and education programs in Indian country. The Committee believes that this case 

must be resolved without further negatively impacting funding levels for Indian programs. The budget documents indicate continuing 

talks regarding a possible settlement of the Cobell. The Committee 

recognizes that, in addition to the mediation talks that have taken 

place, the House and Senate authorizing Committees have made 

commitments to develop a comprehensive legislative solution to 

this ongoing problem. However, the Committee remains concerned 

that there has been a continued use of Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Operation of Indian Programs appropriated funds to pay for ongoing litigation support costs. Without a solution, this practice will 

continue to erode programmatic funding in Indian country. Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to report quarterly on 

the use of Bureau of Indian Affairs, Operation of Indian Programs 

funds for ongoing litigation support costs associated with the Cobell 

case. 

Bill Language.—As 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 

$45,000,000. The clear intent of the Committee is to definitively 

limit the amount of funding available to conduct historical accounting activities. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
90 

INDIAN LAND CONSOLIDATION

Appropriation enacted, 20006 ............................................................ 34,006,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... $59,449,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 34,006,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... 0 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ¥25,443,000 

The Committee recommends $34,006,000 for Indian Land Consolidation, $25,443,000 below the budget request and the same as 

the fiscal year 2006 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 2006, 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 

was moved to the Departmental Offices appropriation because its 

functions relate to several different bureaus within the Department 

of the Interior. 

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $6,016,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 6,109,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 6,109,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +93,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $6,109,000, the budget request, for 

the natural resource damage assessment fund, an increase of 

$93,000 above the fiscal year 2006 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) oil leasing activities in certain 

areas. These OCS provisions are addressed under the Minerals 

Management Service. 

Section 107 permits the transfer of funds between the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs and the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians. 

Section 108 continues a provision permitting the redistribution of 

tribal priority allocation and tribal base funds to alleviate funding 

inequities. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
91 

Section 109 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 110 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 111 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 112 continues a provision prohibiting the closure of the 

underground lunchroom at Carlsbad Caverns NP, NM. 

Section 113 continues a provision preventing the demolition of a 

bridge between New Jersey and Ellis Island. 

Section 114 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. 

Section 115 continues a provision allowing the Secretary to pay 

private attorney fees for employees and former employees in connection with Cobell v. Norton. 

Section 116 continues a provision dealing with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s responsibilities for mass marking of salmonid 

stocks. 

Section 117 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 118 continues a provision prohibiting the use of funds to 

study or implement a plan to drain or reduce water levels in Lake 

Powell. 

Section 119 allows the National Indian Gaming Commission to collect $13,000,000 in fees for fiscal year 2008. 

Section 120 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 121 provides for the renewal of certain grazing permits 

in the Jarbidge Field office of the Bureau of Land Management. 

Section 122 authorizes the acquisition of lands and leases for 

Ellis Island. 

Section 123 permits the Secretary of the Interior to issue grazing 

permits within the Mojave National Preserve. 

Section 124 implements rules concerning winter snowmobile use 

on Yellowstone National Park. 

Section 125 prohibits the use of funds for Center of Excellence 

and partnership ‘‘Skills Bank Training without Committee approval. 

TITLE II—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

The Environmental Protection Agency was created by Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, which consolidated nine programs 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
92 

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. 

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 2007, the Committee recommends $7,566,870,000 

for the Environmental Protection Agency, a decrease of $58,546,000 

below the fiscal year 2006 level and $251,395,000 above the budget 

request. Changes to the budget request are detailed in each of the 

appropriation accounts below. 

The Committee agrees to the following: 

1. The Committee expects the EPA to continue to prepare its 

budget justification in the order specified in the table accompanying this report. There should be an explanation of every program/project, including those proposed for elimination. Each program/project should provide details and funding for each program 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
93 

and project element funded in the current year and the proposed 

funding for each element in the budget year along with an explanation of any increase or decrease in funding and any change in 

emphasis. 

2. The Committee was extremely disappointed with some of the 

EPA responses to Committee hearing questions for the record. 

EPA, in several instances, reported that it could not explain the 

impact on programs and projects of proposed reductions because 

the allocation of funds was yet to be determined. EPA should not 

propose program reductions if it cannot clearly identify the impact 

of those reductions on programs and projects. These details should 

be included in the Congressional budget justification. 

3. The Committee has included the fixed cost increases proposed 

in the budget request for EPA. Any additional fixed cost increases 

not included in the appropriation for fiscal year 2007 should be absorbed through FTE reductions, which should be achieved through 

attrition. 

4. The Committee continues to believe that the EPA needs to do 

a better job of using limited staff resources and commends the EPA 

for initiating a workforce assessment. A thorough analysis of staffing in the Regional Offices should be conducted and staffing and 

funding should be realigned as indicated by that analysis. In addition, those States that are doing a good job of running their programs do not need as much oversight as States that have problems 

with program implementation. EPA should consider differential 

oversight and focus its limited resources on States that have problems while providing somewhat less oversight to States with adequate programs and minimal oversight to States with excellent programs. The State oversight analysis should be done on a program 

by program basis. 

5. EPA and the States focus on the number of environmental pollution permits issued, the number of environmental standards established, the number of facilities inspected, and other such outputs of performance. These measures can provide important information for EPA and State managers but they do not measure the 

actual environmental outcomes that must be known to ensure that 

resources are being allocated in the most cost effective ways to improve environmental conditions and public health. Further, the 

Government Accountability Office, EPA’s Office of Inspector General, and the National Academy of Public Administration have 

identified ways that EPA can achieve its goals more efficiently and 

effectively by moving from traditional and intensive enforcement 

and compliance activities to more cost effective, efficient, and results oriented approaches. The Committee expects EPA to make 

substantive changes in these areas in 2007 and to include a description of those changes in the 2008 budget justification. 

6. The Committee has included modest increases for certain programs authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and for Homeland Security initiatives. Given the limited funding available for 

this bill and the need to restore funding for mission essential programs and high priority projects that were reduced or eliminated 

in the budget request, the Committee was unable to provide a sizable portion of the $80 million increase requested for programs associated with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 or the $55 million increase requested for Homeland Security programs. The Committee 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
94 

also did not provide funding for the Asia-Pacific Partnership initiative. 

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, 2006 .............................................................. $730,810,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 788,274,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 808,044,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +77,234,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +19,700,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
95 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 024 HR465.024
96 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 025 HR465.025
97 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 026 HR465.026
98 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 027 HR465.027
99 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 028 HR465.028
100 

The Committee recommends $808,044,000 for science and technology, an increase of $77,234,000 above the fiscal year 2006 level 

and $19,700,000 above the budget request. The Committee notes 

that the increase above the 2006 funding level is largely attributable to the realignment of administrative costs from the environmental programs and management account. In addition, the Committee recommends that $30,011,000 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 $9,000,000 for Federal vehicle and fuels standards certification 

associated with implementation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

renewable fuels standard. 

Climate Protection Program.—The Committee recommends an increase of $6,000,000 for the climate protection program to restore 

base program research funding. 

Homeland Security.—The Committee recommends a decrease of 

$25,000,000 in critical infrastructure protection for WaterSentinel 

and related training and a decrease of $5,000,000 in preparedness, 

response, and recovery for the decontamination program. 

Research: Congressional Priorities.—The Committee recommends 

an increase of $30,000,000 for programs of national and regional 

significance including: 

State Project name Amount 

CA ................. Central California Ozone Study, San Joaquin Valleywide Air Pollution Study Agency ................. $375,000 

CA ................. Irrigation Training and Research Center—Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo Flow Rate Measurement 250,000 

FL ................. Florida Department of Citrus Abscission Chemical Studies ........................................................ 1,000,000 

NY ................. Environmental Systems Ctr of Excellence at Syracuse Univ., Indoor environmental quality & 

urban ecosystems sustainability.

2,000,000 

OH ................ Ohio State University Oleantangy River Wetlands Park teaching, research, and outreach initiative.500,000 

OK ................. Tulsa Air Quality Study (ozone compliance) ................................................................................. 300,000 

TX ................. Mickey Leland National Urban Air Toxics Research Center ......................................................... 1,500,000 

American Water Works Association Research Foundation ........................................................... 1,000,000 

Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research ............................................................................. 750,000

New England Green Chemistry Consortium .................................................................................. 750,000

Southwest Center for Environmental Research and Policy .......................................................... 1,500,000 

Water Environment Research Foundation ..................................................................................... 3,000,000 

Water Systems Council Wellcare Program .................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Research: Clean Air.—The Committee recommends an increase of 

$6,450,000 to restore funding for clean air research including increases of $3,950,000 for air toxics, $1,600,000 for global change, 

and $900,000 for particulate monitoring methods and tropospheric 

ozone research in the National Ambient Air Quality Standards program. 

Human Health and Ecosystems.—The Committee recommends an 

increase of $9,755,000 to restore funding for human health and ecosystems research including increases of $1,400,000 for endocrine 

disruptor research, $3,355,000 for fellowships through the Science 

to Achieve Results program, and $5,000,000 for the environmental 

monitoring and assessment program. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
101 

Research: Sustainability.—The Committee recommends an increase of $2,405,000 to restore partially the environmental technology verification program. 

Toxics Research and Prevention.—The Committee recommends 

an increase of $4,160,000 to restore funding for pesticides and 

toxics research. 

The Committee agrees to the following: 

1. Competitively awarded contract research and engineering 

services and activities for clean automotive technologies under the 

climate protection program should be funded at least at the 2006 

level. 

2. The funding recommended for the WaterSentinel program includes sufficient monies for one additional pilot project. EPA should 

ensure that this additional pilot project is located in a metropolitan 

area which is highly vulnerable from a homeland security threat 

perspective and which has funding support from the local council 

of governments. 

3. Any future WaterSentinel funding should be requested 

through the Department of Homeland Security and EPA should coordinate with the Office of Management and Budget to ensure this 

happens beginning in fiscal year 2008. While the Committee agrees 

that EPA’s expertise is important for program success and that it 

had a critical role to play in establishing the program, the Committee also believes strongly that continuing program funding must 

be provided through the Department of Homeland Security. 

4. The Committee continues to stress the importance of the 

Science to Achieve Results program. Funding reductions in this 

program are not acceptable because such reductions would ultimately result in long term problems, with and gaps in, critical environmental research. 

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. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
102 

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $2,346,711,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 2,306,617,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 2,336,442,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥10,269,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +29,825,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
103 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 029 HR465.029
104 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 030 HR465.030
105 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 031 HR465.031
106 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 032 HR465.032
107 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 033 HR465.033
108 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 034 HR465.034
109 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 035 HR465.035
110 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 036 HR465.036
111 

The Committee recommends $2,336,442,000 for environmental 

programs and management, a decrease of $10,269,000 below the 

fiscal year 2006 level and $29,825,000 above the budget request. 

Changes to the budget request are detailed below. 

Air Toxics and Quality.—The Committee recommends a decrease 

of $6,565,000 for air toxics and quality including a decrease of 

$2,800,000 in the Federal support for air quality management program for implementation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and 

$3,765,000 in the stratospheric ozone program for the multilateral 

fund. 

Climate Protection.—The Committee recommends a net decrease 

of $1,000,000 for climate protection programs, including an increase of $2,000,000 for Energy Star, a decrease of $2,000,000 for 

the methane to markets initiative, and, in other climate change 

programs, a decrease of $5,000,000 for the Asia-Pacific Partnership 

and an increase of $4,000,000 to restore ongoing climate change 

programs. 

Compliance.—The Committee recommends a decrease of 

$987,000 in the compliance monitoring program for implementation 

of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

Enforcement.—The Committee recommends an increase of 

$957,000 for enforcement, including a decrease of $753,000 in the 

civil enforcement program for implementation of the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005 and an increase of $1,710,000 to restore the environmental justice program. The Committee notes that there is also an 

increase, as requested, in the Superfund account for environmental 

justice activities. 

Environmental Protection: Congressional Priorities.—The Committee recommends $40,000,000 for programs of national and regional significance including: 

State Project name Amount 

CO ................ NE Colorado Surface Water/Groundwater Conservation Program (Central Colorado Water Conservation District).$250,000 

IA .................. Iowa State University project on mitigating emissions from egg farms .................................... 1,000,000 

NY ................. Central New York Watersheds in Onondaga, Wayne, & Cayuga Counties water quality management.2,000,000 

NY/CT ........... Long Island Sound restoration ..................................................................................................... 1,800,000 

America’s Clean Water Foundation on Farm Assessment & Environmental Review Program .... 3,000,000 

Groundwater Protection Council ................................................................................................... 650,000 

National Biosolids Partnership (Water Environment Federation) ................................................. 1,000,000 

National Hispanic Healthy Farm Workers Initiative (Self Reliance Foundation) ......................... 1,000,000 

National Rural Water Association ................................................................................................. 11,000,000 

Rural Community Assistance Program ......................................................................................... 3,500,000 

Geographic Programs.—The Committee recommends a net increase of $1,000,000 for geographic programs, including a decrease 

of $6,397,000 for the Corsica River watershed pilot project in the 

Chesapeake Bay program, an increase of $2,397,000 for competitive 

grants for community based efforts in the Chesapeake Bay program, an increase of $6,000,000 for the Puget Sound program, and 

a decrease of $1,000,000 for regional geographic initiatives. 

Information Exchange/Outreach.—The Committee recommends 

an increase of $9,650,000 for information exchange/outreach, including increases of $9,000,000 for environmental education and 

$650,000 for the exchange network. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
112 

Legal/Science/Regulatory/Economic Review.—The Committee 

recommends a decrease of $2,000,000 for regulatory innovation. 

Operations and Administration.—The Committee recommends a 

decrease of $1,000,000 for facilities infrastructure and operations. 

Pesticide Licensing.—The Committee recommends an increase of 

$4,500,000 for pesticide licensing including increases of $2,000,000 

for registration of new pesticides and $2,500,000 for review/reregistration of existing pesticides. 

Toxics Risk Review and Prevention.—The Committee recommends a net decrease of $1,230,000 for toxics review and prevention, including an increase of $770,000 for endocrine disruptors 

and a decrease of $2,000,000 for the pollution prevention program. 

Underground Storage Tanks.—The Committee recommends a decrease of $1,500,000 in the underground storage tank program for 

implementation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

Water: Ecosystems.—The Committee recommends a net decrease 

of $14,000,000 for water/ecosystems, including a decrease of 

$20,000,000 for Great Lakes Legacy Act programs and an increase 

of $6,000,000 for the National Estuary Program. Direction on distribution of National Estuary Program funding is provided below. 

Water Quality Protection.—The Committee recommends an increase of $2,000,000 for surface water protection to restore and improve the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams. 

The Committee agrees to the following: 

1. The Committee recommendation includes the $2,000,000 in 

the budget request to continue the Water Information Sharing and 

Analysis Center and the Water Security Channel efforts to provide 

up to date security information for drinking water and wastewater 

utilities. 

2. No funds are provided in the Chesapeake Bay program for a 

pilot project in the Corsica River. The Committee encourages EPA 

to use the increase recommended by the Committee for competitive 

grants for community-based efforts and to award grants based 

upon their contribution to pounds of nitrogen, phosphorous, and 

sediment removed. The Committee also expects the Chesapeake 

Bay program to provide facilitator training to its staff and to use 

a facilitator at each of its committee, subcommittee, and task group 

meetings to ensure that those meetings and the subsequent actions 

taken achieve results. This also could be achieved through the use 

of trained facilitators associated with State and other partner organizations. 

3. A total of $6,000,000 is provided for the Puget Sound geographic program under section 320 of the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act, as amended. This program is to be administered by 

the Washington State Department of Ecology. 

4. A total of $24,417,000 is included for the National Estuary 

Program (NEP), which includes $500,000 for each of the 28 NEP 

estuaries and $10,417,000 for other activities in support of the program. 

5. EPA should encourage local governments and communities to 

pursue innovative public-private partnerships, such as the AdoptA-Waterway program, which, at no additional cost to taxpayers, 

help to implement storm water pollution prevention activities, curb 

urban runoff, and improve water quality. Further, EPA should 

work with the States to enter into public-private partnerships, such 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
113 

as Adopt-A-Waterway, to fulfill their public education and outreach 

responsibilities. 

6. The Pesticide Safety Education Program should continue to be 

funded at $1,200,000 in fiscal year 2007 using the services of the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service. 

7. The Committee commends the Agriculture Container Recycling 

Council for its development of a voluntary program for recycling 

agricultural and professional specialty pesticides containers. This 

program has facilitated the proper disposal of millions of plastic 

pesticide containers at no cost to farmers. The EPA has been developing regulations on this recycling and, to ensure the program remains a viable, free service that is available to agricultural producers, the Committee expects EPA to issue a final rulemaking on 

the recycling of high density polyethylene pesticide containers within 60 days of enactment of this Act. 

8. There are a number of environmental changes associated with 

global climate change that may have a direct impact on human 

health. Much of the country may experience more serious air pollution, increased number of heat waves, and the emergence of more 

pest borne diseases. Certain vulnerable populations will suffer the 

most, in particular the very young and the very old. In order to better understand and plan for these problems, the EPA should contract with the National Academies of Science to conduct a study of 

the potential health impacts of global climate change on the U.S. 

population at large, and especially on the young, the elderly, those 

with respiratory diseases, and those in communities situated in 

areas particularly vulnerable to pollution and other environmental 

problems including minority communities. The study should also 

review and make recommendations on areas that the United States 

needs to improve medical preparedness and response capabilities 

and public health systems to deal with the health impacts associated with increased pollution and other environmental changes. 

The Committee expects the EPA to provide $1 million with available funds to support this study in fiscal year 2007. 

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 

of Inspector General. In addition to the funds provided under this 

heading, the OIG receives funds by transfer from the Hazardous 

Substance Superfund account. 

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $36,904,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 35,100,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 35,100,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥1,804,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ 0 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
114 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 037 HR465.037
115 

The Committee recommends $35,100,000, the budget request, for the Office of Inspector General, a decrease of $1,804,000 below the 

fiscal year 2006 level. In addition, the Committee recommends that 

$13,316,000, as requested, be transferred to this account from the 

Hazardous Substance Superfund account. 

Bill Language.—Bill Language is recommended providing that, 

notwithstanding any other provision of law, in fiscal year 2007 and 

thereafter, the EPA Inspector General shall not serve as the IG 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, 2006 .............................................................. $39,626,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 39,816,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 39,816,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +190,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ 0 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
116 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 038 HR465.038
117 

The Committee recommends $39,816,000, the budget request, for buildings and facilities, an increase of $190,000 above the fiscal 

year 2006 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, 2006 .............................................................. $1,242,074,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 1,258,955,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 1,256,855,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +14,781,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ¥2,100,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
118 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 039 HR465.039
119 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 040 HR465.040
120 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 041 HR465.041
121 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 042 HR465.042
122 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 043 HR465.043
123 

The Committee recommends $1,256,855,000 for hazardous substance Superfund, an increase of $14,781,000 above the fiscal year 

2006 enacted level and $2,100,000 below the budget request. 

Changes to the budget request are detailed below. 

Enforcement.—The Committee recommends a decrease of 

$3,000,000 for Superfund enforcement, which leaves an increase of 

almost $4 million above the 2006 level. 

Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery.—The 

Committee recommends a decrease of $10,300,000 for homeland security: preparedness, response, and recovery, including decreases of 

$1,800,000 for decontamination and $8,500,000 for laboratory preparedness and response. 

Operations and Administration.—The Committee recommends a 

decrease of $1,000,000 in the acquisition management program for 

contract workforce education. 

Research: Land Protection.—The Committee recommends an increase of $2,200,000 research, including increases of $1,000,000 for 

land protection and restoration and $1,200,000 to continue the 

Superfund innovative technology evaluation program. 

Superfund Cleanup.—The Committee recommends an increase of 

$10,000,000 to restore base funding for Superfund cleanup including increases of $1,000,000 for emergency response and removal, 

$1,000,000 for EPA emergency preparedness, $7,000,000 for the remedial program, and $1,000,000 for support to other Federal agencies. 

Bill Language.—Bill language is included transferring funds to 

the Office of Inspector General and to the Science and Technology 

account. The funding transfer to the Science and Technology account is increased above the budget request by $2,200,000, which 

includes increases of $1,000,000 for land protection and restoration 

research and $1,200,000 for the Superfund Innovative Technology 

Evaluation program (SITE). 

Report Language: 

1. The Committee believes that the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation program is an important element of the Superfund program and does not agree with eliminating SITE funding as 

proposed in the budget request. 

2. Within the funds provided for support to other Federal agen- cies, the U.S. Coast Guard should receive at least $5,200,000. 

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, in place. 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 exVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 16, 2006 Jkt 027493 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR465.001 HR465

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
124 

pended 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, 2006 .............................................................. $79,953,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 72,759,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 72,759,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥7,194,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ 0 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
125 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 044 HR465.044
126 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 045 HR465.045
127 

The Committee recommends $72,759,000, the budget request, for 

the leaking underground storage tank program, a decrease of 

$7,194,000 below the fiscal year 2006 level, which included one 

time supplemental funding to address hurricane damage in Louisiana and Mississippi. 

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, 2006 .............................................................. $15,629,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 16,506,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 16,506,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +877,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ 0 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
128 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 046 HR465.046
129 

The Committee recommends $16,506,000, the budget request, for oil spill response, an increase of $877,000 above the fiscal year 

2006 enacted level. 

STATE AND TRIBAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS

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 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, 2006 .............................................................. $3,213,709,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 2,797,448,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 3,007,348,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥206,361,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +209,900,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
130 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 047 HR465.047
131 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 048 HR465.048
132 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 049 HR465.049
133 

The Committee recommends $3,007,348,000 for State and tribal 

assistance grants, a decrease of $206,361,000 below the fiscal year 

2006 enacted level and $209,900,000 above the budget request. 

These numbers do not reflect the one-time rescission of $80 million 

in fiscal year 2006 from expired contracts, grants and interagency 

agreements. While the rescission was included under the STAG 

heading, it applied to all EPA appropriation accounts and did not 

affect base program funding in any account for fiscal year 2006. 

Changes to the budget request are detailed below. 

Infrastructure Assistance: Clean Water State Revolving Fund.— The Committee recommends a decrease of $23,500,000 for diesel 

emissions reduction grants. 

State and Tribal Infrastructure Grants/Congressional Priorities.—The Committee recommends an increase of $200,000,000 for 

targeted STAG infrastructure grants including the following: 

State Grantee name Grantee city/county—description Amount 

1. AL ............ City of Glencoe ................................ Glencoe—Storm drainage & sewer 

system improvements.

$330,000 

2. AL ............ City of Jasper .................................. Jasper Corridor X—Interchange 

sewer project.

1,400,000 

3. AL ............ City of Scottsboro ........................... Scottsboro—Water infrastructure 

improvements.

242,000 

4. AR ........... Northwest Arkansas Conservation 

Authority.

Rogers—Water & wastewater infrastructure improvements.750,000 

5. AR ........... Southside Public Water Authority ... Batesville—Wastewater infrastructure planning.

50,000 

6. AR ........... Town of Etowah .............................. Etowah—Wastewater infrastructure 

improvements.

41,000 

7. AZ ........... City of Mesa .................................... Mesa—Arsenic mitigation water 

infrastructure improvements.

500,000 

8. AZ ........... City of Safford ................................ Safford—Wastewater infrastructure 

improvements.

1,000,000 

9. CA ........... Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency Landers—Water & wastewater infrastructure improvements 

(water resources plan).

500,000 

10. CA ........... City of Arcadia ................................ Arcadia & Sierra Madre—Water infrastructure improvements.1,000,000 

11. CA ........... City of Banning ............................... Banning—Water & wastewater infrastructure improvements 

(Brinton Reservoir).

500,000 

12. CA ........... City of Beaumont ............................ Beaumont—Water & wastewater 

infrastructure improvements (recycled water reservoir).

500,000 

13. CA ........... City of Bellflower ............................ Bellflower—Water infrastructure 

improvements.

300,000 

14. CA ........... City of Calimesa ............................. Calimesa—Water & wastewater infrastructure improvements 

(storm drain project).

600,000 

15. CA ........... City of Colfax .................................. Colfax—Wastewater infrastructure 

improvements.

500,000 

16. CA ........... City of Downey ................................ Downey—Groundwater well supply 300,000 

17. CA ........... City of Lodi ..................................... Lodi—Water infrastructure improvements.1,000,000 

18. CA ........... City of Placerville ............................ Placerville—Wastewater treatment 

plant upgrade (Hangtown Creek).

1,500,000 

19. CA ........... Hi-Desert Water District .................. Yucca Valley—Water & wastewater 

infrastructure improvements.

350,000 

20. CA ........... Mission Springs Water District ....... Desert Hot Springs—Water & 

wastewater infrastructure improvements.

1,000,000 

21. CA ........... Monterey County Water Resources 

Agency.

Monterey—Water management 750,000 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
134 

State Grantee name Grantee city/county—description Amount 

22. CA ........... San Francisco Public Utilities Commission.City & County of San Francisco—

Flood control project.

700,000 

23. CO ........... Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District.Pueblo/Otero/Bent/Prowers/Crowley 

Counties—Water & wastewater 

infrastructure improvements.

675,000 

24. CO ........... Town of Eckley ................................ Eckley—Water treat plant 150,000 

25. CT ........... City of New Haven .......................... New Haven—Water & wastewater 

infrastructure improvements.

303,000 

26. CT ........... City of Norwalk ............................... Norwalk—Water & wastewater infrastructure improvements.1,000,000 

27. CT ........... CT Regional Drinking Water Pipeline.New Britain/Plainville/Bristol—

Water infrastructure improvements.

1,000,000 

28. CT ........... Town of Enfield ............................... Enfield—Wastewater infrastructure 

improvements.

550,000 

29. FL ............ City of Largo ................................... Largo—Wastewater infrastructure 

improvements.

2,000,000 

30. FL ............ City of West Palm Beach ................ West Palm Beach—Drinking water 

algae control.

1,000,000 

31. FL ............ Gadsden County .............................. Quincy—Wastewater infrastructure 

design.

490,000 

32. FL ............ Marion County ................................. Ocala/Marion County—Silver 

Springs pollution abatement 

program.

700,000 

33. FL ............ Southwest Florida Water Management District.Polk County—Lake Peace River & 

Myakka River watershed & 

drinking water improvements.

1,000,000 

34. FL ............ St. Johns River Water Management 

District.

Brevard/Orange/Osceola Counties—Expansion of Taylor Creek 

Reservoir.

1,000,000 

35. FL ............ Town Of Callahan ........................... Callahan—Wastewater treatment 

plant.

1,000,000 

36. FL ............ Village of Wellington ....................... Village of Wellington—Water & 

wastewater infrastructure improvements.

700,000 

37. GA ........... Banks County .................................. Homer/Banks County—Wastewater 

treatment plant.

1,000,000 

38. GA ........... City of Albany ................................. Albany—Interceptor pipeline upgrade (sewer).1,000,000 

39. GA ........... City of Valdosta .............................. Valdosta—Water & wastewater infrastructure improvements.500,000 

40. GA ........... Metropolitan Georgia Water Planning District.North Georgia—Water & wastewater infrastructure improvements.

1,000,000 

41. IA ............ Riverpoint West Project ................... Des Moines—Water and wastewater infrastructure improvements.

700,000 

42. ID ............ City of Castleford ............................ Castleford—Water system upgrade 300,000 

43. ID ............ City of Twin Falls ............................ Twin Falls—Wastewater treatment 1,000,000 

44. IL ............. City of Aurora .................................. Aurora—Wastewater infrastructure 

improvements.

300,000 

45. IL ............. City of Virginia ................................ Virginia—Water & wastewater infrastructure improvements.1,000,000 

46. IL ............. Kane County .................................... Kane County—Water supply management plan.275,000 

47. IL ............. Northeastern Illinois Sewer Consortium.Lake Forest/Lake Bluff/Highland 

Park/Highwood—Sewer improvements.

500,000 

48. IL ............. Village of Lynwood .......................... Lynwood—Water & wastewater infrastructure improvements.281,000 

49. IL ............. Village of Orion ............................... Orion—Removal & replacement of 

groundwater storage tank.

123,000 

50. IL ............. Village of Richton Park ................... Richton Park—Water & wastewater 

infrastructure improvements.

190,000 

51. IL ............. Village of Ridgewood ...................... Ridgewood—Water & wastewater 

infrastructure improvements.

700,000 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
135 

State Grantee name Grantee city/county—description Amount 

52. IL ............. Village of Steward .......................... Steward—Wastewater infrastructure improvements.300,000 

53. IL ............. Village of Sublette .......................... Sublette—Water & wastewater infrastructure improvements.340,000 

54. IN ............ City of Charlestown ........................ Charlestown—Wastewater 

infrastucture improvements.

400,000 

55. IN ............ City of South Bend ......................... South Bend—Sewer overflow sensory control network.1,000,000 

56. IN ............ Dearborn County Regional Sewer 

District.

Dearborn County—Wastewater infrastructure improvements.600,000 

57. IN ............ Town of Merrillville ......................... Merrillville—Water & wastewater 

infrastructure improvements.

500,000 

58. IN ............ Wadesville/Blairsville Regional 

Sewer District.

Wadesville—Wastewater infrastructure improvements.1,000,000 

59. KS ........... Chautauqua County Rural Water 

District No 4.

Sedan—Water infrastructure improvements.1,000,000 

60. KS ........... City of Fairway ................................ Fairway and Mission—Water and 

wastewater infrastructure improvements.

500,000 

61. KY ........... City of Harlan ................................. City of Harlan—Sewer line expansion.1,500,000 

62. KY ........... City of Warsaw ................................ Warsaw—Water and wastewater 

infrastructure improvements.

400,000 

63. KY ........... Louisville Metropolitan Sewer District.Louisville—Combined sewer & 

sanitary sewer overflow mitigation.

1,000,000 

64. KY ........... Oldham County Sewer District ........ Goshen—Wastewater infrastructure 

improvements.

700,000 

65. LA ............ City of Monroe ................................. Monroe—Water & wastewater infrastructure improvements.

1,000,000 

66. LA ............ West Jefferson Medical Center ....... Metairie—Water infrastructure improvements.385,000 

67. MA ........... City of Boston ................................. Boston—Water infrastructure improvements (groundwater depletion).

750,000 

68. MA ........... City of Northampton ....................... Northampton—Drinking water filtration plant.500,000 

69. MA ........... Pioneer Valley Planning Commission.West Springfield—Combined sewer 

overflow cleanup.

1,500,000 

70. MD .......... City of College Park ........................ College Park—Watershed 

stormwater management plan.

100,000 

71. MI ............ City of Detroit, Water and Sewerage Department.Detroit—Water & wastewater infrastructure improvements.1,000,000 

72. MI ............ Oakland County Drain Commission Waterford—Evergreen/Farmington 

sanitary sewer overflow control.

1,000,000 

73. MI ............ Wayne County .................................. Wayne County—Water & wastewater infrastructure improvements.

1,000,000 

74. MN .......... City of Minneapolis ......................... Minneapolis—Wastewater infrastructure improvements.1,000,000 

75. MO .......... City of Joplin ................................... Joplin—Wastewater infrastructure 

improvements.

1,100,000 

76. MS ........... Tate County School District ............ Independence—Water infrastructure improvements.825,000 

77. MT ........... City of Conrad ................................. Conrad—Wastewater infrastructure 

improvements.

750,000 

78. NC ........... Brunswick County ........................... Bolivia—Waccamaw waterline extension.375,000 

79. NC ........... Caldwell County .............................. Lenoir & Morgantown—Water & 

wastewater infrastructure improvements.

750,000 

80. NC ........... City of Charlotte ............................. Charlotte—Sardis Road booster 

station expansion.

750,000 

81. NC ........... City of Durham ............................... Durham—Water & wastewater infrastructure improvements.250,000 

82. NC ........... City of Marion ................................. Marion—Water & wastewater infrastructure improvements.1,000,000 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
136 

State Grantee name Grantee city/county—description Amount 

83. NC ........... Montgomery County Pump Station 

Improvement Project.

Montgomery County—Water infrastructure improvements.500,000 

84. NC ........... Stanly County Water Improvement 

Project.

Stanly County—Water infrastructure improvements.500,000 

85. NC ........... Town of Ahoskie .............................. Ahoskie—Wastewater infrastructure improvements.750,000 

86. NC ........... Town of Cary ................................... Cary—Regional water reclamation 

facility planning/design/permitting.

750,000 

87. NC ........... Town of Elkin .................................. Elkin/Jonesville/Rhonda—Wastewater infrastructure improvements.

750,000 

88. NC ........... Town of Laurel Park ........................ Laurel Park—Water & wastewater 

infrastructure improvements.

1,760,000 

89. NC ........... Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority.Sylva—Water & wastewater infrastructure improvements.574,000 

90. NE ........... City of South Sioux City .................. South Sioux City—Sanitary sewer 

crossing between Nebraska & 

Iowa.

1,000,000 

91. NH ........... City of Somersworth ........................ Somersworth—Wastewater infrastructure improvements.700,000 

92. NJ ............ Borough of Dumont ......................... Borough of Dumont—Water & 

wastewater infrastructure improvements.

1,000,000 

93. NJ ............ Borough of Hopatcong .................... Borough of Hopatcong—Wastewater infrastructure improvements.

1,000,000 

94. NM .......... Albuquerque Bernalillo Water Utility 

Authority.

Albuquerque—Water infrastructure 

improvements.

1,000,000 

95. NV ........... Moapa Valley Water District ........... Overton—Arsenic treatment facility 1,000,000 

96. NY ........... City of Goshen ................................ Goshen—Water infrastructure improvements.300,000 

97. NY ........... City of Rye ...................................... Rye—Sewer pump station repairs 200,000 

98. NY ........... Monroe County Water Authority ...... Rochester—Reservoir cover 1,000,000 

99. NY ........... NY Botanical Garden ...................... Bronx—Water & wastewater infrastructure improvements (Twin 

Lakes).

500,000 

100. NY ........... Saratoga County ............................. Ballston Spa—Water infrastructure 

improvements.

1,000,000 

101. NY ........... Town of Bethel ................................ Bethel—Water & wastewater infrastructure improvements.1,000,000 

102. NY ........... Town of Greenburgh, NY ................. Town of Greenburgh—Stormwater 

infrastructure improvements.

300,000 

103. NY ........... Town of Lancaster .......................... Lancaster—Water and wastewater 

infrastructure improvements.

1,000,000 

104. NY ........... Town of New Windsor, NY ............... New Windsor—Wastewater infrastructure improvements.700,000 

105. OH ........... Butler County Board of Commissioners.Butler County—Wastewater infrastructure improvements.1,000,000 

106. OH ........... City of Jeromesville ......................... Jeromesville—Wastewater infrastructure improvements.1,000,000 

107. OH ........... City of Perrysburg ........................... City of Perrysburg—Wastewater infrastructure improvements.300,000 

108. OH ........... Fayette County ................................ Fayette County—Water & wastewater infrastructure improvements.

1,575,000 

109. OH ........... Ottawa County ................................ Ottawa County—Water & wastewater infrastructure improvements.

1,000,000 

110. OK ........... City of Wewoka ............................... City of Wewoka—Water tower 165,000 

111. PA ........... Bucks County Water and Sewer Authority.Warrington Township—Wastewater 

infrastructure improvements.

1,000,000 

112. PA ........... Cecil Township Municipal Authority Cecil Township—Wastewater infrastructure improvements.750,000 

113. PA ........... City of Beaver Falls ........................ Beaver Falls—Wastewater infrastructure & streambank stabilization.

258,000 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
137 

State Grantee name Grantee city/county—description Amount 

114. PA ........... Clinton County Municipal Authority Lock Haven—Sewer pump station 500,000 

115. PA ........... Delaware County Regional Water 

Quality Control Authority.

Chester—Water & wastewater infrastructure improvements.200,000 

116. PA ........... Duboistown Borough Municipal Authority.Duboistown—Sewage pump station 

replacement.

300,000 

117. PA ........... Fairmont Park Commission ............. Philadelphia—Watershed water 

quality improvements.

165,000 

118. PA ........... Jefferson Township Sewer Authority Jefferson Township—Expand sewer 

system.

2,000,000 

119. PA ........... New Brighton Borough Sanitary Authority.New Brighton—Water and 

wasterwater, infrastructure improvements.

500,000 

120. PA ........... Somerset County ............................. Somerset—Interconnection water 

project.

2,000,000 

121. RI ............ Town of Cumberland ....................... Cumberland—Water & wastewater 

infrastructure improvements.

125,000 

122. SC ........... Gaffney Board of Public Works ....... Gaffney—Wastewater treatment 

plant renovation and expansion.

500,000 

123. SC ........... Town of Denmark ............................ Denmark—Water & wastewater infrastructure improvements.715,000 

124. SC ........... Town of Olanta ............................... Olanta—Water infrastructure improvements.110,000 

125. TN ........... East TN Development District ......... Harrogate $137,000; Anderson 

County $275,000; Claiborne 

County $838,000—Water & 

wastewater infrastructure improvements.

1,250,000 

126. TN ........... SE TN Development District ............ Cleveland $500,000; Copperhill 

$250,000—Water & wastewater 

infrastructure improvements.

750,000 

127. TN ........... West Knox Utility District ................ Knox County—Water & wastewater 

infrastructure improvements.

700,000 

128. TX ............ Fort Bend County ............................ Arcola/Fresno area—Water and 

wastewater infrastructure improvements.

500,000 

129. TX ............ City of Grandview ........................... Grandview—Water infrastructure 

improvements.

500,000 

130. TX ............ City of Jarrell .................................. Jarrell—Wastewater treatment facility.350,000 

131. UT ........... City of Salt Lake ............................. Salt Lake City—Water infrastructure improvements.700,000 

132. VA ........... City of Alexandria and Arlington 

County.

Alexandria/Arlington County—Four 

Mile Run restoration.

500,000 

133. VA ........... Fairfax County—Stormwater Planning Division.Fairfax County—Stormwater management.1,000,000 

134. VA ........... Hanover County ............................... Hanover County—Wastewater infrastructure improvements.1,000,000 

135. VA ........... Henry County Public Service Authority.Henry County—Water infrastructure 

improvements.

1,000,000 

136. VA ........... Town of Onancock ........................... Onancock—Wastewater infrastructure improvements.1,000,000 

137. WA ........... Cascade Water Alliance .................. Bellevue—Central pipeline segment/water infrastructure improvements.

500,000 

138. WA ........... City of Carnation ............................ Carnation—Wasterwater infrastructure improvements.500,000 

139. WA ........... Mason County ................................. Mason County/Skokomish Indian 

Tribe—Wastewater Infrastructure Improvements.

1,000,000 

140. WI ............ City of Spooner ............................... Spooner—Wastewater infrastructure improvements.1,238,000 

141. WI ............ Lake Holcombe Sanitary District .... Holcombe—Wastewater infrastructure improvements.1,265,000 

142. WV ........... City of Milton .................................. Milton—Drinking water renovation 

& extension.

1,000,000 

143. WV ........... City of Pennsboro ............................ Pennsboro—Water & wastewater 

infrastructure improvements.

550,000 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
138 

State Grantee name Grantee city/county—description Amount 

144. WV ........... City of Weston ................................. Weston—Water & wastewater infrastructure improvements.250,000 

145. WV ........... City of Westover .............................. Westover—Sanitary sewer service 

extension.

825,000 

146. WV ........... Sugar Creek Public Service District Frametown—Water infrastructure 

improvements.

500,000 

Categorical Grants.—The Committee recommends a net increase 

of $33,400,000 for categorical grants, including increases of 

$10,300,000 for nonpoint source (Sec. 319), $35,100,000 for State 

and local air quality management, and $9,000,000 for targeted watersheds, and decreases of $20,000,000 for implementing underground storage tank requirements in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 

and $1,000,000 for wetlands program development. 

Bill Language.—Bill language is recommended requiring that 

STAG special project funding from fiscal year 2001 or earlier must 

have an approved grant by September 1, 2007 or those funds will 

be rescinded. Language, proposed in the budget request, is not included limiting Clean Diesel grants to non-attainment areas. Language is included specifying that funds under the Clean Diesel program are for Federal grants. Given the limited funds available for 

this program, the Committee believes it should be centrally managed by EPA. Language is also included making a technical correction to the fiscal year 2005 appropriation for STAG special project 

funding. 

The Committee agrees to the following: 

1. The Committee supports the Diesel Emissions Reduction 

Grant Program and has provided $26,000,000 for that program. 

This and other important efforts, authorized by the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005, cannot be funded at the levels requested when there 

are insufficient funds requested for other critical mission essential 

programs that entail EPA research and program implementation 

by the States and EPA. The funds recommended by the Committee 

are a substantial increase over funds provided for diesel emission 

reduction efforts in 2006 and should enable EPA to expand its 

truck and school bus retrofit programs and to expand its idle reduction programs, including advanced truck stop electrification. 

2. The EPA should report to the Committee at least once a year 

and 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. 

3. Funds for the Targeted Watersheds program include 

$6,000,000 for the Chesapeake Bay program and should focus on 

watershed remediation. Projects should be chosen based upon their 

contribution to pounds of nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment removed. 

4. The Committee is pleased that EPA is working with the Environmental Council of the States to assess the actual costs incurred 

by States to implement environmental regulations and then compare those costs with EPA estimates. The EPA should provide periodic briefings to the Committee on this effort. 

5. The EPA should streamline its process for responding to requests from States for greater flexibility in managing their environmental programs. These requests deserve careful consideration and 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
139 

should neither be met with an automatic denial nor delayed by 

multiple bureaucratic reviews. 

6. The Committee has not provided categorical grant funding for 

the underground storage tank program authorized in the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005. This important National issue is a high priority 

for the legislative committee of jurisdiction and for the Congress as 

a whole. The Committee suggests that EPA use the funds that will 

be freed up in 2008 from the financial information system replacement effort to fund this activity in the 2008 budget request. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Bill language is recommended limiting reimbursements for consultants. This language is identical to a provision carried in fiscal 

year 2005 and earlier. 

TITLE III—RELATED AGENCIES 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

FOREST SERVICE

The U.S. Forest Service manages 192 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 is aware of the Administration’s proposal to sell 

up to 300,000 acres of national forest system lands to generate revenues to fund the needs of rural schools in the vicinity of national 

forests. While the Committee believes that the Congress must find 

a fair approach to assist rural schools, this proposal is entirely unacceptable. The Committee feels that any disposal of land should 

occur only if there has been local prioritization and public input, 

as well as careful, site by site analysis. Only lands which lack Federal importance and which are disjunct from Federal lands, and are 

difficult to manage, should be considered for sale or trade. Furthermore, while the Committee applauds efforts to draw attention to 

the economic needs of rural communities near national forest 

areas, the Administration’s proposal is inequitable in its basic 

funding allocation. Communities in the Southeast and Midwest 

would be net donors of acres of forest lands disposed, but would receive far less of the resulting revenues than would communities in 

the Pacific Northwest. The Committee looks forward to working 

with the Administration to reauthorize the rural schools program, 

but cannot support this unacceptable mechanism to do so. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
140 

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; 

it should be closely coordinated with other Federal science bureaus 

and extramural partners, and that technology transfer and practical applications are vital. 

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $277,711,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 267,791,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 280,318,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +2,607,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +12,527,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
141 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 050 HR465.050
142 

The Committee recommends $280,318,000 for forest and rangeland research, an increase of $12,527,000 above the budget request 

and $2,607,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The Forest 

Service should treat the funding for the forest inventory and analysis (FIA) program as a budget line item; it is displayed as a distinct activity. Funding for FIA under this heading is $62,329,000, 

$3,000,000 above the requested level and $2,949,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The Committee notes that an additional $5,000,000 for the FIA program is provided within the State 

and private forestry appropriation under the forest resource information and analysis budget line item. There is thus a total increase for the two FIA program components of $5,839,000 above 

the request, a $3,012,000 increase above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

The Committee recommendation includes all project funding as 

stipulated in the budget request and supporting documents, with 

the following exceptions. No funding is provided for: the new ecosystem services initiative; Morgantown, WV pests and pathogen research; and the Northeastern States research cooperative. Program 

reductions are recommended for the new marketing and utilization 

research initiative (a reduction of $965,000 for a total recommendation of $2,500,000) and for the advanced wood structure consortium 

(a reduction of $478,000 for a program total of $1,000,000). Program increases are recommended for: the gypsy moth slow-thespread research (increase of $1,407,000 above the request); sudden 

oak death research (increase of $72,000 above the request for a program total of $2,500,000); the southern pine beetle initiative (increase of $2,500,000 above the request); the Olympic Natural Resource Center, WA ($292,000 above the request); and the National 

agroforestry research center ($140,000 above the request for a program total of $786,000). Previous Congressional priorities in North 

Carolina should be maintained at the fiscal year 2006 funding levels. Uncontrollable cost increases not funded in the request receive 

$6,309,000 and $3,487,000 is provided to reestablish the fiscal year 

2006 base program funding level. 

Bill Language.—The Committee recommends continuing bill language designating a specific allocation, $62,329,000, 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 Forest 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. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
143 

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $308,966,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 244,410,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 228,608,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥80,358,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ¥15,802,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
144 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 051 HR465.051
145 

The Committee recommends $228,608,000 for State and private 

forestry, $15,802,000 below the budget request and $50,358,000 

below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level not counting emergency 

supplemental appropriations. Aspects of the budget request are approved, unless otherwise stated below. Funding levels are presented as changes from the request. 

Forest Health Management.—The Committee recommends 

$101,865,000 for forest health management, $17,435,000 above the 

request and $1,798,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

Once again the Committee emphasizes its concern for forest health 

and its concern that the Administration again has greatly reduced 

its request for these important programs. The funding recommended is equal to the enacted funding level in fiscal year 2005. 

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 control programs such as: 

(1) the slow-the-spread gypsy moth program; (2) the Asian longhorned 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 $16,000,000 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 $11,000,000 within the cooperative 

lands activity to assist State and private forest managers. 

Federal Lands Forest Health Management.—The Committee recommends $54,236,000 for Federal lands forest health management, 

$4,387,000 above the request and $1,073,000 above the fiscal year 

2006 enacted level. 

Cooperative Lands Forest Health Management.—The Committee 

recommends $47,629,000 for cooperative lands forest health management, $13,048,000 above the budget request and $725,000 above 

the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The Committee notes that the 

budget request maintains funding for the American Chestnut 

Foundation; this is a very worthwhile partnership. 

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 

$39,000,000 for cooperative fire protection, $6,182,000 above the request and $193,000 above the fiscal year 2006 funding level. The 

Committee notes that the cooperative fire portion of the national 

fire plan within the wildland fire management account includes a 

total of $43,000,000 for State fire assistance and $12,810,000 for 

volunteer fire assistance. 

State Fire Assistance.—The Committee recommends $33,000,000 

for State fire assistance, $6,040,000 above the budget request and 

$105,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
146 

Volunteer Fire Assistance.—The Committee recommends 

$6,000,000 for volunteer fire assistance, $142,000 above the request 

and $88,000 above the enacted level. 

Cooperative Forestry.—The Committee recommends $80,793,000 

for cooperative forestry, $41,448,000 below the budget request and 

$52,413,000 below the 2006 enacted level. 

Forest Stewardship.—The Committee recommends $37,000,000 

for forest stewardship, $3,120,000 above the budget request and 

$2,856,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. Increases to 

the budget request include: $300,000 for watershed activities in the 

New York City watershed (program total of $800,000); $320,000 for 

the Chesapeake Bay program (program total of $1,270,000); 

$2,000,000 for the conservation education activities of the Education Research Consortium of Western North Carolina and its 

partners in Pennsylvania and California; and $500,000 for North 

Carolina State University’s small industry and wood products natural resources initiative. 

Forest Legacy Program.—The Committee recommends $9,280,000 

for forest legacy, $52,235,000 below the request and a decrease of 

$47,244,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The recommendation provides $12,680,000 for projects and administration, 

and uses $3,400,000 in prior year funds to offset the total. 

The Committee has been concerned about the internal Forest 

Service administrative policy to extend, in some cases up to five 

years, the availability of funding for individual forest legacy 

projects. This is a highly competitive and sought after program 

during a very challenging fiscal time. If a project encounters difficulty that prevents the timely expenditure of funds, the Committee should be notified and, if appropriate, the Service should 

forward a reprogramming request for those funds to be used for the 

next most highly ranked project. 

The Committee has worked with the Forest Service and the 

States to develop a credible, competitive process. The Committee 

relies on the recommendations of the State Committees. Therefore, 

projects that are not contained in the President’s budget will not 

be considered. In addition, there will be no assumption of further 

phases of a particular project, if that project is not selected through 

the competitive process. 

The Committee recommends the following distribution of funds: 

Project Amount 

Birdsboro Waters, PA ......................................................................... $300,000 

Willard Pond, NH ............................................................................... 3,000,000 

Southern Monadnock Plateau, MA ................................................... 2,500,000 

Tahuya Headwaters Pope, WA .......................................................... 1,880,000 

Subtotal ........................................................................................ 7,680,000 

Program Administration .................................................................... 5,000,000 

Use of prior year funds ...................................................................... ¥3,400,000 

Total ...................................................................................... $9,280,000 

Urban and Community Forestry. —The Committee recommends 

$29,513,000 for urban and community forestry, $2,667,000 above 

the budget request and $1,100,000 above the fiscal year 2006 level. 

The increase above the request includes $700,000 for continued 

support of the longstanding and successful northeastern Pennsylvania community forestry program and $500,000 for the Tacoma, 

WA regional urban forestry restoration program, and a $1,467,000 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
147 

general increase to restore the base program nearly to the fiscal 

year 2006 level. 

Economic Action Programs.—As recommended by the Administration, the Committee has eliminated funds for the economic action programs, a reduction of $9,537,000 below the fiscal year 2006 

level. The Committee notes that the many cooperative forestry and 

fire programs, as well as national forest system programs and wildfire management programs, are available to assist local communities. The Committee also notes the cooperative biomass grant 

program funding of $5,000,000 within the hazardous fuels program. 

Forest Resource Information and Analysis.—The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for forest resource information and analysis, 

$5,000,000 above the budget request and $412,000 above the 2006 

enacted level. These funds should focus on those States which provide cost-share or in-kind services to FIA, and should be used in 

partnership with the State foresters and others to enhance the forest inventory and analysis program. 

International Program.—The Committee recommends $6,950,000 

for the international program, $2,029,000 above the request and 

$64,000 above the fiscal year 2006 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 America’s 

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. 

NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM

Within the National Forest System (NFS), which covers 192 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 2005 over 249,000 acres of national forest vegetation 

was managed through timber sale activities, which produced nearly 

2.1 billion board feet of timber volume. The NFS hosted over 204 

million visits in fiscal year 2004. 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 NFS 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. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
148 

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $1,435,646,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 1,398,066,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 1,445,659,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +10,013,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +47,593,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
149 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 052 HR465.052
150 

The Committee recommends $1,445,659,000 for the National forest system, an increase of $47,593,000 above the request and 

$10,013,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. All funds requested for the healthy forests initiative are included. Aspects of 

the budget request are approved, unless otherwise stated below. 

Funding levels are presented as changes from the request. 

Land Management Planning.—The Committee recommends 

$55,555,000 for land management planning as requested, a decrease of $2,120,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

Inventory and Monitoring.—The Committee recommends 

$166,000,000 for inventory and monitoring, $11,865,000 above the 

budget request and $638,000 below the fiscal year 2006 level. The 

increase above the request is to restore partially the base program. 

Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness.—The Committee recommends $262,000,000 for recreation, heritage and wilderness, 

$11,120,000 above the budget request and $3,203,000 above the fiscal year 2006 level. The increase above the request is to restore 

partially the base program. 

Wildlife and Fish Habitat Management.—The Committee recommends $131,000,000 for wildlife and fish habitat management, 

an increase of $7,452,000 above the budget request and $734,000 

below the fiscal year 2006 level. The increase above the request is 

to restore partially existing programs. 

Grazing Management.—The Committee recommends $48,000,000 

for grazing management, $8,265,000 above the budget request and 

$174,000 above the fiscal year 2006 funding level. The increase 

above the request is to maintain existing programs. 

Forest Products.—The Committee recommends $310,114,000 for 

forest products as requested, an increase of $32,531,000 above the 

fiscal year 2006 funding level. Within this funding is a $500,000 increase for the base program for the National Forests in North 

Carolina. The Committee directs the service not to follow the Administration’s proposal that focuses the large funding increase 

above last year’s enacted level to a portion of the Pacific Northwest. 

The Forest Service should not follow the allocations in special exhibit 16 in the budget justification; rather, the Forest Service 

should use the final fiscal year 2005 forest products program funding allocations as the base from which to make the fiscal year 2007 

allocations. The Forest Service should not use the Knutson-Vandenberg fund to supplant normal program funding. 

The Committee is very concerned about the manner in which the 

forest products funding and associated programs were allocated 

during fiscal year 2006. There needs to be much greater transparency and explanation of how the Service allocates funding to 

various regions and national forests, and how trade-offs are made 

and successful programs recognized. Accordingly, before allocating 

any forest products funding to the field, the Committee directs the 

Forest Service to provide the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a fourteen day review period during which the allocations and the methodology can be examined. 

The Committee also recognizes that one of the many factors to 

consider when allocating funding for forest products and hazardous 

fuels programs is the need to maintain forest industry infrastructure. This will enhance the likelihood of lower cost mechanical 

treatments, while enhancing rural community stability. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
151 

Vegetation and Watershed Management.—The Committee recommends $180,000,000 for vegetation and watershed management, 

a decrease of $7,582,000 below the request and an increase of 

$148,000 above the fiscal year 2006 funding level. 

Minerals and Geology Management.—The Committee recommends $84,000,000 for minerals and geology management, an 

increase of $2,758,000 above the request and $164,000 below the 

2006 funding level. The increase to the request is to offset partially 

the requested decrease to the environmental compliance program. 

Land Ownership Management.—The Committee recommends 

$91,000,000 for land ownership management, $6,715,000 above the 

budget request and $68,000 above the 2006 funding level. The increase above the request is to maintain existing programs. 

The Committee notes that the Washington State Wilderness Act 

of 1984 removed from wilderness designation 800 acres of land adjacent to the White Pass Ski Area in Washington State for potential ski development. The Committee notes that the Gifford Pinchot 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan allocated 

the 800-acre area as Developed Recreation to allow for ski area expansion, while concurrently inventorying the same land as roadless 

to reflect its current physical character. The Committee recognizes 

that it was the intent of Congress to permit ski area expansion into 

this 800-acre area and urges the Secretary of Agriculture, once the 

Environmental Impact Statement for the White Pass Ski Area’s 

Master Development Plan is properly completed, to move forward 

expeditiously in approving the expansion plans in accordance with 

all applicable laws, rules, and regulations. 

Law Enforcement Operations.—The Committee recommends 

$112,000,000 for law enforcement operations, $2,000,000 above the 

budget request and $1,063,000 above the 2006 funding level. The 

increase above the request includes a total of $1,000,000 for antidrug activities on the Daniel Boone National Forest, KY, and 

$1,000,000 for similar work on the Mark Twain NF, MO. 

Challenge Cost-Share.—The Committee notes that the challenge 

cost share effort featured in fiscal year 2005 has been very successful. Hundreds of individual partner projects have been funded in 

all regions of the Nation bringing in many millions of dollars in 

partner contributions which enhance the national forest system 

and improve public services. Therefore, the Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 to continue this program which 

was not included in the request, an increase of $566,000 above the 

fiscal year 2006 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 for various programs. Preference should be given to funding projects which enhance the conditions of national forest system lands and waters or 

provide direct recreational services to the public. The Forest Service should continue to display data on these efforts in subsequent 

budget justifications. 

Other.—The Committee has provided $990,000, as requested, for 

management of the Valles Caldera National Preserve, NM, a reduction of $4,084,000 from the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The 

Committee expects that the Preserve management will open more 

of the area to general public use; the current extensive fencing to 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
152 

prohibit pubic access provides a very unfriendly welcome to the 

public. 

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, 2006 .............................................................. $1,746,091,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 1,768,195,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 1,810,566,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +64,475,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +42,371,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
153 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 053 HR465.053
154 

The Committee recommends $1,810,566,000 for wildland fire 

management, an increase of $42,371,000 above the budget request 

and $64,475,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

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, the joint fire 

science program, fire plan research and development, and restoration and rehabilitation. The wildfire suppression operations program is funded at the 10-year average expenditure, adjusted for inflation, $741,477,000, an increase of $51,291,000 above the enacted 

level. 

The Committee is concerned that the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior do not have a suitable or comprehensive 

plan and strategy to deal with the Nation’s wildfire management 

needs. The previous momentum for the national fire plan seems to 

have waned within the Administration based on the selective recognition of its main features. Accordingly, the Committee directs 

the wildland fire management council, in partnership with the 

State wildfire agencies, to develop and implement a comprehensive 

and cohesive strategy that identifies long-term options and funding 

needed to respond to wildfire needs. This strategy should incorporate previous documents suggested by the States, and should indicate how the various planning tools, such as fire program analysis and LANDFIRE, fit. The strategy should address all four of 

the original national fire plan goals, as well as the research and 

development needs and management needs required to support this 

effort. As a beginning, the Committee requires a report by the two 

departments, by January 31, 2007, providing the tactical details on 

how this fundamental plan, with associated funding needs, will be 

produced by June 30, 2007. 

Wildfire Preparedness.—The Committee recommends 

$655,887,000 for wildfire preparedness as requested, a decrease of 

$4,818,000 below the enacted level. 

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 2004 and 2005. 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 2005 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. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
155 

The Committee is very concerned about the cost and utility of the 

fire program analysis system that is being jointly developed with 

the Department of the Interior. It is not clear why this system is 

so expensive and, furthermore, it is not clear that the system being 

developed will actually be useful for its original purpose of determining the most cost efficient and effective distribution of firefighting resources. The overall goals of the system still are important to achieve so the Committee is not prepared at this time to 

halt development. However, the Committee has included bill language in title IV which limits funding for this effort unless and 

until the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture 

certify in writing that the fire program analysis system will be 

completed in a timely fashion and include the full participation of 

State partners. The Committee understands that expert, independent technical reviews are currently underway, but it is especially critical that management participate at a high level to ensure 

the public that overarching goals are attainable in a cost effective 

manner. 

The Committee is concerned that the Department maintains sufficient readiness with its preparedness program. Accordingly, bill 

language is provided in title IV which limits competitive sourcing 

activities for wildfire program activities. While contracting is encouraged for activities, at this time it is not warranted to spend 

limited resources and time to fulfill competitive sourcing quotas. 

Wildfire Suppression Operations.—The Committee recommends 

$741,477,000 for wildfire suppression operations, a decrease of 

$4,699,000 below the request and an increase of $51,291,000 above 

the fiscal year 2006 enacted funding level. The Committee recommendation fully meets the 10–year average expenditure which 

actually occurred, adjusted for inflation. The Committee notes that 

there is substantial carry-over funding from the fiscal year 2005 

urgent wildfire suppression allocation which is still available for 

wildfire suppression. 

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 directs the Forest Service not to follow direction 

in the appendix to the budget of the U.S. government under the 

fire operations heading concerning early allocation of fire suppression funds to regions, and the direction to allow regions to retain 

unspent funds and use them for other, non-suppression related 

purposes. 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 compete against each other as 

instructed in the budget appendix. Furthermore, moving funds out 

of the fire suppression activity during low-cost years would disrupt 

the rationale of allocating the ten-year average cost, because the 

savings afforded during low-cost years would not be available for 

the subsequent, high cost years which are bound to occur. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
156 

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 overhead. All programs in the agency should pay the 

full cost of operations including overhead. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Forest Service to charge appropriate overhead 

expenses to wildfire suppression in a manner commensurate with 

the method for assessing other activities and to continue this procedure hereafter. 

Hazardous Fuels.—The Committee recommends $296,792,000 for 

hazardous fuels reduction work, $5,000,000 above the budget request and $16,673,000 above the fiscal year 2006 level. The recommendation includes $5,000,000 for biomass grants as requested 

and an increase of $5,000,000 above the normal base funding for 

the San Bernardino NF, CA, to treat the urgent and dangerous situation caused by drought and a catastrophic bark beetle outbreak. 

The Committee encourages the service to carefully evaluate the 

need for fire breaks near Payson, AZ and proceed accordingly. 

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 commends the Service for its work on the hazardous fuels program but it is still not clear that funding is being 

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

Committee continues to stress that the Service must coordinate all 

hazardous fuels activities with the Department of the Interior, 

State fire agencies, and community wildfire protection plans. The 

Committee expects the Service to provide a report to the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations before distributing funds to 

the regions, which indicates clearly how funding is prioritized and 

allocated. Furthermore, all subsequent budget justifications for this 

program should clearly indicate the rationale for the requested 

budget and provide the recommended funding split and projected 

accomplishments by region or State. The Committee reiterates its 

previous directions for the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture to have a common hazardous fuels allocation process to ensure funding goes to areas which protect communities, lives, property, and ecosystems, and which rewards successful field units that design projects in accordance with community 

wildfire protection plans or their equivalent and includes partnerships with States and others. The Departments need to implement 

in fiscal year 2007 additional program metrics beyond merely acres 

treated; these metrics must account for important tactical goals including protection of communities and populations, as well as mechanical treatments and biomass removed. 

Rehabilitation.—The Committee has restored $5,000,000 for the 

burned area rehabilitation and restoration program, $3,020,000 

above the budget request and $1,189,000 below the fiscal year 2006 

enacted level. As outlined 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 2006 level. The increase above the request is for 

general program delivery. 

Fire Plan Research and Development.—The Committee recommends includes $22,800,000 for research and development, 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
157 

$2,679,000 above the budget request and $11,000 above the fiscal 

year 2006 enacted level. 

Joint Fire Sciences Program.—The Committee recommends 

$8,000,000 for the joint fire science program, an increase of 

$4,040,000 above the request and an increase of $118,000 above 

the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The Committee stresses that it 

is vital that both the Interior Department and the Forest Service 

work on these research efforts jointly, and that the program continue to stress practical solutions and collaboration with the Nation’s forestry schools and other partners. 

Forest Health Management, Federal Lands and Co-op Lands.— The Committee recommends $24,800,000 for the forest health portion of the national fire plan, including $14,800,000 for Federal 

lands and $10,000,000 for cooperative efforts with the States and 

others. This funding level is $13,446,000 above the request and 

$168,000 above the fiscal year 2006 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 a 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, 

which harm forests and subsequently increase wildfire hazards. 

The Committee reiterates that Federal forest health funding is designated for all Federal land managing bureaus so the Forest Service must work closely with the Department of the Interior to ascertain prevention, suppression and restoration needs for both Departments. The Committee is concerned that the Administration does 

not recognize forest health management as a vital component of 

the healthy forests initiative and a critical tool for 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 Fire Assistance.—The Committee recommends $43,000,000 

for State fire assistance, $13,885,000 above the request and 

$2,816,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The program 

is essential to maintain and enhance the partnership between 

State foresters and State fire agencies and the Federal wildfire 

management enterprise. The Committee has focused additional 

funding here because the Committee has agreed to the Administration’s request to eliminate the Department of the Interior State and 

local fire assistance program. The Committee expects that the Forest Service will work closely with Interior bureaus to ensure that 

State and volunteer assistance funding goes for the most meritorious State and local fire department projects. These rural and 

local fire units are extremely important for the Nation’s readiness 

and they should be commended for their hard work and success at 

initial attack and shared participation during emergencies. The 

Committee also expects that fire assistance provided through the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency will carefully consider the 

needs and success of rural fire assistance providers. 

The increase above the request for State fire assistance is for 

general program delivery and $1,000,000 is for South Lake Tahoe 

wildfire protection as a grant to the South Lake Tahoe Public UtilVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 16, 2006 Jkt 027493 PO 00000 Frm 00157 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR465.002 HR465

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
158 

ity District. The Committee expects the Forest Service to support 

and expand the Fire Safe Councils in California. State fire assistance funds should also be used preferentially to support community 

wildfire protection planning and plan implementation. 

Volunteer Fire Assistance.—The Committee has also included 

$12,810,000 for volunteer fire assistance, an increase of $5,000,000 

above the request and $5,037,000 above the enacted level. Use of 

this increase, as noted above, should be coordinated with the Department of the Interior. This brings the volunteer fire funding to 

a total of $18,810,000, including funding in State and private forestry. 

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $438,334,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 382,601,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 411,025,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥27,309,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +28,424,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
159 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 054 HR465.054
160 

The Committee recommends $411,025,000 for capital improve- ment and maintenance, $28,424,000 above the request and 

$27,309,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The Committee directs the Forest Service to display in the budget and track 

Forest Service maintenance funding and capital improvement funding as separate budget line items for facilities, roads, and trails activities. 

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 Forest Service Facility Realignment and Enhancement Act of 2005, and the infrastructure improvement funds. 

Facilities Maintenance.—The Committee recommends 

$64,466,000 for facilities maintenance, $5,000,000 below the request and $14,294,000 above the fiscal year 2006 level. The Committee notes that it has accepted the Forest Service recommendation to fund small projects out of maintenance and not out of construction; hence the transfer of funds between these two accounts. 

In addition, the Committee notes that it has maintained the bill 

language begun last year allowing assessment of programs for 

maintenance of facilities; this limit has been raised to $45,000,000 

service-wide. 

Facilities Capital Improvement.—The Committee recommends 

$50,574,000 for facilities capital improvement, $10,100,000 below 

the request and $22,952,000 below the fiscal year 2006 level. 

Changes to the budget request for projects include the following increases: Allegheny NF recreation sites, PA ($1,900,000); Chattanooga airtanker base completion, TN ($1,050,000); Cherokee NF 

recreation sites, TN ($1,100,000); Keenwild helibase, CA 

($500,000); and National Forests of North Carolina recreation sites 

($2,500,000). The recommendation does not include the $15,144,000 

requested for the Forest Products Lab, WI, or the funding requested for the SE Alaska discovery center, lighting upgrade or the 

Tenderfoot campground, AK, and the R10 building planning and 

design is reduced by $206,000 for a total of $753,000. The Committee needs further justification for the Forest Product Lab project 

and the research mission of the Lab before embarking on an endeavor which would cost well over $40,000,000. 

The Committee requests that the Forest Service report by November 30, 2006 on various options concerning expansion of the El 

Portal rain forest center on the Caribbean NF, PR, so the facility 

or its environs could be expanded to provide lodging to expand 

technology transfer and environmental education. 

Road Maintenance.—The Committee recommends $133,244,000 

for road maintenance, $40,457,000 above the request and 

$11,588,000 below the fiscal year 2006 level. The Committee has 

maintained the road decommissioning authority at $15,000,000. 

The Committee notes that at these funding levels, the number of 

failed roads will continue to increase. 

Road Capital Improvement.—The Committee recommends 

$80,000,000 for road capital improvement, $10,000,000 below the 

request and $4,144,000 above the fiscal year 2006 level. 

Trail Maintenance.—The Committee recommends $40,908,000 for 

trail maintenance, $5,399,000 above the budget request and equal 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
161 

to the fiscal year 2006 level. The Committee recommendation includes $1,350,000 for operation of the national scenic and historic 

trails as in the request, and provides increases above the budget 

request of $400,000 for operations at the Florida National Scenic 

Trail, $1,000,000 for operations at the Continental Divide National 

Scenic Trail, $75,000 for the Appalachian Trail, $75,000 for the 

North Country Trail, $250,000 for operations at the Pacific Crest 

National Scenic Trail, $400,000 for operations at the Nez Perce National Historic Trail and $433,000 for other named national scenic 

and historic trails. 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 Service should make every 

effort to work with volunteer groups, which contribute work, time, 

and money to enhance Federal resources. 

The Committee expects that the specific increased allocations 

provided for operation of the National scenic and historic trails will 

become part of the base budgets for these trails in the forests and 

the regions which host these important resources so that this detailed level of Committee oversight will not be required in future 

years. The Committee understands that operation of these trails includes planning, NEPA compliance, feasibility studies, archaeological surveys, threatened, endangered and sensitive species surveys, maintenance, and improvements. The Service should continue 

to report annually its accomplishments for these trails and display 

the funding needed to support them, including the amount needed 

to construct new sections of these trails, in the budget justification. 

Trail Capital Improvement.—The Committee recommends 

$32,500,000 for trail capital improvement, $7,668,000 above the 

budget request and $797,000 below the fiscal year 2006 level. Within the increase above the request for trails construction, the Committee has included: $1,000,000 for construction at the Florida National Scenic Trail; $1,500,000 for construction at the Continental 

Divide trail; and $1,000,000 for construction at the Pacific Crest 

National Scenic trail. The Committee expects the Forest Service to 

work diligently at updating national forest trail plans in accordance with the November, 2005 travel management rule. 

Infrastructure Improvement.—The Committee recommends 

$9,333,000 for infrastructure improvement as requested, a decrease 

of $3,140,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

Bill Language.—The recommendation includes bill language, 

which transfers $7,400,000 of the $10,000,000 previously appropriated (P.L. 108–287, Section 8098b) to build a wildland fire training center in the San Bernardino, CA area, to the wildland fire 

management appropriation account for the purpose of reducing 

hazardous fuels on the San Bernardino NF, CA. The Committee directs the Forest Service not to reduce the base funding for hazardous fuels reduction on this forest because of this additional 

funding being made available. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
162 

LAND ACQUISITION

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $41,772,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 25,075,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 7,500,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥34,272,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ¥17,575,000 

The Committee recommends $7,500,000 for land acquisition, $34,272,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and 

$17,575,000 below the budget request. The total reflects the use of 

prior year funds ($4,000,000) from the La Madera property in the 

Cibola National Forest. 

The Committee recommends the following distribution of funds: 

Columbia River Gorge NSA, OR/WA ................................................ $1,000,000 

Uwharrie Trail NF, NC ..................................................................... 500,000 

Wisconsin Wild Waterways, WI ........................................................ 1,500,000 

Wayne NF, OH ................................................................................... 500,000 

Subtotal ........................................................................................ 3,500,000 

Acquisition Management ................................................................... 8,000,000 

Use of Prior Year Balance ................................................................. ¥4,000,000 

Total ...................................................................................... $7,500,000 

Bill Language.—Language is included prohibiting the Forest 

Service from acquiring land for the Homewood Conservation 

Project in Lake Tahoe, California. This language applies to any 

funds available to the Forest Service in this Act, the Santini-Burton Act, or any other Act. 

ACQUISITION OF LANDS FOR NATIONAL FORESTS SPECIAL ACTS

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $1,053,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 1,053,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 1,053,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... 0 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $1,053,000 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, 2006 .............................................................. $231,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 231,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 231,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... 0 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $231,000, 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 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
163 

the same State as the National forest lands conveyed in the exchanges. 

RANGE BETTERMENT FUND

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $2,920,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 3,932,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 3,932,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +1,012,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $3,932,000, 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, 2006 .............................................................. $63,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 63,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 63,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... 0 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $63,000, 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, 2006 .............................................................. $4,975,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 5,311,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 5,311,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +336,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $5,311,000, the same as the budget 

request and $336,000 above 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 included 

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 $73,052,000 requested in the 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
164 

budget. The Committee is concerned that the Department of Agriculture over-assesses the Forest Service for the ‘‘greenbook’’ charges. The Department should report to the Committees on Appropriations specifically what each charge is for and how it is calculated; charging solely on an FTE basis is insufficient. 

The Committee has amended previous language concerning interactions with foreign countries to clarify that the Forest Service 

International Program has the authority to sign agreements directly with the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Department of State, and natural resource institutions around the 

world to address natural resource issues. 

The Committee continues the authority for transfers to the National Forest Foundation and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation; the former at the requested level of $2,500,000 and the latter recommendation is $2,250,000, a reduction of $400,000 below 

the requested level. The Committee notes that it is acceptable for 

these foundations to make grants to Federal recipients, including 

Forest Service offices. The Committee allows $100,000 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 that once again the Forest Service may be taking questionable management steps because 

of a need to accomplish quotas for its competitive sourcing program. The Committee notes that its investigations staff previously 

found widespread management lapses which required legislative 

action and notes the recent failure of the fleet maintenance contract in California. Public Law 109–54 Sec. 422(d) requires the Forest Service to report, ‘‘in accordance with full cost accounting principles, all costs attributable to developing, implementing, supporting, managing, monitoring, and reporting on competitive 

sourcing, including personnel, consultant, travel, and training costs 

associated with program management.’’ This is apparently not occurring. 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. The Committee reiterates that all associated activities related to competitive sourcing need to be 

charged against the funding cap. This includes all staff time engaged in feasibility studies as well as all staff time spent on training and answering data calls related to competitive sourcing tasks. 

The Committee requires information concerning costs incurred in 

the past and planned for the future related to competitive sourcing. 

Therefore, by December 31, 2006, the service should report to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, and the House 

Agriculture, Resources, and Government Reform Committees, explaining the accounting procedures which have been implemented 

to track these costs in accordance with full cost accounting principles, and providing fiscal year 2005 costs and accounting procedures, expected costs for fiscal year 2006, and those presumed 

under the requested budget. 

The Committee is also extremely concerned about the continuing 

reports of problems related to the two large efforts to improve adVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 16, 2006 Jkt 027493 PO 00000 Frm 00164 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR465.002 HR465

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
165 

ministrative functions through detailed and expensive business 

process reengineering of financial services and human resources. 

The Albuquerque Service Center (ASC) appears to be a tremendous 

source of frustration for venders and personnel who rely on it for 

basic financial transactions. The true costs of the ASC do not appear to be reflected in reports provided to the Administration or 

the Committee. The Forest Service must improve in this area. Before committing additional funds to the ASC, the Forest Service 

should demonstrate to the Appropriations Committees and to the 

public that the tasks and plan for its operation are well thought 

out and clear and include specific benchmarks and metrics. 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 understands that the Forest Service is considering a long term lease for a large building with hundreds of office 

work stations in Albuquerque, NM, to house approximately half of 

its headquarters personnel. The Committee understands that in 

2008 the Service will lose its office lease in Rosslyn, VA, which currently houses almost half of the Washington office staff. The Committee encourages the Forest Service to review seriously the costs 

of such a move and to consult with the House Committees on Appropriations, Agriculture, and Resources and the Senate Committees on Appropriations and Energy and Natural Resources before 

committing to a long term lease. The Service should evaluate carefully management, policy, and leadership needs at both the national and regional levels. Given the Forest Service budget situation, the efficiencies available with modern computing and telecommunications devices, and the huge cost of maintaining so many 

regional offices, the Committee suggests that greater administrative savings could be achieved from a streamlined regional role and 

structure. Furthermore, the Committee notes the large cost overruns which occurred last year and this year when the Forest Service paid change of station costs for many more personnel than the 

Service had predicted would move to Albuquerque. It seems likely 

that similar cost overruns would occur in 2008 if the Forest Service 

has to pay for new office space at headquarters, or pay extensive 

relocation or termination costs, and also support a large, new facility in New Mexico. Such important management decisions, with 

such large cost implications, should have the benefit of open, public 

discussion and Congressional coordination. 

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. GovernVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:56 May 16, 2006 Jkt 027493 PO 00000 Frm 00165 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR465.002 HR465

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
166 

ment 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 33 hospitals, 52 health centers, 2 school health centers, and 38 health stations. Tribes and tribal groups, through contracts and compacts with the IHS, operate 15 hospitals, 220 health 

centers, 9 school health centers, and 260 health stations (including 

162 Alaska Native village clinics). The IHS, tribes, and tribal 

groups also operate 11 regional youth substance abuse treatment 

centers and 2,241 units of staff quarters. 

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $2,692,009,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 2,822,500,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 2,830,136,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +138,037,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +7,636,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
167 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 055 HR465.055
168 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 056 HR465.056
169 

The Committee recommends $2,830,136,000 for Indian Health 

Services, an increase of $7,636,000 above the budget request and 

$138,037,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. Changes to 

the budget request are detailed below. 

Clinical Services.—The Committee recommends an increase of 

$9,275,000 in hospital and health clinic programs for the Indian 

Health Care Improvement Fund. Direction on the distribution of 

these funds is provided below. 

Urban Indian Health Clinics.—The Committee recommends an 

increase of $32,744,000 to restore funding for the 32 urban Indian 

clinics. 

Fixed Cost Decreases.—The Committee recommends a decrease of 

$34,383,000, which will enable the Service to fund 60 percent of its 

fixed cost increases for medical inflation and population growth. 

The Committee agrees to the following: 

1. Funds for the Indian Health Care Improvement Fund should 

be distributed using the same methodology as in 2003. Of the available funds, 70 percent is for the 28 units funded below 40 percent 

of need in 2005 and 30 percent is for the remaining 133 units funded below 60 percent of need in 2005. 

2. The budget continues funding in the dental program for Clinical and Preventive Support Centers. This is a critical national effort and the Committee expects the Service to continue to manage 

and fund these programs through IHS headquarters. These funds 

should not be subject to tribal share distributions. 

3. The Committee continues to be concerned about the high vacancy rates of health care providers at IHS and tribal facilities and 

expects the Service to investigate the feasibility of establishing a 

central credentialing system, which would enhance the use of volunteers in fields such as dentistry. The Service should report to the 

Committee by February 28, 2006, addressing the feasibility of 

using the Defense Department’s credentialing system or developing 

a separate IHS system. The report should specifically address 

streamlining the process for credentialing volunteers, including 

credentialing volunteers to work at multiple sites and over multiple 

years without having to be re-credentialed. 

4. The pharmacist intern program is continued at the fiscal year 

2006 level. The Committee is pleased with the success of this program, which was established with funds recommended by the Committee 7 years ago, and notes that the Service has retained 90 percent of interns beyond their initial residency year. 

5. The Service should use a weighted formula for distributing 

loan repayment funding to address its most critical vacancies. As 

of March 13, 2006, the key categories, including the number of vacant positions and the vacancy rate by category, were: 

1) Dentistry—116 vacancies—28%; 

2) Podiatry—10 vacancies—25%; 

3) Medical imaging—58 vacancies—20%; 

4) Nursing—738 vacancies—18%; 

5) Therapy—19 positions—17%; 

6) Medical technology—43 vacancies—12%; 

7) Physician—100 vacancies—11%; 

8) Pharmacy—59 vacancies—11%; and 

9) Optometry—17 positions—11%. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
170 

6. The Service should continue and expand its efforts to collect 

reimbursements from private insurance providers, including the 

use of contract bill collectors who provide services in exchange for 

a reasonable percentage of monies collected. 

7. The Service should complete its revision of its contract support 

cost policy as soon as possible. The Committee will consider providing funding for new and expanded contracts in future fiscal 

years based upon the revised policy. 

8. Funding for the urban health program has been restored and 

the proposal to eliminate this program is rejected. Funding for IHS 

urban clinics is levered with nearly $2 for every $1 contributed by 

the Service. The Program Assessment Rating Tool score for the 

program was one point shy of ‘‘moderately effective’’, which is a 

score that many of the government programs in this bill can only 

hope to achieve in the future. The Committee encourages the Service to work with HHS to help these clinics get additional funding 

through the Community Health Centers program and to work with 

the individual clinics on continued improvements in health services 

delivery. 

INDIAN HEALTH FACILITIES

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $353,211,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 347,287,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 363,573,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +10,362,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +16,286,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
171 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 057 HR465.057
172 

The Committee recommends $363,573,000 for Indian health facilities, an increase of $16,286,000 above the budget request and 

$10,362,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. Changes to 

the budget request are detailed below. 

Health Care Facilities Construction.—The Committee recommends an increase of $19,000,000 for health care facilities construction, which will continue the construction of the Kayenta and 

San Carlos, AZ clinics and restore partially funding for the Services 

dental facilities program, small ambulatory facilities program, and 

joint ventures program. Funding is detailed in the table below. 

Fixed Cost Decreases.—The Committee recommends a decrease of 

$2,714,000, which will enable the Service to fund 60 percent of its 

fixed cost increases for medical inflation and population growth. 

The Committee agrees to the following distribution of health care 

facilities construction funds: 

Project 2007 Request Committee 

Recommendation 

Ambulatory Care Centers: 

Kayenta, AZ Health Center ................................................................................. 0 $6,000,000 

Phoenix, AZ SW Health Center ........................................................................... $17,664,000 17,664,000 

San Carlos, AZ Health Center ............................................................................ 0 4,000,000 

Other Facilities: 

Dental Facilities Program ................................................................................... 0 2,000,000 

Joint Ventures ..................................................................................................... 0 2,000,000 

Small Ambulatory Facilities ................................................................................ 0 5,000,000 

Total ........................................................................................................... $17,664,000 $36,664,000 

The Committee agrees to the following: 

1. The Service needs to do a better job of requesting and justifying construction funding for its hospital and clinic facility needs. 

At the level of funding requested in 2007, it would take 48 years 

to complete the facilities on the current priority list. There are 

many facilities that should to be added to the list now and, in 48 

years, all of the IHS facilities will need to be replaced or require 

major renovation. Even when the facilities construction program 

was much more generously funded, it took between 11 and 15 years 

from the time a proposal was received from a tribe until construction was completed. At the funding level requested for 2007, some 

facilities on the current priority list would wait more than 60 years 

from proposal submission until completion of construction and tribal facilities not on the list would wait considerably longer than 

that. Sixty years is beyond the reasonable life expectation for a 

hospital or clinic. Currently, about one third of the IHS-operated 

hospitals and health centers are more than 40 years old. 

2. The current IHS maintenance budget is less than half of what 

is required, if you apply commercial sector health care standards. 

Without progress on new and renovated facilities, the maintenance 

backlog will grow at a rapid pace from the current backlog level of 

nearly half a billion dollars. 

3. In determining priorities for project funding under the joint 

ventures program for hospitals and clinics, the Service should provide additional credit to tribes that are willing to provide full funding for facility equipment in addition to providing full funding for 

facility construction. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
173 

4. Funding for small ambulatory facilities should be used to select additional projects from the most recent solicitation. 5. 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. 

6. 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. 

7. 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 (HUD). HUD should 

provide any needed funds to the IHS for that purpose. 8. 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 and in section 126(g) of 

the Superfund amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 to 

conduct certain research and worker training activities associated 

with the nation’s Hazardous Substance Superfund program. 

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $79,108,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 78,414,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 79,414,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +306,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +1,000,000 

The Committee recommends $79,414,000 for the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, an increase of $1,000,000 

above the budget request and $306,000 above fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The increase above the budget request is for individual 

project grants. 

Bill Language.—The Committee recommends bill language providing two-year funding availability for individual project grants. 

The Committee encourages the Institute to expand its individual 

project grants over the next 3 years so that a more robust program 

is developed. In 2006, $2,000,000 is being used for these grants. 

The Committee has provided a total of $3,000,000 for 2007 and encourages the Institute to provide $4,000,000 in 2008 and 

$5,000,000 in 2009 and subsequent years. 

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 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
174 

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, 2006 .............................................................. $74,905,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 75,004,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 76,754,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +1,849,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +1,750,000 

The Committee recommends $76,754,000 for toxic substances 

and environmental public health programs, an increase of 

$1,750,000 above the budget request and $1,849,000 above the fiscal year 2006 level. The increase above the budget request provides 

funding for 50 percent of the agency’s fixed cost increases. 

Bill Language.—The Committee recommends bill language capping the administrative costs paid to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) at 7.5 percent of the total appropriation for the Agency 

of Toxic Substance and Disease Registry. This language was carried in the past (2003 and earlier). Administrative charges paid to 

CDC have nearly doubled since the cap was removed in 2004. Over 

the same period, the agency’s total budget has declined by 8 percent before considering any adjustments for inflation. 

The Committee encourages the ATSDR to continue to support 

the minority health professions community under its cooperative 

agreement activities in fiscal year 2007. 

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 is to lead interagency decision-making of all environmental 

matters. 

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $2,677,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 2,627,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 2,627,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥50,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ 0 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
175 

The Committee recommends $2,627,000, the budget request, for 

the Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental 

Quality, a decrease of $50,000 below the fiscal year 2006 level. 

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, 2006 .............................................................. $9,064,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 9,108,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 9,208,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +144,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +100,000 

The Committee recommends $9,208,000 for salaries and expenses 

of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, an increase of $100,000 above the budget request and $144,000 above 

the fiscal year 2006 level. The $100,000 increase above the budget 

request is for an annual financial audit. 

Bill Language.—The Committee recommends bill language discontinuing the use of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Inspector General (IG) as the IG for the Chemical Safety and Hazard 

Investigation Board. Language is also recommended limiting funding for the Board of Directors to $600,000. 

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. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
176 

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $8,474,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 5,940,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 5,940,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥2,534,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $5,940,000 for salaries and expenses 

of the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation, the same as the 

budget request and $2,534,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted 

level. 

INSTITUTE OF AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE CULTURE AND

ARTS DEVELOPMENT

PAYMENT TO THE INSTITUTE

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $6,207,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 6,703,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 6,703,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +496,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $6,703,000 for the Institute of 

American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development, the same as the budget request and $496,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

The Committee commends the Institute of American Indian and 

Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development (IAIA) for its commitment to the preservation and teaching of American Indian and 

Alaska Native arts and culture. However, IAIA has submitted a request for matching construction dollars during the budget process 

for the last several years based on its original charter. The Institute is not authorized to receive construction funding to expand its 

facilities and therefore the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has denied these requests and the Committee fully supports 

OMB’s decision. 

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

The Smithsonian Institution is the world’s largest museum and 

research complex, with 18 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 2005, the Smithsonian attracted more than 

24,000,000 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. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
177 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $516,568,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 537,394,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 517,094,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +526,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ¥20,300,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
178 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 058 HR465.058
179 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 059 HR465.059
180 

The Committee recommends $517,094,000 for salaries and expenses, an increase of $526,000 above the enacted level and 

$20,300,000 below the budget request. Changes to the request include an additional $700,000 for the National Zoological Park to 

provide staffing for the opening of the new Asia I exhibit and for 

enhanced pest control throughout the Zoo, an additional $500,000 

for Fellowships and an additional $500,000 for scientific research 

equipment. The Committee believes that these are higher priorities 

than providing the requested increase of $2,000,000 for transit benefits for employees. There is also an undistributed reduction of 

$5,000,000. 

Bill Language.—The Committee takes seriously the age and deteriorating condition of the facilities at the National Zoological 

Park. Bill language is included under salaries and expenses setting 

aside $10,000,000 of the facilities maintenance funds for critical 

backlog maintenance at the National Zoological Park for fiscal year 

2007. The Committee strongly urges the Smithsonian to maintain 

this level in future budgets. 

In addition, the Committee is uncomfortable with the fact that 

decisions on how to allocate facility maintenance funds are not detailed in the annual budget justification. While the Committee understands the need for flexibility, the Smithsonian should, in future 

requests, include a list of how funds will be distributed with justifications. Should funds need to be moved during the year, the 

Smithsonian should notify the Committee in writing of any changes 

on a quarterly basis. Reprogramming guidelines should be closely 

followed. 

FACILITIES CAPITAL

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $98,529,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 107,000,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 107,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +8,471,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $107,000,000 for facilities capital, 

the same as the budget request and an increase of $8,471,000 

above the enacted level. 

Bill Language.—The Committee has provided $20,000,000 for the 

National Zoological Park, an increase of $4,000,000 above the request. These additional funds should come from the other revitalization projects activity. This increase is provided in addition to the 

$1,000,000 in the budget for addressing critical infrastructure 

needs, specifically to provide fire detection and suppression systems 

throughout the Zoo. The budget justification and testimony before 

the Committee indicates that ‘‘the current utility and fire-protection infrastructure is totally inadequate to meet the needs of the 

Zoo and to protect and support its animals’’. The Committee strongly urges the Smithsonian to continue to provide significant funding 

in future budgets for revitalization of the aging infrastructure at 

the National Zoological Park. The Committee considers development of Asia II as a major part of that effort. 

The Committee has provided the full amount for Facilities Planning and Design, however, it has not agreed to the list of projects. 

In light of the additional funds provided to the Zoological Park, a 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
181 

new list should be forwarded to the Committee adjusting for additional long term project planning for the Zoo. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

The bill includes new language limiting the Smithsonian’s ability 

to execute any contract or legal agreement which could limit access 

by the public to the Smithsonian collections. Language is also included limiting compensation of Smithsonian employees to the rate 

of pay of the President of the United States. 

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 millions 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, DC 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, 2006 .............................................................. $95,179,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 101,794,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 101,794,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +6,615,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ 0 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
182 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 060 HR465.060
183 

The Committee recommends $101,794,000, the budget request, 

for salaries and expenses of the National Gallery of Art, an increase of $6,615,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

REPAIR, RESTORATION AND RENOVATION OF BUILDINGS

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $15,962,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 14,949,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 14,949,000 

Comparison:.

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥1,013,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $14,949,000, the budget request, for 

repair, restoration and renovation of buildings at the National Gallery of Art, a decrease of $1,013,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted 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, 2006 .............................................................. $17,538,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 18,909,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 18,909,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +1,371,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $18,909,000 for operations and 

maintenance, the same as the budget request and $1,371,000 above 

the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

CONSTRUCTION

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $12,809,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 19,800,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 19,800,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +6,991,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $19,800,000 for construction, the 

same as the budget request and $6,991,000 above the fiscal year 

2006 enacted level. 

The Committee notes that the Kennedy Center has responded to 

the directives and recommendations in the Government Accountability Office report in a very positive manner. Given the very tight 

fiscal budget situation, it is imperative that the Kennedy Center 

manage federal funds in a cost effective manner and avoid the cost 

overruns experienced in the past. The Committee continues to urge 

the Center to use the Smithsonian Inspector General for oversight. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
184 

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, 2006 .............................................................. $9,065,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 9,438,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 9,438,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +373,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $9,438,000 for salaries and expenses 

of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars as requested, an increase of $373,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted 

level. The Committee notes the useful and successful oversight 

hearing held earlier this year, and commends the Center for its important contributions to American society. 

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS

GRANTS AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $124,406,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 124,412,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 124,412,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +6,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ 0 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
185 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 061 HR465.061
186 

The Committee recommends $124,412,000 for the National Endowment for the Arts, the same as the budget request and $6,000 

above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES

GRANTS AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $125,728,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 126,049,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 126,049,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +321,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ 0 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
187 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 062 HR465.062
188 

The Committee recommends $126,049,000 for grants and admin- istration, the same as the budget request and $321,000 above the 

fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

MATCHING GRANTS

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $15,221,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 14,906,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 14,906,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥315,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $14,906,000 for matching grants, the same as the budget request and $315,000 below the fiscal year 

2006 level. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

The Committee has retained the administrative provision proposed by the Administration’s 2007 fiscal year budget request for 

the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities including 

the proviso that exempts grants and contracts solely funded by 

non-appropriated funds from matching funding requirements. 

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, 2006 .............................................................. $1,865,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 1,951,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 1,951,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +86,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $1,951,000 for salaries and expenses 

of the Commission of Fine Arts, as requested, an increase of 

$86,000 over the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and the same as the 

budget request. 

NATIONAL CAPITAL ARTS AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $7,143,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 6,534,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 6,534,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥609,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ 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 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
189 

$6,534,000, a decrease of $609,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 established the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The Advisory Council 

was reauthorized 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, 2006 .............................................................. $4,789,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 5,118,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 5,118,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +329,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $5,118,000 for salaries and expenses 

of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, an increase of 

$329,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and the same as 

the budget request. 

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, 2006 .............................................................. $8,123,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 8,265,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 7,623,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥500,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ¥642,000 

The Committee recommends $7,623,000, for salaries and expenses of the National Capital Planning Commission, a decrease of 

$500,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and $642,000 

below the budget request. 

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 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
190 

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 

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, 2006 .............................................................. $42,150,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 43,786,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 43,415,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +1,265,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ¥371,000 

The Committee recommends $43,415,000 for the Holocaust Memorial Museum, a decrease of $371,000 below the budget request 

and $1,265,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. This increase is 3.0% above the enacted funding level. 

PRESIDIO TRUST

PRESIDIO TRUST FUND

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $19,706,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 19,256,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 19,256,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥450,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $19,256,000 for the Presidio Trust 

Fund, the same as the budget request and $450,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

WHITE HOUSE COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL MOMENT OF

REMEMBRANCE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation enacted, 2006 .............................................................. $247,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 200,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 200,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥47,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ 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 $200,000, a decrease of $47,000 

below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

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. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
191 

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 prohibits the transfer of funds unless provided in 

this or other Acts. 

Section 407 continues a provision limiting the sale of giant sequoia. 

Section 408 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 409 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 410 continues a limitation on completing and issuing the 

five-year program under the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act. 

Section 411 continues a provision permitting the Forest Service 

to use the roads and trails fund for backlog maintenance and priority forest health treatments. 

Section 412 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 413 continues a provision clarifying the Forest Service 

land management planning revision requirements. 

Section 414 continues a provision limiting preleasing, leasing, 

and related activities within the boundaries of National monuments. 

Section 415 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 416 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. 

Section 417 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 418 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 419 prohibits the expenditure of funds on Safecom and 

Disaster Management. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
192 

Section 420 amends the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000, to extend an authority concerning Forest Service administration of rights-of-way and land uses. 

Section 421 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 422 prohibits the use of funds in this Act for competitive 

sourcing studies by the Department of the Interior and the Forest 

Service for activities relating to wildfire management or wildfire 

suppression programs. 

Section 423 requires that before funding in this Act can be used 

to support the work on the Fire Program Analysis (FPA) system, 

the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior must 

certify, in writing, that the FPA system will accomplish the existing work plan for the system, as determined by the Wildland Fire 

Leadership Council, and that State wildfire agencies will be full 

participants in the use of the system. 

Section 424 limits compensation of Smithsonian employees to the 

rate of pay of the President of the United States. 

Section 425 expresses the sense of the Congress with respect to 

greenhouse gas emissions control. 

TITLE V—SUSPENSION OF ROYALTY RELIEF 

Title V provides direction to the Secretary of the Interior on suspension of royalty relief for oil and gas production on Federal 

lands. 

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: 

Department of the Interior: Land and Water Conservation Fund 

(contract authority) ......................................................................... $30,000,000 

Environmental Protection Agency: State and Tribal Assistance 

Grants .............................................................................................. indefinite 

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. 

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, Forest Service, 

Wildland Fire Management.

$9,000,000 

Department of the Interior, Indian Land 

and Water Claim Settlements and Miscellaneous Payments to Indians.

200,000 Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Management of Lands 

and Resources.

200,000 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
193 

Account from which transfer is to be made Amount Account to which transfer is to be made Amount 

Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Substance Superfund.13,316,000 Office of Inspector General ......................... 13,316,000 

Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Substance Superfund.30,011,000 Science and Technology ............................... 30,011,000 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Wildland Fire Management.

9,000,000 Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Wildland Fire Management.

9,000,000 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Capital Improvement and Maintenance.

7,400,000 Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Wildland Fire Management.

7,400,000 

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

1. 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. 

2. 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. 

3. Limiting official entertainment or reception and representation 

expenses for selected agencies in the bill. 

4. 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

5. Providing funds to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

under certain conditions. 

6. Permitting the use of fees from communication site rentals. 

7. Permitting the collection of fees for processing mining applications and for certain public land uses. 

8. Permitting the use of mining fee collections for program operations. 

9. Providing for a Youth Conservation Corps. 

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

10. Permitting the repayments of funds transferred from other 

accounts for firefighting. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
194 

11. Permitting the use of funds for lodging and subsistence of 

firefighters. 

12. Permitting the use of grants, contracts and cooperative agreements for hazardous fuels reduction, including cost-sharing and 

local assistance. 

13. Permitting reimbursement to the Fish and Wildlife Service 

and the National Marine Fisheries Service for consultation activities under the Endangered Species Act. 

14. Permitting the use of firefighting funds for the leasing of 

properties or the construction of facilities. 

15. Providing for the transfer of funds between the Department 

of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture. 

16. Providing funds for support of Federal emergency response 

actions. 

OREGON AND CALIFORNIA GRANT LANDS

17. Authorizing the transfer of collections from the Oregon and 

California Land Grants Fund to the Treasury. 

FOREST ECOSYSTEMS HEALTH AND RECOVERY FUND

18. Permitting the use of salvage timber receipts in the forest 

ecosystems health and recovery fund. 

SERVICE CHARGES, DEPOSITS, AND FORFEITURES

19. Allowing the use of service charges, deposits and forfeitures 

funds on any damaged public lands. 

20. Authorizing the Secretary to use monies from forfeitures, 

compromises or settlements for improvement, protection and rehabilitation of public lands under certain conditions. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

21. Permitting the payment of rewards for information on violations of law on Bureau lands 

22. Providing for cost-sharing arrangements for printing services. 

23. Amending 30 U.S.C. 28 making a minor technical change to 

mining law to clarify the time of day annual work on claims must 

be registered and extending the existing mine claim maintenance 

fee authority. 

24. Permitting the use of refunds and rebates from an information technology vendor. 

UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

25. Allowing for the maintenance of the herd of long-horned cattle on the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge. Without this language, the long-horned cattle would have to be removed from the 

refuge. 

26. Providing for a Youth Conservation Corps. 

27. Limiting funding for certain Endangered Species Act listing 

programs. 

28. Permitting payment for information or rewards in the law enforcement program. 

29. Earmarking funds for contaminant analysis. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
195 

LAND ACQUISITION

30. Limiting the use of funds for administrative overhead, planning, and other management costs. 

LANDOWNER INCENTIVE PROGRAM

31. Providing matching landowner incentive grants to States and 

territories. 

PRIVATE STEWARDSHIP GRANTS PROGRAM

32. Providing private stewardship grants for private conservation 

efforts. 

STATE TRIBAL WILDLIFE GRANTS

33. 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. 

34. Providing that no State, Territory, or other jurisdiction shall 

receive a grant if its conservation plan is disapproved. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

35. Limiting the purchase of motor vehicles. 

36. Providing for repair of damage to public roads. 

37. Providing options for the purchase of land not to exceed $1. 

38. Permitting cost-shared arrangements for printing services. 

39. Permitting the use of funds for employment related legal 

services. 

40. Permitting the acceptance of donated aircraft. 

41. Limiting the use of funds for establishing new refuges. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM

42. Allowing road maintenance service to trucking permitees on 

a reimbursable basis. This provision has been included in annual 

appropriations Acts since 1954. 

43. Providing for a Youth Conservation Corps program. 

44. Restricting the use of funds for the United States Park Police. 

45. Providing that funds may be spent without regard to the ‘‘no 

net loss’’ law enforcement policy. 

NATIONAL RECREATION AND PRESERVATION

46. Limiting the use of cooperative agreements and any form of 

cash grant for the rivers, trail, and conservation assistance program. 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND

47. Providing grants for Save America’s Treasures and Preserve 

America to be matched by non-Federal funds, that individual 

projects are only eligible for one grant and are subject to consultation, and that funds for Federal projects are available by transfer 

to individual agencies. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
196 

CONSTRUCTION

48. Limiting funds for Park Service Partnership projects with 

certain exceptions. 

49. Limiting donation or services associated with new facilities. 

50. Providing funds for modified water deliveries to Everglades 

National Park with certain restrictions. 

51. Permitting the issuance of procurements for the full scope of 

projects for the National Mall and other historical sites. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

52. Rescinding $30,000,000 in land and water conservation fund 

contract authority. 

LAND ACQUISITION AND STATE ASSISTANCE

53. Prohibiting the use of funds to establish a contingency fund. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

54. Preventing the implementation of an agreement for the redevelopment of the southern end of Ellis Island. 

55. Providing for a grant to the Washington Tennis and Education Foundation. 

56. Limiting the use of funds for the United Nation’s Biodiversity 

Convention. 

57. Permitting the use of funds for workplace safety needs. 

58. Allowing the Secretary of the Interior to appeal value determinations. 

59. 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

60. Providing for two-year availability of funds for biological research and for the operations of cooperative research units. 

61. Prohibiting the conduct of new surveys on private property 

without permission. 

62. Requiring cost sharing for cooperative topographic mapping 

and water resource data collection activities. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

63. Permitting the use of certain contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements. 

64. Recognizing students and recent graduates as Federal employees for the purposes of travel and work injury compensation. 

65. Requiring the continued operation of the Mid-Continent Mapping Center in Rolla, MO. 

MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE

ROYALTY AND OFFSHORE MINERALS MANAGEMENT

66. Permitting the use of excess receipts from Outer Continental 

Shelf leasing activities. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
197 

67. Providing no year funding availability for computer acquisitions. 

68. Providing for reasonable expenses related to volunteer beach 

and marine cleanup activities. 

69. Providing for refunds for overpayments on Indian allottee 

leases. 

70. Permitting the use of receipts for administration of the Coastal Impact Assistance Program. 

OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

REGULATION AND TECHNOLOGY

71. Permitting the use of monies collected pursuant to assessment of civil penalties to reclaim lands affected by coal mining 

after August 3, 1977. 

72. Permitting payment to State and tribal personnel for travel 

and per diem expenses for training. 

ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION FUND

73. Earmarking Abandoned Mine Reclamation funds for acid 

mine drainage. 

74. Limiting grants to minimum program States. 

75. Allowing the use of debt recovery to pay for debt collection. 

76. Reallocating 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), to the federal share portion of the fund (section 402(g)(3)). 

77. Allowing funds to be used for travel expenses while attending 

training. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION

78. Permits the Secretary to transfer title for computer equipment to States and Tribes. 

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

OPERATION OF INDIAN PROGRAMS

79. Limiting funds for welfare assistance payments, except for 

disaster relief. 

80. Limiting funds for contract support costs and for administrative cost grants for schools. 

81. Permitting the use of tribal priority allocations for general assistance payments to individuals, for contract support costs, and 

school operations costs. 

82. Providing for an Indian self-determination fund. 

83. Allowing the transfer of certain forestry funds. 

CONSTRUCTION

84. Providing for the transfer of Navajo irrigation project funds 

to the Bureau of Reclamation. 

85. Providing that six percent of Federal Highway Trust Fund 

contract authority may be used for construction management costs. 

86. Providing Safety of Dams funds on a nonreimbursable basis. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
198 

87. Requiring the use of administrative and cost accounting principles for certain school construction projects and exempting such 

projects from certain requirements. 

88. Requiring conformance with building codes and health and 

safety standards and allowing the Secretary to assume control of 

a construction project under certain conditions. 

89. Specifying the procedure for dispute resolution. 

90. Allowing reimbursement of construction costs from the Office 

of Special Trustee. 

MISCELLANEOUS PAYMENTS TO INDIANS

91. Permitting payment for the Quinault Indian Nation boundary 

settlement. 

92. Providing funding for the Snake River Water Rights Act of 

2004, including funding for habitat restoration by the State of 

Idaho and transfer of funds to the Bureau of Land Management for 

mitigation of land transfers. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

93. Allowing contracting for the San Carlos Irrigation Project. 

94. Limiting use of funds for passenger motor vehicles. 

95. Limiting the use of funds for contracts, grants and cooperative agreements. 

96. Allowing tribes to return appropriated funds for distribution 

to other tribes. 

97. Prohibiting funding of Alaska schools. 

98. Limiting the number of schools and the expansion of grade 

levels in individual schools. 

99. Permitting the use of Indian Student Equalization Program 

funds to offset costs associated with significant enrollment increases. 

100. Specifying distribution of indirect and administrative costs 

for certain Tribes. 

DEPARTMENTAL OFFICES

INSULAR AFFAIRS, ASSISTANCE TO TERRITORIES

101. Earmarking funds for various programs and for salaries and 

expenses for the Office of Insular Affairs and providing two year 

funding availability for the latter. 

102. Requiring audits of the financial transactions of the Territorial governments by the GAO. 

103. Providing grant funding under certain terms of the Agreement of the Special Representatives on Future United States Financial Assistance for the Northern Mariana Islands. 

104. Allowing grants for the Pacific Basin Development Council. 

105. Providing a grant to the Close Up foundation. 

106. Providing for capital infrastructure in various Territories. 

107. Allowing appropriations for disaster assistance to be used as 

non-Federal matching funds for hazard mitigation grants. 

DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT, SALARIES AND EXPENSES

108. Deriving funds for appraisal services and Take Pride in 

America activities from Land and Water Conservation Fund. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
199 

109. Permitting payments to former Bureau of Mines workers. 

110. Limiting the establishment of additional reserves in the 

working capital fund. 

PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES

111. Excluding any payment pursuant to the Payments in Lieu 

of Taxes that is less than $100. 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL TRUSTEE FOR AMERICAN INDIANS

FEDERAL TRUST PROGRAMS

112. Limiting the amount of funding available for the historical 

accounting of Indian trust fund accounts. 

113. Allowing transfers to other Department of the Interior accounts. 

114. Specifying that the statute of limitations shall not commence on any claim resulting from trust funds losses. 

115. Exempting quarterly statements for Indian trust accounts 

$15 or less. 

116. Requiring annual statements and records maintenance for 

Indian trust accounts. 

117. Limiting use of funds to correct administrative errors in Indian trust accounts. 

118. Permitting the use of recoveries from erroneous payments 

pursuant to Indian trust accounts. 

INDIAN LAND CONSOLIDATION

119. Permitting transfers of funds to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Departmental Management accounts from Indian land 

consolidation for administrative expenses. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

120. Allowing the sale of existing aircraft with proceeds used to 

offset the purchase price of replacement aircraft. 

121. Prohibiting the use of working capital or consolidated working funds to augment certain offices. 

122. Requiring description of working capital fund charges in annual budget justifications. 

123. Requiring Committee approval of departures from Working 

Capital Fund estimates. 

124. Requiring reports on National Business Center activities. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

125. Allowing transfer of funds in certain emergency situations 

and requiring replacement with a supplemental appropriation request. 

126. Permitting the Department to use limited funding for certain services. 

127. Restricting various oil 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 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
200 

Central California planning areas, and Washington/Oregon planning area. 

128. Permitting the transfer of funds between the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians. 

129. Permitting the redistribution of certain Indian funds with 

limitations. 

130. Permitting the conveyance of the Twin Cities Research Center. 

131. Allowing the use of helicopters and motor vehicles on Sheldon and Hart National Wildlife Refuges. 

132. Authorizing funding transfers for Shenandoah Valley Battlefield NHD and Ice Age NST. 

133. Prohibiting the closure of the underground lunchroom at 

Carlsbad Caverns NP. 

134. Prohibiting demolition of the bridge between New Jersey 

and Ellis Island. 

135. Limiting compensation for the Special Master and Court 

Monitor for the Cobell v. Norton litigation. 

136. Allowing payment of attorney fees for Federal employees related to the Cobell v. Norton litigation. 

137. Requiring the Fish and Wildlife Service to mark hatchery 

salmon. 

138. Addressing the use of certain Indian lands for gaming purposes. 

139. Preventing funds to study or reduce the water level at Lake 

Powell. 

140. Limiting the amount of fees that may be collected by the 

National Indian Gaming Commission. 

141. Providing for a tribal trust demonstration program. 

142. Providing for the renewal of certain grazing permits in the 

Jarbidge Field office of the Bureau of Land Management. 

143. Authorizing the acquisition of lands and leases for Ellis Island. 

144. Permitting the Secretary of the Interior to issue grazing permits within the Mojave National Preserve. 

145. Implementing rules concerning winter snowmobile use at 

Yellowstone National Park. 

146. Limiting the use of funds for Centers of Excellence and 

Partnership Skills Bank Training. 

TITLE II—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

147. Limiting certain per diem rates and certain other operating 

expenses. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS AND MANAGEMENT

148. Limiting certain per diem rates, other operating expenses, 

official representation and reception expenses and providing two 

year funding availability for administrative costs of Brownfields 

program. 

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND

149. Limiting construction and repair expenses. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
201 

150. Providing for the allocation of funds to other Federal agencies under certain circumstances. 

151. Providing for the transfer of funds within certain agency accounts. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

152. Limiting construction and repair expenses. 

153. Providing that, in fiscal year 2007 and thereafter, the Inspector General shall not serve as Inspector General for the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. 

LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PROGRAM

154. Limiting construction and repair expenses. 

STATE AND TRIBAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS

155. Permitting the use of limited State Revolving Funds for decentralized projects. 

156. Earmarking funds for the Clean Water and Drinking Water 

State Revolving Funds for grants to United States-Mexico border 

programs, Alaska for water and wastewater infrastructure needs. 

157. Earmarking funds for water and wastewater infrastructure 

improvements with a minimum of 45% cost-share per project. 

158. Earmarking funds for Brownfields grants, diesel grants, and 

categorical grants to States. 

159. Earmarking grants for water quality monitoring, leaking 

underground storage tans and competitive targeted watershed 

grants. 

160. Providing waivers for certain uses of State water pollution 

control State revolving funds for grants to Federally-recognized Indian Tribes, and for the cap on grants at the discretion of the Administrator. 

161. Prohibiting the use of funds for jurisdictions that permit development or construction of addition colonial areas. 

162. Making a technical correction to the 2005 appropriations for 

special project funding. 

163. Providing for the transfer of special project funds, 

unawarded after 7 years, to the appropriate State Revolving Funds. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

164. Allowing awards of grants to federally-recognized Indian 

tribes. 

165. Authorizing the collection of pesticide registration service 

fees. 

166. Limiting the use of funds for consultants. 

167. Requiring EPA to finalize a rule incorporating financial incentives for States that implement adequate National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System fee programs. 

GENERAL PROVISION, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

168. Prohibiting the use of funds in contravention of executive 

order 12898 and 15 U.S.C. 2862(c)(3). 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
202 

TITLE III—RELATED AGENCIES 

FOREST SERVICE

FOREST AND RANGELAND RESEARCH

169. Earmarking funds for the forest inventory and analysis program. 

STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY

170. Deriving forest legacy funding from the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund. 

171. Requiring notification to the House and Senate Appropriations Committee before releasing forest legacy project funds. 

NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM

172. Allowing 50 percent of the fees collected under the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund Act to remain available until expended. 

173. Requiring the budget justification to display unobligated 

balances available at the start of fiscal year. 

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

174. Allowing the use of wildland fire funds to repay advances 

from other accounts. 

175. Allowing reimbursement of States for certain wildfire emergency activities. 

176. Requiring 50 percent of any unobligated balances remaining 

at the end of the fiscal year, except hazardous fuels funding, to be 

transferred to the Knutson-Vandenberg Fund as repayment for 

past advances. 

177. Permitting the use of funds for the joint fire science program. 

178. Permitting the use of forest and rangeland research funds 

for fire science research. 

179. Permitting the use of funds for emergency rehabilitation 

and restoration and hazardous fuels reduction to support emergency response and wildfire suppression. 

180. Earmarking funds for hazardous fuels reduction, rehabilitation, restoration, and research and permitting competitive research 

grants. 

181. Earmarking funds for State fire assistance, volunteer fire 

assistance and forest health on Federal and State and private 

lands. 

182. Permitting funding transfers with Committee approval in 

certain cases. 

183. Providing for cost-shared cooperative agreements. 

184. Providing for the use of funds on adjacent, non-Federal 

lands for hazard reduction. 

185. Providing for the use of hazardous fuels reduction funds to 

create incentives for increased use of biomass on National Forest 

lands. 

186. Providing that funds for wildfire suppression shall be assessed for indirect costs. 

187. Providing for the transfer of wildland fire funds between the 

Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
203 

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE

188. Allowing capital improvement and maintenance funds to be 

used for road decommissioning. 

189. Requiring that no road decommissioning be funded until notice and an opportunity for public comment has been provided. 

RANGE BETTERMENT FUND

190. Providing that six percent of range betterment funds may 

be used for administrative expenses. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

191. Permitting the purchase of passenger motor vehicles. 

192. Providing that proceeds from the sale of aircraft may be 

used to purchase replacement aircraft. 

193. Allowing funds for certain employment contracts. 

194. Allowing funds to be used for purchase and alteration of 

buildings. 

195. Allowing for acquisition of certain lands and interests. 

196. Allowing expenses for certain volunteer activities. 

197. Providing for the cost of uniforms. 

198. Providing for debt collections on certain contracts. 

199. Permitting the transfer of funds for emergency firefighting 

from other forest service accounts under certain circumstances. 

200. Providing that the first transfer of funds for emergency firefighting shall include land acquisition and forest legacy funds. 

201. Allowing funds to be used through the Agency for International Development for work in foreign countries and to support 

other forestry activities outside of the United States. 

202. Prohibiting the transfer of funds under the Department of 

Agriculture transfer authority under certain conditions. 

203. Prohibiting reprogramming of funds without approval. 

204. Limiting funds to be transferred to the USDA Working Capital Fund. 

205. Providing for a Youth Conservation Corps program. 

206. Limiting the use of funds for official reception and representation expenses. 

207. Providing for matching funds and administrative expenses 

for the National Forest Foundation and matching funds for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. 

208. Permitting the use of funds for payments to counties in the 

Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. 

209. Limiting reimbursements to the Office of General Counsel 

for travel and related expenses and requiring the display of such 

transfers in the budget request. 

210. Allowing the limited use of funds for law enforcement emergencies. 

211. Providing Federal employee status for certain individuals 

employed under the Older American Act of 1965. 

212. Permitting funding assessments for facilities maintenance, 

rent, utilities, and other support services. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
204 

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICES

213. Providing that Tribal contract and grant funding is deemed 

obligated at the time of grant or contract award and remains available until expended. 

214. Limiting funds for catastrophic care and loan repayment 

and providing no year availability for loan repayment funds. 

215. Providing that certain contracts and grants may be performed in two fiscal years. 

216. Permitting the use of Indian Health Care Improvement 

Fund monies for facilities improvement and providing no year 

funding availability. 

217. Providing no year funding availability for scholarship funds. 

218. Exempting certain Tribal funding from fiscal year constraints. 

219. Limiting contract support cost spending. 

220. Providing for use of collections and reporting of collections 

under Title IV of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. 

221. Providing for the collection of individually identifiable 

health information relating to the Americans with Disabilities Act 

by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

INDIAN HEALTH FACILITIES

222. Providing that facilities funds may be used to purchase 

land, modular buildings and trailers. 

223. Providing for TRANSAM equipment to be purchased from 

the Department of Defense. 

224. Prohibiting the use of funds for sanitation facilities for new 

homes funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

225. Allowing for the purchase of ambulances. 

226. Providing for a demolition fund. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

227. Providing for payments for telephone service in private residences in the field, purchase of motor vehicles, aircraft and reprints. 

228. Providing for purchase and erection of modular buildings. 

229. Providing funds for uniforms. 

230. Allowing funding for attendance at professional meetings. 

231. Providing that health care may be extended to non-Indians 

at Indian Health Service facilities, subject to charges, and for the 

use of those funds. 

232. Permitting the use of funds transferred from the Department of Health and Human Services. 

233. Prohibiting limitations on certain federal travel and transportation. 

234. Prohibiting personnel ceilings assessments by the Department of Health and Human Services. 

235. Allowing deobligation and reobligation of funds applied to 

self-governance funding agreements. 

236. Prohibiting the expenditure of funds to implement new eligibility regulations. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
205 

237. Permitting certain reimbursements and the use of those 

funds. 

238. Providing that reimbursements for training provide total 

costs. 

239. Prohibiting changing the appropriations structure without 

approval of the Appropriations Committees. 

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES

240. Earmarking funds for individual project grants and providing two year funding availability. 

AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY

TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC HEALTH

241. Earmarking funds for Individual Learning Accounts and 

providing no year funding availability. 

242. Providing for the conduct of health studies, testing, and 

monitoring. 

243. Providing deadlines for health assessments and studies. 

244. Limiting administrative costs paid to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

245. Limiting the number of toxicological profiles. 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND OFFICE OF

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

246. Authorizing the appointment and duties of the chairman. 

CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

247. Limiting the use of funds for per diem expenses and the 

number of senior level positions. 

248. Providing that in fiscal year 2007 and thereafter the EPA, 

Inspector General shall not serve as Inspector General for the 

Board. 

OFFICE OF NAVAJO AND HOPI INDIAN RELOCATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

249. Defining eligible relocatees. 

250. Prohibiting movement of any single Navajo or Navajo family 

unless a new or replacement home is available. 

251. Limiting relocatees to one new or replacement home. 

252. 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. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
206 

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

253. Limiting lease terms. 

254. Providing for purchase of passenger vehicles and certain 

rental, repair and cleaning of uniforms. 

255. Earmarking funds for facilities maintenance at the Zoo and 

for certain programs at the National Museum of African American 

History and Culture and repatriation of skeletal remains and providing no year funding availability. 

256. Earmarking funds for fellowships and scholarly awards and 

providing two year funding availability. 

257. Providing that funds may be used to support American 

Overseas Research Centers and earmarking $125,000 for the Council of Overseas Research Centers. 

258. Allowing for advance payments to independent contractors 

performing research services or participating in official Smithsonian presentations. 

FACILITIES CAPITAL

259. Earmarking funds for maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, 

and construction at the Zoo and for consultant services. 

260. Permitting the Smithsonian Institution to select contractors 

for certain purposes on the basis of contractor qualifications as well 

as price. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

261. Precluding any changes to the Smithsonian science program 

without prior approval of the Board of Regents. 

262. Limiting the design or expansion of current space or facilities without consultation with the Committees. 

263. Limiting the use of funds for the Holt House. 

264. Limiting reprogramming of funds. 

265. Prohibiting purchase of buildings without prior consultation. 

266. Limiting the use of funds for contracts and agreements with 

for-profit entities. 

267. Limiting the compensation of Smithsonian employees. 

NATIONAL GALLERY OF ART

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

268. Allowing payment in advance for membership in library, 

museum, and art associations or societies. 

269. Providing for restoration and repair of works of art by contract without advertising. 

270. Providing no-year availability of funds for special exhibitions. 

REPAIR, RESTORATION, AND RENOVATION OF BUILDINGS

271. 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. 

272. Permitting the Gallery to issue a single procurement for the 

full scope of the Work Area #3 contract. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
207 

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS, GRANTS AND ADMINISTRATION

273. Permitting transfer of funds within certain accounts and requiring funds to be expensed in accordance with Public Law 108– 108. 

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES, MATCHING GRANTS

274. 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

275. Prohibiting the use of funds for grants and contracts which 

do not include the text of 18 U.S.C. 1913. 

276. Prohibiting the use of appropriated funds and permitting 

the use of nonappropriated funds for reception expenses. 

277. Allowing the chairperson of the National Endowment for the 

Arts to approve small grants under certain circumstances. 

278. Specifying that grants and contracts supported entirely with 

nonappropriated funds are not subject to matching requirements. 

COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

279. Permitting the charging and use of fees for its publications. 

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

280. Restricting hiring at Executive Level V or higher. 

NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

281. Permitting limited use of funds for official reception and 

representation expenses. 

UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM

282. Earmarking funds for equipment replacement and for repair, rehabilitation and for exhibition design and production and 

providing no year availability for these funds. 

TITLE IV—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

283. Providing for public availability of information on consulting 

services contracts. 

284. Prohibiting the use of funds to distribute literature either 

to promote or oppose legislative proposals on which Congressional 

action is incomplete. 

285. Specifying that funds are for one year unless provided otherwise. 

286. Prohibiting the use of funds to provide personal cooks, 

chauffeurs or other personal servants to any office or employee. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
208 

287. Limiting assessments against programs funded in this bill. 

288. Limiting transfer of funds. 

289. Prohibiting the sale of giant sequoia trees in a manner different from 2005. 

290. Continuing a limitation on accepting and processing applications for patents and on the patenting of Federal lands; permitting 

processing of grandfathered applications; and permitting thirdparty contractors to process grandfathered applications. 

291. Limiting the use of funds for contract support costs on Indian contracts. 

292. Making reforms in the National Endowment for the Arts, including funding distribution reforms. 

293. Limiting funds for completing or issuing the five-year program under the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act. 

294. Limiting the use of telephone answering machines. 

295. Clarifying the Forest Service land management planning revision requirements. 

296. Limiting leasing and preleasing activities within National 

Monuments. 

297. 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. 

298. Permitting consideration, when awarding contracts, to local 

contractors who provide employment and training for dislocated 

and displaced workers in economically disadvantaged rural communities. 

299. Providing certain limitation of funds for Federal land 

takings excluding those under the Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act. 

300. Limiting the use of funds for competitive sourcing studies. 

301. Prohibiting use of funds for certain government-wide activities. 

302. Enhancing forest service administration of rights-of-way and 

land uses (Public Law 106–113). 

303. Providing for the exchange of lands in San Bernardino, California, to relocate the forest supervisor’s office. 

304. Limiting competitive sourcing studies related to wildfire 

management or wildfire suppression. 

305. Limiting contracting for the fire programs analysis system 

unless the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture certify the 

program is on track. 

306. Limiting the compensation of Smithsonian employees. 

307. Expressing the sense of the Congress on greenhouse gas 

emissions control. 

TITLE V—SUSPENSION OF ROYALTY RELIEF 

308. Providing direction to the Secretary of the Interior on royalty relief suspension for oil and gas leases. 

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: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
209 

[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 $1,681,437 $1,785,347 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service: 

Resource Management: 

Endangered Species Act Amendments 

of 1988 .............................................. 1992 $41,500 35,721 146,610 

Great Lakes Fish & Wildlife Restoration 

Grants ................................................ 2004 4,000 498 500 

Marine Mammal Protection Act Amendments of 1994 ................................... 1999 10,296 2,008 4,443 

General Administration: 

Great Ape Conservation ......................... 2005 5,000 1,381 1,290 

Fisheries Restoration Irrigation Mitigation Act .............................................. 2005 25,000 2,000 4,000 

Neotropical Migratory Birds ................... 2005 5,000 3,944 4,000 

U.S. Geological Survey: 

National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization 

Act of 1999 ................................................ 2005 64,000 25,162 25,447 

Water Resources Research Act of 1984 ......... 2005 12,000 6,409 6,404 

Environmental Protection Agency: 

Hazardous Substance Superfund .................... 1994 5,100,000 1,480,853 1,256,855 

State and Tribal Assistance Grants: 

Alaska Native Villages ........................... 1979 2,000 Not available 14,850 

Clean Water SRF .................................... 1992 1,800,000 2,400,000 687,555 

Drinking Water SRF ................................ 2003 1,000,000 .............................. 841,500 

Clean Air Act .......................................... 1997 Such sums 167,230 231,220 

Radon Abatement Act ............................ 1991 10,000 9,000 8,074 

Clean Water Act (FWPCA) ...................... 1991 .............................. .............................. 457,761 

BEACH Act .............................................. 2005 30,000 9,920 9,900 

Safe Drinking Water Act ........................ 2003 115,000 .............................. 114,939 

Solid Waste Disposal Act (RCRA) .......... 1988 70,000 71,391 103,345 

Toxic Substances Control Act ................ 1983 1,500 5,100 18,661 

Pollution Prevention Act ......................... 1993 8,000 6,800 5,940 

Indian Environmental General Assistance Program Act .............................. 1998 Such sums 38,585 56,925 

LUST Trust Fund .................................... 1988 10,000 14,400 17,567 

National Endowment for the Arts ............................ 1993 Such sums 174,460 124,412 

National Endowment for the Humanities ................ 1993 Such sums 177,403 140,955 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ............... 2005 5,000 4,860 5,118 

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 later this year. 

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. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
210 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 06 here HR465.076
211 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 07 here HR465.077
212 

COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XIII—CLAUSE 3 

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 italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

Section 28 of title 30 U.S.C. is amended as follows: 

Sec. 28. The miners of each mining district may make regulations not in conflict with the laws of the United States, or with the 

laws of the State or Territory in which the district is situated, governing the location, manner of recording, amount of work necessary 

to hold possession of a mining claim, subject to the following requirements: The location must be distinctly marked on the ground 

so that its boundaries can be readily traced. * * * The period within which the work required to be done annually on all unpatented 

mineral claims located since May 10, 1872, including such claims 

in the Territory of Alaska, [shall commence at 12 o’clock meridian 

on the 1st day of September] shall commence at 12:00 ante meridian on the 1st day of September succeeding the date of location of 

such claim. 

Section 28f(a) of title 30 U.S.C. is amended as follows: 

(a) CLAIM MAINTENANCE FEE.—The holder of each unpatented 

mining claim, mill, or tunnel site, located pursuant to the mining 

laws of the United States, whether located before, on or after August 10, 1993, shall pay to the Secretary of the Interior, on or before September 1 of each year[for years 2004 through 2008], a 

claim maintenance fee of $100 per claim or site (!1) Such claim 

maintenance fee shall be in lieu of the assessment work requirement contained in the Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 28–28e) (!2) 

and the related filing requirements contained in section 1744(a) 

and (c) of title 43. 

Section 28g of title 30 U.S.C. is amended as follows: 

Sec. 28g. Location fee. 

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for every unpatented 

mining claim, mill or tunnel site located after August 10, 1993, 

[and before September 30, 2008,] pursuant to the Mining Laws of 

the United States, the locator shall, at the time the location notice 

is recorded with the Bureau of Land Management, pay to the Secretary of the Interior a location fee, in addition to the claim maintenance fee required by section 28f of this title, of $25.00 per claim. 

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: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
213 

[In millions] 

Budget authority (discretionary) ....................................................... 25,889 

Outlays: 

Fiscal year 2007 .......................................................................... 16,291 

Fiscal year 2008 .......................................................................... 5,356 

Fiscal year 2009 .......................................................................... 2,337 

Fiscal year 2010 .......................................................................... 1,222 

Fiscal year 2011 .......................................................................... 481 

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 ........................................................................ 5,511 

Fiscal year 2007 outlays resulting therefrom .................................. 2,284 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
214 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 08 HR465.063
215 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 09 HR465.064
216 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 010 HR465.065
217 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 011 HR465.066
218 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 012 HR465.067
219 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 013 HR465.068
220 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 014 HR465.069
221 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 015 HR465.070
222 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 016 HR465.071
223 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 017 HR465.072
224 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 018 HR465.073
225 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 019 HR465.074
226 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 020 HR465.075
(227) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF THE HONORABLE DAVID OBEY 

The Minority cannot fault the fairness of the process followed by 

our Committee in producing the fiscal year 2007 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. The bill as reported simply does not fulfill that 

responsibility. Because of this failure, America’s water and air will 

be dirtier, its pristine natural landscapes and historic structures 

will be less protected, and visitors to its national parks, refuges 

and forests will experience declining levels of service. 

The Interior bill’s failings did not occur by accident. The overall 

lack of funds to address national needs is the direct result of a Republican fiscal plan for 2007 that values tax cuts for the most welloff over critical priorities like protecting the environment. This Republican plan provides $9.4 billion less for domestic programs than 

the amount necessary just to maintain current service levels and 

the 2007 Interior bill now presented to the House reflects the damage which is the inevitable result. 

The $25.9 billion allocated for Interior and Environment programs in this bill is $145 million below the FY 2006 enacted level 

and roughly $800 million below the level necessary to maintain 

current services for programs under this Subcommittee’s jurisdiction. The result is significant and damaging reductions in many 

conservation and environmental programs and in service programs 

for Native Americans. Members should be aware of the most critical reductions when they review the bill’s impact on their communities and their constituents. For example: 

• In most cases the Subcommittee has only been able to fund 70 

percent of increases mandated by law for federal pay and for other 

fixed costs for the federal agencies which manage our national 

parks, refuges, and forests. As the recent GAO report on the nation’s national parks made clear, this inevitably will mean cutbacks 

in staff and cutbacks in visitor services for people who visit our 

parks and other federal facilities. 

• Despite facility maintenance backlogs of at least $12 billion in 

our parks, refuges and forests, funding for construction projects 

throughout the bill are cut by $216 million below last year and 

more than $400 million below the level six years ago. There is no 

funding at all for new schools on Indian reservations. The cutbacks 

in construction funding are shown on the following table: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
228 

CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY TABLE 

[In millions of dollars] 

FY 2001 FY 2006 FY 2007 President FY 2007 Committee Committee v. Pres. Committee v. FY06 Committee v. FY 2001 

BLM ..................................................................................................................................................................... 17 12 6 11 5 ¥1 ¥6 

USFWS ................................................................................................................................................................. 89 75 20 40 20 ¥35 ¥49 

NPS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 300 333 229 230 1 ¥103 ¥70 

BIA ...................................................................................................................................................................... 357 272 215 216 1 ¥56 ¥141 

IHS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 85 38 18 37 19 ¥1 ¥48 USFS ................................................................................................................................................................... 521 431 383 411 28 ¥20 ¥110 

Total, construction ................................................................................................................................ 1,369 1,161 871 945 74 ¥216 ¥424 

(¥31%) 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
229 

• Funding for the Clean Water Revolving Fund is cut by another $200 million below the 2006 level. Over the last three years the 

Clean Water program, which EPA sites as one of its most effective 

programs, has been reduced by $662 million or nearly 50 percent. 

This means either essential infrastructure repairs for this country’s 

aging water infrastructure will not occur or local water and sewer 

rates will increase as communities pick up the federal share of 

these costs. • Other state grant programs broadly supported in the House are cut below the current rate. This includes a $4 million cut in 

PILT, as well as significant reductions in wildlife grants and the 

North American Wetlands programs. Stateside conservation grants 

are completely eliminated. Over the last 5 years assistance to 

states for environmental or conservation purposes have been reduced by more than $750 million as shown below: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
230 

STATE GRANTS SUMMARY TABLE 

[In millions of dollars] 

FY 2001 FY 2006 FY 2007 President FY 2007 Committee Committee v. Pres. Committee v. FY06 Committee v. FY 2001 

Clean Water SRF ................................................................................................................................................ 1,350 887 688 688 .................... ¥199 ¥662 

LWCF ‘‘Stateside’’ ............................................................................................................................................... 90 28 0 0 .................... ¥28 ¥90 

North Am. Wetlands Conservation ..................................................................................................................... 40 39 42 37 ¥5 ¥3 ¥3 

State Wildlife Grants .......................................................................................................................................... 75 67 75 50 ¥25 ¥17 ¥25 

PILT ..................................................................................................................................................................... 215 232 198 228 30 ¥4 13 Landowner Incentives ......................................................................................................................................... 0 24 24 15 ¥9 ¥9 15 

Total, state grants ................................................................................................................................ 1,770 1,277 1,027 1,018 ¥9 ¥259 ¥752 

(¥42%) 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
231 

• Funding for federal land acquisition and to help States pre- serve open spaces is cut by $98 million in this bill and by more 

than $400 million since 2001. Funding in this area has been cut 

by more than 80 percent in the last four years as follows: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
232 

LAND ACQUISITION/CONSERVATION HISTORY TABLE 

[In millions of dollars] 

Land acquisition FY 2001 FY 2006 FY 2007 President FY 2007 Chairman Chairman v. Pres. Chairman v. FY06 Chairman v. FY 2001 

BLM ..................................................................................................................................................................... 47 9 9 3 ¥6 ¥6 ¥44 

USFWS ................................................................................................................................................................. 121 28 27 20 ¥7 ¥8 ¥101 NPS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 125 34 23 28 5 ¥6 ¥97 

USFS ................................................................................................................................................................... 151 42 25 8 ¥17 ¥34 ¥143 

Subtotal, land acq ................................................................................................................................ 444 113 84 59 ¥25 ¥54 ¥385 

Forest Legacy ...................................................................................................................................................... 60 57 61 13 ¥48 ¥44 ¥47 

Total, land conservation ....................................................................................................................... 504 170 145 72 ¥73 ¥98 ¥432 

(¥86%) 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
233 

During consideration of the bill in Committee, the Minority of- fered an amendment to add $800 million to the bill to address its 

most critical failings. The amendment was part of a fiscally disciplined, balanced Democratic approach that would return Congressional budgeting to the principle of ‘‘paying-as-you-go,’’ providing 

additional funding for key domestic investments and reducing the 

deficit by scaling back supersized tax cuts for those making more 

than $1 million per year. The amendment would have reduced 

their tax savings from $114,000 per year to approximately 

$112,000. Unfortunately this amendment was rejected on a party 

line vote. The failure of the Majority to adopt this responsible 

amendment is particularly ironic given that the same day the Majority pushed legislation through the House that provides high income taxpayers additional tax cuts of $42,000 while families with 

incomes of $50,000 per year would only get on average a $46 tax 

cut. 

While these fiscal failings are very troubling to the Minority, we 

were pleased that the Full Committee did approve the addition to 

the bill of an important Sense of the Congress Resolution regarding 

global climate change. This resolution states, in summary, that 

global climate change is real; that human activity is an important 

causal agent of this change; and, importantly, that mandatory controls on greenhouse gases will be necessary to address the problem. 

This important statement of principles is the first step towards real 

action on climate change by the Congress. We urge the full House 

to also endorse it when the bill is considered on the Floor. 

In summary, despite an open and fair process, a faulty economic 

policy from the President and the Republican Majority has left the 

Congress in the position of not having enough money to fulfill our 

fundamental stewardship responsibilities for the environment and 

our public lands. This did not happen by accident. A decision was 

made to starve domestic government and we are now paying the 

price. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS