73–179

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 107–103

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES

APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2002

JUNE 19, 2001.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of

the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. SKEEN, from the Committee on Appropriations,

submitted the following

REPORT

together with

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

[To accompany H.R. 2217]

The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in

explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for the

Department of the Interior and Related Agencies for the fiscal year

ending September 30, 2002. The bill provides regular annual appropriations for the Department of the Interior (except the Bureau

of Reclamation) and for other related agencies, including the Forest

Service, the Department of Energy, the Indian Health Service, the

Smithsonian Institution, and the National Foundation on the Arts

and the Humanities.

CONTENTS

Page number

Bill Report

Department of the Interior:

Bureau of Land Management ............................................................ 2 12

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ........................................................... 12 25

National Park Service ......................................................................... 24 39

U.S. Geological Survey ....................................................................... 31 60

Minerals Management Service .......................................................... 34 65

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement ................. 36 68

Bureau of Indian Affairs .................................................................... 39 72

Departmental Offices .......................................................................... 46 80

General Provisions .............................................................................. 53 90

Related Agencies:

Forest Service, USDA ......................................................................... 68 91

2

Department of Energy ........................................................................ 87 114

Fossil Energy ....................................................................................... 87 114

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves ......................................... 88 121

Energy Conservation .......................................................................... 89 123

Economic Regulation ........................................................................... 90 128

Strategic Petroleum Reserve .............................................................. 90 129

Energy Information Administration .................................................. 90 129

Indian Health Service, DHHS ................................................................... 93 130

Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation ........................................... 102 137

Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts

Development ........................................................................................... 103 138

Smithsonian Institution ............................................................................. 103 138

National Gallery of Art .............................................................................. 106 143

John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts ................................... 108 145

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars ................................ 108 146

National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities ........................... 109 146

Institute of Museum and Library Services .............................................. 110 150

Commission of Fine Arts ........................................................................... 111 152

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation .............................................. 112 153

National Capital Planning Commission ................................................... 112 153

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum ........................................... 112 154

Presidio Trust ............................................................................................. 113 154

Title III—General Provisions .................................................................... 113 154

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 .................................................... $18,941 59 $18,941 59

Outlays ................................................................... 17,768 77 17,767 77

The allocation for fiscal year 2002 includes $1,320,000,000 in discretionary budget authority for conservation spending pursuant to

Section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, and $1,033,000,000 in outlays.

SUMMARY OF THE BILL

The Committee has conducted hearings on the programs and

projects provided for in the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for 2002. The hearings are contained in 10 published

volumes totaling nearly 10,000 pages.

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

hearings on 9 days, not only from agencies which come under the

jurisdiction of the Interior Subcommittee, but also from Members

of Congress, and, in written form, from State and local government

officials, and private citizens.

3

The bill that is recommended for fiscal year 2002 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 2002

Committee bill, fiscal

year 2002

Committee bill compared with budget estimates

Title I, Department of the Interior: New Budget

(obligational) authority ............................................. $9,167,124,000 $9,420,563,000 +$253,439,000

Title II, related agencies: New Budget (obligational)

authority ................................................................... 8,905,511,000 9,443,292,000 +537,781,000

Grand total, New Budget (obligational) authority .......................................................... 18,072,635,000 18,863,855,000 +791,220,000

TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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 2001, these activities are estimated to total

$3,384,125,000. The estimate for fiscal year 2002 is $3,584,842,000.

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

fiscal years 2001 and 2002.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES TOTAL BUDGET AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL

YEARS 2001–2002

Item Fiscal year 2001 Fiscal year 2002 Change

Interior and related agencies appropriations bill .............. $18,778,020,000 $18,863,855,000 +$85,835,000

Permanent appropriations, Federal funds .......................... 2,730,907,000 2,887,099,000 +156,192,000

Permanent appropriations, trust funds .............................. 653,173,000 697,743,000 +44,570,000

Total budget authority ........................................... 22,162,100,000 22,448,697,000 +286,597,000

REVENUE GENERATED BY AGENCIES IN BILL

The following tabulation indicates total new obligational authority to date for fiscal years 2000 and 2001, and the amount recommended in the bill for fiscal year 2002. It compares receipts generated by activities in this bill on an actual basis for fiscal year

2000 and on an estimated basis for fiscal years 2001 and 2002. The

programs in this bill are estimated to generate $10.2 billion in revenues for the Federal Government in fiscal year 2002. Therefore,

the expenditures in this bill will contribute to economic stability

rather than inflation.

Item

Fiscal year—

2000 2001 2002

New obligational authority .................................................. $14,911,650,000 $18,778,020,000 $18,863,855,000

Receipts:

Department of the Interior ......................................... 8,996,349,000 11,080,199,000 9,579,875,000

Forest Service ............................................................. 474,947,000 634,331,000 619,731,000

4

Item

Fiscal year—

2000 2001 2002

Naval Petroleum Reserves ......................................... 9,540,000 7,836,000 6,824,000

Total receipts ......................................................... 9,480,836,000 11,722,366,000 10,206,430,000

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 2002, 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 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 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, fish hatcheries, wildlife refuges, research

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

for which funds are provided in fiscal year 2002.

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.

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.

ALLOCATING CONGRESSIONAL FUNDING PRIORITIES

The Committee is 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

5

Committee expects these instructions to be closely monitored and

followed. In the future, 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.

CONSERVATION INITIATIVE

The Committee has continued the conservation initiative started

in title VIII of the fiscal year 2001 Interior and Related Agencies

Appropriations Act. The table below includes funding information

for that initiative. Continuing its commitment to this important

initiative, the Committee has recommended a total of

$1,320,000,000 for fiscal year 2002. This amount is equal to the

maximum amount available for appropriation through the Interior

and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002.

The Committee has followed the spirit of the Administration’s request that funds for critical State efforts be expanded and that

funding be provided for State and private landowner efforts for endangered species and natural resource protection. The Committee

has recommended $154,000,000 for State grants for recreation purposes through the National Park Service, to be distributed via the

same formula as in the past, and $100,000,000 for State wildlife

grants through the Fish and Wildlife Service. The State wildlife

grants will be distributed to States through a formula that is based

30 percent on land area and 70 percent on population. There is also

a new $5,000,000 Tribal grant program to provide wildlife grants

to Indian Tribes on a competitive basis.

The Committee has also provided $50,000,000 for a new landowner incentive program and $10,000,000 for a new stewardship

grant program, as proposed by the Administration but has funded

those programs in two new accounts under the Fish and Wildlife

Service rather than through the land acquisition account. The

Committee also has reinstated the Stewardship Incentive Program

in the Forest Service at the $8,000,000 level for fiscal year 2002.

Federal land acquisition is funded at the full amount requested

by the Administration. Funds have been restored or increased

above the fiscal year 2001 level for payments in lieu of taxes, North

American wetlands conservation, urban parks, youth conservation

corps programs, and infrastructure improvements on public lands.

Funding is also recommended for a newly authorized program to

ensure neotropical migratory bird conservation in the United

States, Latin America, and the Caribbean. There is a 3 to 1 matching requirement for non-Federal funds associated with this new

program.

Historic preservation programs are recommended at $77,000,000,

including $30,000,000 to continue the Save America’s Treasures

program and $5,000,000 to establish a National Trust Historic

Sites Fund.

SUMMARY OF THE CONSERVATION SPENDING CATEGORY

[Thousands of dollars]

Subcategory/appropriation account

FY 2001 enacted FY 2002 Pres. budget

o

Interior bill title I & title

II

Interior bill

title VIII-LWCF Total** Non-LWCF LWCF Total

Federal, State and Other LWCF Programs:

Federal Land Acquisition:

BLM Federal ............................................................................................................................................... $31,032 $16,233 $47,265 .................... $47,686 $47,686 FWS Federal ............................................................................................................................................... 62,662 58,526 121,188 .................... 104,401 104,401 NPS Federal ............................................................................................................................................... 69,886 54,954 124,840 .................... 107,036 107,036 FS Federal .................................................................................................................................................. 101,980 48,892 150,872 .................... 130,877 130,877 

Subtotal, Federal Land Acquisition ...................................................................................................... 265,560 178,605 444,165 .................... 390,000 390,000 

Stateside Grants (Recreation and Wildlife) .............................................................................................. 40,411 49,890 90,301 .................... 450,000 450,000 ..

NPS Stateside* ................................................................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... FWS State Wildlife Grants ................................................................................................................ .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... Tribal Grants .................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 

FWS Incentive Grant Programs ................................................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... 60,000 60,000 

Subtotal, State and Other Grants ........................................................................................................ .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... Total LWCF ............................................................................................................................................ 305,971 228,495 534,466 .................... 900,000 900,000 

State and Other Conservation Programs:

FWS State Wildlife Grants (see above) ..................................................................................................... .................... 49,890 49,890 .................... .................... .................... ..FWS Coop. Endangered Species Conservation .......................................................................................... 26,866 77,828 104,694 54,694 .................... 54,694 FWS North American Wetlands Conservation ............................................................................................ 19,956 19,956 39,912 14,912 .................... 14,912 FWS Neotropical Migratory Birds ............................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... USGS State Planning Partnerships ........................................................................................................... 4,989 19,956 24,945 .................... .................... .................... FS, Forest Legacy ...................................................................................................................................... 29,934 29,934 59,868 30,079 .................... 30,079 FS, Stewardship Incentives Program ........................................................................................................ .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... FS, NFS Planning, Inventory, Monitoring ................................................................................................... .................... 19,956 19,956 .................... .................... .................... ..

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................. 81,745 217,520 299,265 99,685 .................... 99,685 

Urban and Historic Preservation Programs:

NPS Historic Preservation Fund*** .......................................................................................................... 79,172 14,967 94,139 67,055 .................... 67,055 NPS Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Grants .................................................................................. 9,978 19,956 29,934 .................... .................... .................... FS Urban and Community Forestry ........................................................................................................... 31,651 3,991 35,642 31,804 .................... 31,804 BLM Youth Conservation Corps ................................................................................................................. [1,000] .................... [1,000] 1,000 .................... 1,000 FWS Youth Conservation Corps ................................................................................................................. [1,000] .................... [1,000] 2,000 .................... 2,000 NPS Youth Conservation Corps ................................................................................................................. [2,000] .................... [2,000] 2,000 .................... 2,000 FS Youth Conservation Corps .................................................................................................................... [2,000] .................... [2,000] 2,000 .................... 2,000 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................. 126,801 38,914 165,715 105,859 .................... 105,859 

BLM Payments in Lieu of Taxes ......................................................................................................................... 149,670 49,890 49,890 .................... .................... .................... FWS National Wildlife Refuge Fund ................................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................. [149,670] 49,890 49,890 .................... .................... .................... 

Federal Infrastructure Improvement Programs:

BLM

—Management of Lands & Resources .............................................................................................. .................... 24,945 24,945 25,000 .................... 25,000 

FWS

—Resource Management ................................................................................................................... .................... 24,945 24,945 25,000 .................... 25,000 

NPS

—Construction .................................................................................................................................... .................... 49,890 49,890 50,000 .................... 50,000 

FS

—Capital Improvement and Maintenance ........................................................................................... .................... 49,890 49,890 50,497 .................... 50,497 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................. .................... 149,670 149,670 150,497 .................... 150,497 FS Total ................................................................................................................................................. 165,565 152,663 318,228 114,380 130,877 245,257 DOI Total ............................................................................................................................................... 348,952 531,826 880,778 241,661 769,123 1,010,784 Grand Total ........................................................................................................................................... $514,517 $684,489 $1,199,066 $356,041 $900,000 $1,256,041 

*NPS Stateside Grants shall be dispersed using the current distribution formula; State Wildlife Grants using the 70% population, 30% land distribution formula.**Note excludes $8.8 million of BLM land acq. funds from 2001 consolidated approp. Act; DOI scores GS funds in this category $10M higher than does OMB. OMB includes YCC funds in 2001 totals.***Of the $77 million provided, $30 million shall be used for Save America’s Treasures.

8

ENERGY RESEARCH—RESPONDING TO THE NATIONAL ENERGY

POLICY

The Committee welcomes the Administration’s National Energy

Policy. The recommendations from the Committee are responsive to

that policy. Indeed, the Committee has highlighted the need for a

comprehensive energy strategy at several hearings over the past

few years. The Committee is pleased that the Vice President’s task

force report recognizes the need to explore many different options

for addressing the energy needs of this country and for ensuring

that energy efficiencies and emissions reductions are achieved

worldwide.

This Committee’s recommendations include $1,796,680,000 for

energy programs, an increase of $294,000,000 above the budget request. The recommendations are a balanced approach to handling

both the supply and demand sides of the energy issue. Likewise,

there is a balance between research on technologies for traditional

and alternative fuels. We need both traditional fuels and alternative fuels and we need to find ways to use all fuels and technologies more efficiently and more cleanly.

The Committee has supported the President’s clean coal power

initiative and recommended large increases in funding for the

weatherization assistance program and for State energy grants.

The Committee also has recommended restoring most of the reductions proposed in the budget request for energy conservation research and for research to improve fossil energy technologies. We

need to do all these things if we are to have a balanced and rational national energy strategy.

The Committee agrees with the Administration that some programs have not been as productive as anticipated. In the past the

Committee has recommended the elimination of dozens of such programs in the energy area and will continue to do so in the future.

The nature of research is such that failures must be acknowledged

and not perpetuated in order to make room for new ideas and unanticipated breakthroughs in technologies.

Much of the funding in the Interior bill is intended to provide

seed money for new ideas. Once those ideas result in new technology and are adopted by industry, the Federal role is completed.

Too often in the past, the government has not terminated programs

that have not yielded results or has continued to participate in programs once they were market ready. Those mistakes should not be

repeated. Most energy innovations come about through the actions

of industry and small entrepreneurs and without Federal assistance. It is not the job of the Federal government to pick ‘‘winners

and losers’’ in the energy area. The marketplace and the consumer

are the ultimate decision makers. The Federal role is an important

one but it should not extend beyond basic and applied research.

The Committee, in its recommendations, has attempted to maintain diversity of energy research and not cross the line into marketing.

MAINTAINING AMERICA’S HERITAGE

Since fiscal year 1996, this Committee has made a commitment

to address the serious backlog maintenance needs of our public

lands, cultural agencies and Native American facilities. This effort

9

has involved rehabilitation of existing facilities and new construction of visitor facilities in our National Parks, Wildlife Refuges, National Forests, public lands, the Smithsonian Institution and the

National Gallery of Art. It has also meant new and replacement Indian schools, hospitals and clinics.

This commitment has resulted in over $1 billion in program increases since 1996 in addition to the hundreds of millions of dollars

realized through the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program for

land management agencies. These funds are over and above the annual funding through appropriations.

The Committee is very pleased to see that the Administration

has made reducing the maintenance backlog a high priority, particularly in our National Parks. In this bill alone, nearly $3 billion

is devoted to this effort.

Serious progress cannot be made in reducing the maintenance

backlog as well as addressing the equally important operational

shortfalls, unless we limit the creation of new units and programs

and hold the line on existing program expansions.

The Committee reminds the agencies that they have a critical

role in maintaining credible project data systems so that the highest priority needs are met and that progress can be accurately

measured over time. To date, many agencies have not done a good

job in this area and much improvement is needed.

RECREATION ON THE PUBLIC LANDS

Public participation in recreation programs funded in this bill is

an important and growing aspect of the land management agencies

under the jurisdiction of this Committee. These agencies are responsible for the National Parks managed by the National Park

Service, the National Wildlife Refuge System managed by the

United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Nation’s public lands

managed by the Bureau of Land Management, and our National

Forests and Grasslands managed by the Forest Service. It is a little

known fact that recreation in the National Forests exceeds that of

the National Parks. The Forest Service manages 192 million acres,

has over 220 million visits per year, and attracts 93 thousand volunteers. By contrast the National Park Service manages 78 million

acres, has about 284 million visitors, and attracts 115 thousand

volunteers. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages 93 million

acres, has 35 million visitors annually and attracts 29 thousand

volunteers. The Bureau of Land Management has the largest land

base of the land management agencies with 264 million acres. BLM

has about 65 million visitors annually and attracts 17 thousand

volunteers. The Committee continues to place a high priority on

maintaining these recreation programs, ensuring that the American public has safe and uplifting experiences on the Nation’s public lands. The Committee is grateful to all the volunteers who are

helping to make the public lands better places for the visiting public and for generations to come.

RECREATIONAL FEE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM, PHASE II

The Committee recommends bill language in Title III (section

312) extending the recreational fee demonstration program for an

additional four years as requested by the Administration. The ComVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:43 Jun 21, 2001 Jkt 073179 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR103.XXX pfrm11 PsN: HR103
10

mittee has added some minor modifications to facilitate implementation of this program. This program, begun in the fiscal year 1996

Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, allows the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Forest Service to charge certain fees for recreation

activities and retain most of the fees at the site to reduce the backlog in deferred maintenance and enhance the visitor experience.

The program has been very successful. The Committee is generally

pleased with the implementation by the agencies. To date, the fee

program has raised over $650,000,000 to enhance recreation experiences on America’s public lands. The Committee expects to see continuing changes and adjustments as the agencies make the fee program more user friendly and efficient. The agencies need to use a

business-like approach, carefully listen to visitors, and make program adjustments accordingly.

The Committee recommends the following changes to the recreational fee demonstration to: (1) extend the program for four

years; (2) provide enhanced authority to give discounted or free admission in certain instances, such as for volunteers; (3) allow, beginning in fiscal year 2003, certain short-term Forest Service recreation special use fees to be included in the program in order to improve service to outfitters and guides who aid visitors on the public

lands; (4) raise the number of sites each agency may include in the

program; and (5) limit the use of funds for capital construction to

$500,000 unless approval is obtained from the House and Senate

Committees on Appropriations.

The Committee believes that the program will continue to benefit

from close Congressional monitoring. The Committee directs the

Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to submit a joint, annual accomplishment report by March 1 of each year so that this

information may be included during annual consideration of the

budget request. This requirement supersedes previous reporting requirements established in earlier Committee reports.

The Committee is concerned that fee collection and administrative costs may be too high in certain locations. The Secretaries

should strive to keep these costs to no more than 20 percent of fee

receipts and include a list in the annual report of sites that exceed

this threshold. The Committee expects the Secretaries to pursue innovative fee collection methodologies during this phase II, including automated fee collection and, especially, interagency fee compatibility and cooperative fees with non-Federal entities such as

State parks. The Committee expects that the agencies will ensure

that any fees levied will be fair to all visitors, and shall consider

any fees paid by permittees on behalf of visitors in determining

such fairness. Agencies should not use the fee program to displace

existing permittees and concessionaires. For the Forest Service, the

Committee has included an additional $2,000,000 within the national forest system, recreation management activity to establish a

revolving fund to be used to make improvements at recreation fee

sites. Units will be able to borrow against this fund to improve

sites where fees are charged or proposed to be charged and then

repay the fund with subsequent fee receipts.

11

REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES

The Committee’s reprogramming guidelines were last published

in the House and Senate reports accompanying the FY 1998 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (H. Rep. 106–163, S.

Rep. 105–56). While the Committee does not propose any changes

to these guidelines, recent dealings with several agencies suggest

that the following clarifications are needed to prevent any future

misunderstandings regarding the applicability of reprogramming

procedures in certain situations.

Though a reprogramming is in part defined in the guidelines as

a reallocation of funds from one budget activity (or other applicable

level of detail) to another, the guidelines also state that any significant departure from the program described in the agency’s budget

justifications shall be considered a reprogramming. This later portion of the definition encompasses the reallocation of funds within

a budget activity, if such reallocation represents a ‘‘significant departure’’ from the description provided in the relevant budget justification. In this regard, the Committee would view as a ‘‘significant departure’’ any reallocation of funds within a budget activity

for programs or contracts involving out-year mortgages that are not

discussed in detail in the budget justification. Multi-year and noyear funds do not lose their program identities when carried over

to subsequent years and a reprogramming is required if such carryover funds are to be used for purposes other than those originally

directed.

INVASIVE SPECIES CONTROL ON PUBLIC LANDS

In the appropriation for Interior and Related Agencies for fiscal year 2001, the Congress provided an increase of $8,000,000 for

invasive exotic species control for the Bureau of Land Management,

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the

U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Forest Service. These bureaus

should report to the Committee by October 1, 2001, on the uses of

these funds, related proposals for fiscal year 2002, and the extent

to which site managers have been using native plants in their

wildland restoration and rehabilitation activities and landscaping.

IMPROVING INFORMATION ON THE NATION’S RANGELANDS

Rangelands comprise over 40 percent of the Nation’s land and

provide vital watershed and grazing land functions. Currently,

there is no coordinated inventory of these lands and yet, several

agencies in the various departments have responsibilities for differing aspects of rangeland inventory and assessment. The Committee directs the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the

Interior to jointly charter an interagency group to address rangeland assessment and monitoring issues at both local and national

scales. This group should include, as the Secretaries deem appropriate, representatives of the Forest Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service in the USDA and the various bureaus

of the Department of the Interior. This group should coordinate

with respective professional societies including the Society for

Range Management and other citizen or non-governmental organizations and industry groups. The Committee expects the Secretaries to prepare, within 9 months of enactment, a coordinated 10-

12

year plan and budget identifying the cost of completing standardized soil surveys and ecological classification on all rangelands for

use at local management levels. The Committee also expects the

Secretaries to devise a plan to determine standardized monitoring

and assessment methodologies and project costs that would be

needed to carry out a periodic National Cooperative Rangeland

Survey. Future budget justifications for these agencies should include information projecting budget and qualified personnel needs

to carry out rangeland assessment and monitoring at local and national levels on a continuing basis.

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 264 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 the grazing of approximately 4.3 million head

of livestock on some 164 million acres of public land ranges, and

manages over 47,000 wild horses and burros, some 264 million

acres of wildlife habitat, and over 117,000 miles of fisheries habitat. Grazing receipts are estimated to be about $14 million in fiscal

year 2002, compared to an estimated $14 million in fiscal year

2001 and actual receipts of $14 million in fiscal year 2000. The Bureau also administers about 4 million acres of commercial forest

lands through the ‘‘Management of lands and resources’’ and ‘‘Oregon and California grant lands’’ appropriations. Timber receipts

(including salvage) are estimated to be $61.6 million in fiscal year

2002 compared to estimated receipts of $54.6 million in fiscal year

2001 and actual receipts of $12.5 million in fiscal year 2000. The

Bureau has an active program of soil and watershed management

on 175 million acres in the lower 48 States and 92 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, 2001 .............................................................. $750,250,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 760,312,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 768,711,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +18,461,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ +8,399,000

13

The Committee recommends $768,711,000 for management of lands and resources, an increase of $8,399,000 above the budget request and $18,461,000 above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level.

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table:

14

15

16

17

Land resources.—The Committee recommends $179,046,000 for

land resources, an increase of $2,499,000 above the budget request

and a decrease of $12,680,000 below the 2001 enacted level, including increases above the 2001 level of $3,328,000 for fixed costs,

$2,000 for the San Pedro Partnership for a total program level of

$1,000,000, $1,000,000 for a Natural Resource Challenge program

similar to the National Park Service program, and $195,000 for cultural resources at risk, and decreases of $715,000 for management

reforms, $50,000 from the Sloan Canyon Petroglyphs management

plan, $15,193,000 in one-time emergency supplemental funding,

$499,000 from the Pacific Northwest grazing study, and $748,000

from Idaho State Department of Agriculture funds. The Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000 to expand

the Bureau’s capacity for collection and use of natural resource information. The Committee directs that a competitive process be established to allocate these funds, modeled after the National Park

Service’s natural resources challenge program. This new program

will help the Bureau deal with issues, such as habitat destruction,

non-native species, pollution, and the pressures caused by increased visitation to the public lands. While these funds have been

placed in the range program, the Bureau may use this funding to

address projects under the land resources activity, including: soil,

water and air, riparian, botany, and forestry.

Wildlife and fisheries.—The Committee recommends $37,428,000

for wildlife and fisheries, the same as the budget request and a decrease of $474,000 below the 2001 enacted level, including increases above the 2001 level of $715,000 for fixed costs and decreases of $898,000 for Yukon river protection, $175,000 for management reforms, and $116,000 in one-time emergency supplemental funding.

Threatened and endangered species.—The Committee recommends $21,618,000 for threatened and endangered species, the

same as the budget request and an increase of $284,000 above the

2001 level, including an increase of $389,000 for fixed costs and decreases of $76,000 for management reforms, and $29,000 in onetime emergency supplemental funding.

Recreation management.—The Committee recommends

$63,289,000 for recreation management, an increase of $300,000

above the budget request and $581,000 above the 2001 enacted

level, including increases above the 2001 enacted level of

$1,067,000 for fixed costs and $300,000 for the Utah wilderness

mapping project and decreases of $179,000 for management reforms $108,000 in one-time emergency supplemental funding, and

$499,000 from the Undaunted Stewardship program.

Energy and minerals.—The Committee recommends $95,713,000

for energy and minerals including Alaska minerals. This is a

$2,000,000 increase above the budget request and an increase of

$15,105,000 above the 2001 enacted level including increases above

the 2001 level of $1,534,000 for fixed costs, $6,000,000 to address

the coal bed methane backlog, $3,000,000 for leasing activities in

the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska, $3,000,000 to implement

the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, $350,000 for Indian trust

activities, $1,500,000 for oil and gas inspection and enforcement activities, $1,150,000 for coal leasing activities, $450,000 mineral material sales, and $50,000 for geothermal activities and decreases of

18

$232,000 for management reforms, $998,000 for minerals at risk,

and $699,000 for the mining claim information system.

Realty and ownership management.—The Committee recommends $82,547,000 for realty and ownership management, the

same as the budget request and an increase of $1,780,000 above

the 2001 enacted level, including increases above the 2001 level of

$1,548,000 for fixed costs and $1,500,000 for rights-of-way and decreases of $320,000 for management reforms, $299,000 for Utah

GIS mapping, and $649,000 for the Montana cadastral project.

Resource protection and maintenance.—The Committee recommends $61,891,000 for resource protection and maintenance, an

increase of $600,000 above the budget request and $8,207,000

above the 2001 enacted level, including increases above the enacted

level of $723,000 for fixed costs, and $7,079,000 for land management planning, $600,000 for California desert rangers, and decreases of $133,000 for management reforms and $62,000 in onetime emergency supplemental funding.

The Committee previously acknowledged the concern that has

been raised over the condition of the Bureau’s land use plans, and responded by providing an additional $19,000,000 in fiscal year

2001 and an additional $7,079,000 for this planning effort in 2002.

The Bureau has developed a schedule for updating priority land

use plans with these additional funds, which are intended to improve the Bureau’s ability to make resource allocation decisions.

While the Bureau is improving its land use plans, the Committee

is concerned about the Bureau’s capability and commitment to

monitor and assess progress achieved in meeting the resource goals

and objectives set forth in these plans. The Committee therefore directs the Bureau to submit to the Committee as part of its fiscal

year 2003 budget justification a report detailing the status of the

Bureau’s: (1) resource monitoring efforts, (2) current capabilities

and adequacy of existing resources, and (3) recommendations to address the Bureau’s need to monitor resource conditions.

Transportation and facilities maintenance.—The Committee recommends $77,617,000 for transportation and facilities maintenance, $3,000,000 above the budget request and $3,742,000 above

the 2001 enacted level, including increases above the 2001 level of

$1,162,000 for fixed costs and $3,000,000 for infrastructure improvements (for a total program level of $28,000,000 as part of the

conservation spending category) and decreases of $276,000 for management reforms and $144,000 in one-time emergency supplemental funding.

Land and resource information systems.—The Committee recommends $19,756,000 for land resource information systems, the

same as the budget request and an increase of $213,000 above the

2001 enacted level including an increase of $394,000 fixed costs

and a decrease of $181,000 for management reforms.

Mining law administration.—The Committee recommends

$32,298,000 for mining law administration. This activity is supported by offsetting fees equal to the amount made available.

Workforce and organizational support.—The Committee recommends $129,806,000 for workforce and organizational support,

the same as the budget request and an increase of $3,185,000

above the 2001 enacted level, including an increase of $3,498,000

for fixed costs and a decrease of $313,000 for management reforms.

19

The Committee is aware of the significant success the military

services have had in utilizing pulse technology in their vehicles to

reduce costs and increase environmental benefits through the extension of the service life of its batteries. The Committee urges the

Bureau of Land Management to examine the opportunities for costsavings and associated environmental benefits of using pulse technology for its own battery management program. The Committee

believes that this technology will directly benefit the Department’s

land managing agencies.

The Bureau is directed to submit a report to the Committee outlining plans for the implementation of Title II of Public Law 106– 248, relating to the sale of certain public lands that have been

identified by the Bureau as surplus lands in the State of New Mexico. Implementation of this plan should begin at the earliest possible date.

The Committee is concerned that draft BLM resource management plans regarding energy development in southern New Mexico

do not consider the broad scope of possible mitigation practices that

are available to the Bureau in the development of new oil and gas

discoveries on Federal lands.

Bill language has been included under the Bureau’s administrative provisions reauthorizing the mining holding fee for one fiscal

year.

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $977,099,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 658,421,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 700,806,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... ¥276,293,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ +42,385,000

The Committee recommends $700,806,000 for wildland fire management, an increase of $42,385,000 above the budget request and

a decrease of $276,293,000 below the 2001 enacted level, which included emergency funds.

The appropriation includes $280,807,000 for preparedness and

fire use, of which $19,774,000 has been provided for deferred maintenance and capital improvement, $161,424,000 for fire suppression

operations, and $258,575,000 for other operations which includes

$10,000,000 for the rural fire assistance program, $186,190,000 for

hazardous fuels reduction, $62,385,000 for the restoration and rehabilitation of burned over areas, which is an increase of

$42,385,000 above the budget request, and $8,000,000 for the joint

fire science program.

The Committee has restored $42,385,000 for the burned area rehabilitation program first proposed in fiscal year 2001. This expanded program is designed to go beyond emergency stabilization

to include the reintroduction of native plants into these burned

over-areas before exotic species can gain a foothold. The Committee

directs the Department to incorporate this program into its 2003

budget request. Based on these efforts, the Secretaries of Interior

and Agriculture are to report jointly to the Congress by December

31, 2001, with specific plans and recommendations to supply native

plant materials for emergency stabilization and longer-term rehabilitation and restoration efforts.

20

The Committee was pleased with the detailed 2001 financial and

action plan submitted by the two Secretaries. Within 90 days of enactment of this Act the Committee expects a similar plan showing

the proposed expenditure of funds and work proposed to be accomplished.

The Committee cautions the Department of the Interior to ensure that overhead costs for fire activities are strictly controlled.

Overhead charges should be kept to the minimum required, based

on actual services received or standard bureau methodology.

The Committee understands that fire management plans are

critical strategic documents that guide the full range of fire management activities. The Committee continues to support the use of

wildland fire funds to complete these plans. Because of the critical

nature of these plans, the Committee directs the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to develop a schedule for revising and completing all new fire plans no later than the end of fiscal year 2004.

This planning schedule must incorporate the standards outlined in

the Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy.

The Committee understands that fuels treatment activities by

mechanical thinning of dense forests and woodlands is often required before fire can safely be reintroduced to restore ecological

health and reduce wildfire hazards near communities. The Committee encourages the Department of the Interior to utilize funds

from this Act to develop projects and expand partnerships with private enterprise to develop sustainable local industries and markets

for products from woodland or other areas to supplement ongoing

work by USDA’s Forest Service.

To enhance the effectiveness of fuels and rehabilitation treatments, particularly in the wildland urban interface, it is desirable

to extend some projects onto adjacent non-Federal lands. The Committee directs that funds from this Act may be used by the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements to conduct fuels treatment, emergency stabilization and rehabilitation activities on adjacent non-Federal lands when these projects impact

Federal resources and the overall watershed health of which the

Federal lands are a part.

CENTRAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS FUND

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $9,978,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 9,978,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 9,978,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... 0

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

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. The Committee recommends $9,978,000 for the central hazardous materials fund, which is the same as the budget request

and the 2001 enacted level.

21

CONSTRUCTION

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $16,823,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 10,976,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 11,076,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... ¥5,747,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ +100,000

The Committee recommends $11,076,000 for construction, which

is an increase of $100,000 above the budget request and $5,747,000

below the 2001 enacted level. The Committee has provided an additional $100,000 for the Lone Pine Visitor Center, CA.

PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $199,560,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 150,000,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 200,000,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +440,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ................................................................ +50,000,000

Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) provides for payments to local

units of government containing certain Federally owned lands.

These payments are designed to supplement other Federal land receipt sharing payments local governments may be receiving. Payments received may be used by the recipients for any governmental

purpose.

The Committee recommends $200,000,000 for PILT, of which

$50,000,000 is from the conservation spending category, an increase of $50,000,000 above the budget request and $440,000 above

the 2001 enacted level. The Committee notes the large increase in

mandatory payments to forested counties in the Forest Service due

to a recent law change. This change increases county payments by

$166,313,000 in fiscal year 2002.

LAND ACQUISITION

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $56,545,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 47,686,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 47,686,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... ¥8,859,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The Committee recommends $47,686,000 for land acquisition as

requested, a reduction of $8,859,000 below the enacted level and

the same as the budget request. This amount includes $42,177,000

for line item projects, $1,000,000 for emergencies and hardships,

$4,000,000 for acquisition management and $509,000 for land exchanges.

The Committee recommends the following distribution of funds:

Committee

Area and State Recommendation

Cerbat Foothills Recreation Area (AZ) ................................................. $500,000

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (WY) .................................. 320,000

Douglas Point (MD) ............................................................................... 3,000,000

El Dorado (rare plant) (CA) .................................................................. 5,000,000

El Malpais National Conservation Area (NM) .................................... 1,000,000

Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument (AZ) .......................... 1,200,000

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (UT) ........................ 2,000,000

Grande Ronde National Wild and Scenic River (OR/WA) .................. 500,000

Gunnison Basin ACEC (CO) ................................................................. 2,500,000

22

Committee

Area and State Recommendation

King Range National Conservation Area (CA) .................................... 2,500,000

La Cienega ACEC (NM) ........................................................................ 641,000

Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail (ID) ..................................... 1,000,000

Lower Salmon River ACEC (ID) ........................................................... 2,000,000

National Historic Trails of Wyoming (WY) .......................................... 350,000

Organ Mtns. (NM) ................................................................................. 2,000,000

Otay Mountain/Kuchamaa HCP (CA) .................................................. 2,500,000

Rio Grande National Wild and Scenic River (NM) ............................. 4,000,000

San Pedro Ecosystem (Gap/Borderlands—easements) (AZ) ............... 3,000,000

Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mtns. National Monument (CA) .......... 1,000,000

Steens Mtn. (OR) ................................................................................... 166,000

Upper Arkansas River Basin (CO) ....................................................... 1,500,000

Upper Crab Creek/Rock Creek (WA) .................................................... 2,000,000

Upper Snake/South Fork Snake River (ID) ......................................... 2,000,000

West Eugene Wetlands (OR) ................................................................ 1,500,000

Subtotal ........................................................................................... 42,177,000

Emergency/hardship/inholding ............................................................. 1,000,000

Land Exchange Equalization Payments .............................................. 509,000

Acquisition Management ....................................................................... 4,000,000

Total ................................................................................................. 47,686,000

The Committee has provided $3,000,000 for easements at San

Pedro Ecosystem in Arizona.

The land acquisition program is funded under the conservation

spending category.

OREGON AND CALIFORNIA GRANT LANDS

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $104,038,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 105,165,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 105,165,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +1,127,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table:

23

24

The Committee recommends $105,165,000 for the Oregon and

California grant lands, the same as the budget request and an increase of $1,127,000 above the 2001 enacted level for fixed costs.

These funds are provided for construction and acquisition, operation and maintenance, and management activities on the revested

lands in the 18 Oregon and California land grant counties of western Oregon.

RANGE IMPROVEMENTS

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $10,000,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 10,000,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 10,000,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... 0

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The Committee recommends an indefinite appropriation of not less than $10,000,000 to be derived from public lands receipts and

Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act lands grazing receipts. Receipts

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

water development, fish and wildlife habitat improvement, and

planning and design of these projects.

SERVICE CHARGES, DEPOSITS, AND FORFEITURES

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $7,484,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 8,000,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 8,000,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... 516,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The Committee recommends an indefinite appropriation esti- mated to be $8,000,000, the budget request, for service charges, deposits, and forfeitures. This account uses the revenues 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-ahorse program, and the provision of copies of official public land

documents.

MISCELLANEOUS TRUST FUNDS

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $12,405,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 11,000,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 11,000,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... ¥1,405,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The Committee recommends an indefinite appropriation estimated to be $11,000,000, 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

25

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.

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 94 million acres across the United

States, encompassing a 535-unit National Wildlife Refuge System,

additional wildlife and wetlands areas, and 70 National Fish

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

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $806,816,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 806,752,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 839,852,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +33,036,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ +33,100,000

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table:

26

27

28

The Committee recommends $839,852,000 for resource management, an increase of $33,100,000 above the budget request and

$33,036,000 above the fiscal year 2001 level. Within this account,

$28,000,000 for infrastructure improvement and $2,000,000 for the

youth conservation corps is funded under the conservation spending category. Changes to the budget request are detailed below.

Ecological services.—The Committee recommends $213,693,000

for ecological services, an increase of $15,200,000 above the budget

request.

Within the ecological services activity, changes recommended for

endangered species programs include increases of $4,850,000 for

consultation, of which $850,000 is for the Sonoran Desert conservation plan and $4,000,000 is to address the increasing demand for

consultations; and $6,500,000 for recovery, of which $3,000,000 is

for Washington State salmon grants to be administered through

the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, $500,000 is for manatee protection, and $3,000,000 is to address the backlog of recovery actions.

Changes recommended for habitat conservation programs include

increase of $600,000 for coastal programs, of which $200,000 is for

the newly established programs in Tampa Bay and the Florida

panhandle, and $3,150,000 for the partners for fish and wildlife

program, of which $550,000 is for nutria eradication at Blackwater

NWR, MD, $500,000 is for the Columbia River estuary research

project, $1,100,000 is for bull trout conservation in Washington

State, and $1,000,000 is for the Washington State ecosystems

project and is to be provided as a grant to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

An increase of $100,000 is recommended for the environmental

contaminants program to address the program backlog.

Refuges and wildlife.—The Committee recommends $398,727,000

for refuges and wildlife, an increase of $7,500,000 above the budget

request.

Changes recommended for refuge operations and maintenance include an increase of $10,000,000 for refuge operations to continue

‘‘minimum staffing’’ implementation, a decrease of $5,000,000 for

refuge maintenance, and an increase of $1,000,000 to initiate a natural resource challenge program. The Committee notes that an additional $3,000,000 above the fiscal year 2001 level for refuge maintenance, within a total of $28,000,000 for infrastructure improvement, has been funded as part of the conservation spending category.

A total of $993,000, the budget request, is recommended to continue the Salton Sea recovery program at the 2001 level, contingent

on matching funds from the State of California. The Committee

does not object to including this program in the regular operations

account in fiscal year 2003 and beyond.

An increase of $1,500,000 is recommended for migratory bird

management to continue to advance the joint venture programs toward the fiscal year 2004 target funding levels outlined in the fiscal year 2001 statement of the managers that accompanied the conference report for that year. The Committee agrees to the following

distribution of funds for joint ventures:

29

Joint Venture Fiscal year 2001 Recommended fiscal year 2002

Target Level fiscal

year 2004

Atlantic Coast ....................................................................................... 379,000 506,000 800,000

Lower Mississippi .................................................................................. 501,000 576,000 750,000

Upper Mississippi ................................................................................. 239,000 363,000 650,000

Prairie Pothole ....................................................................................... 1,182,000 1,248,000 1,400,000

Gulf Coast ............................................................................................. 339,000 448,000 700,000

Playa Lakes ........................................................................................... 225,000 369,000 700,000

Rainwater Basin ................................................................................... 225,000 278,000 400,000

Intermountain West ............................................................................... 239,000 469,000 1,000,000

Central Valley ........................................................................................ 359,000 417,000 550,000

Pacific Coast ......................................................................................... 239,000 378,000 700,000

San Francisco Bay ................................................................................ 225,000 269,000 370,000

Sonoran ................................................................................................. 225,000 278,000 400,000

Arctic Goose .......................................................................................... 140,000 210,000 370,000

Black Duck ............................................................................................ 110,000 188,000 370,000

Sea Duck ............................................................................................... 249,000 340,000 550,000

Administration ....................................................................................... 623,000 662,000 750,000

Total ......................................................................................... 5,499,000 6,999,000 10,460,000

Fisheries.—The Committee recommends $98,379,000 for fisheries, an increase of $5,400,000 above the budget request, including

increases of $4,500,000 for hatchery operations and maintenance,

of which $4,000,000 is for the Washington State hatchery improvement project and $500,000 is for unmet operational needs, and

$900,000 for fish and wildlife assistance, of which $500,000 is to

continue reproductive biology/salmon research at Washington State

University and $400,000 is to restore funding for the Great Lakes

fish and wildlife restoration program.

General administration.—The Committee recommends

$129,053,000 for general administration, an increase of $5,000,000

above the budget request, including $2,000,000 for the National

Fish and Wildlife Foundation and $3,000,000 to eliminate ‘‘cross

charging’’ of programs and projects through the cost allocation

methodology.

The Committee agreed to a one-time reprogramming of funds to

ensure administrative overhead costs were covered in fiscal year

2001. The Department did not reflect these costs as uncontrollable

fixed cost increases in the fiscal year 2002 budget as directed by

the Committee. The Committee expects the Service to address its

administrative ‘‘cost allocation methodology’’ within its administrative accounts except for those costs over which the programs have

direct control and those costs charged to reimbursable accounts and

permanent appropriations. A like amount has been added to the

construction administration account, and the land acquisition administration account has also been increased. There should be no

‘‘cross charging’’ of individual programs and projects in fiscal year

2002 except as explained above.

The Committee agrees to the following:

1. The Peregrine Fund should be funded at $400,000 in fiscal

year 2002.

2. The Service should continue its support and increase the funding for joint venture programs in order to achieve the target funding levels by fiscal year 2004. This program continues to be one of

the greatest successes of the Service, with funding leveraged to a

greater extent than all other Service programs combined. 3. With the recommended increase of $500,000, the manatee pro- tection program should be funded at $1,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.

30

4. The $1,000,000 provided for the natural resource challenge is

modeled after the National Park Service’s initiative and is for a

competitive program to address resource needs and to prevent duplication of staff.

5. The Committee understands that Egmont Key NWR, FL is experiencing serious staffing shortfalls and encourages the Service to

consider the needs at this refuge as part of the refuge operating

needs system funding increase, and to examine the need for visitor

information at the refuge (as part of the small projects program for

visitor facility improvements).

6. Within the funds provided for the ESA recovery program, the

Service should contract for an independent review of the Mexican

gray wolf program.

7. Within the funds provided for Washington salmon grants through the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, $200,000 is for

the Long Live the Kings salmon program and $175,000 is for the

Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement program.

8. The Service should report to the Committee by January 31,

2002, on (1) the actual location of bull trout presence by life cycle

in Washington State; (2) the process the Service will use to amend

its bull trout distribution maps; and (3) the timelines for completion of such maps.

9. The Committee is aware of a planning effort that is underway

to develop the Lower Colorado River Multiple Species Conservation

Plan affecting 25 million people in the states of Arizona, California

and Nevada and encourages the Service to continue to provide the

required assistance for this important partnership of state, federal,

tribal, and private stakeholders who share an interest in managing

the water and related resources of the Lower Colorado River Basin.

Bill language.—The Committee has not agreed to the bill language proposed by the Administration with respect to the endangered species listing program. The Committee has continued bill

language capping the amount of funding available for certain endangered species listing programs and, within that amount, has

placed a subcap on funding for critical habitat designations for

those species that are already listed. Critical habitat designation

funding for species that are subsequently listed are addressed in

the discussion below. The funding cap for listing for fiscal year

2002 is $8,476,000, of which not to exceed $6,000,000 is for critical

habitat designations for already-listed species.

The Committee recognizes that the amount provided for the endangered species listing program will not address fully the current

backlog and potential new listing workload. The language recommended reflects the Committee’s concern that a balance is maintained between the listing program and other critical Service programs, including other endangered species activities, within the

amount of money provided to the Service for fiscal year 2002.

The critical habitat designation subcap will ensure that some

funding is available to address other listing activities. The Committee understands that the subcap for critical habitat designation

provides sufficient funding to address all known court orders for

such designations, with a small amount of additional funding.

The Committee expects that listing funding that is not subject to

the critical habitat designation subcap will be used for the highest

priority listing actions, in a manner consistent with existing proviVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:43 Jun 21, 2001 Jkt 073179 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR103.XXX pfrm11 PsN: HR103
31

sions of the Endangered Species Act. These include such actions as

proposed and final rules to add species to the list of threatened and

endangered species with associated critical habitat where prudent

and determinable, processing citizen petitions, and reclassification

of species.

CONSTRUCTION

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $71,358,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 35,849,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 48,849,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... ¥22,509,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ +13,000,000

The Committee recommends $48,849,000 for construction, a decrease of $22,209,000 below the fiscal year 2001 level and

$13,000,000 above the budget request.

The Committee agrees to the following distribution of funds:

[dollars in thousands]

Project Description Budget

request

Committee

recommendationDifference

Anahuac NWR, TX ................. Bridge Rehabilitation/Replacement—Phase II (c) .............. 330 330 0

Bear River NWR, UT .............. Dikes and related facilities ................................................. 0 500 500

Bear River NWR, UT .............. Maintenance facility ............................................................. 0 500 500

Big Branch NWR, LA ............. Facilities renovation ............................................................. 0 400 400

Bozeman Fish Technology

Center, MT.

Construction of Laboratory/Administration Building ........... 2,556 2,556 0

Bridge Safety Inspection ....... ............................................................................................... 545 545 0

Chincoteague NWR, VA ......... Herbert H. Bateman Educ. and Administrative Center—

Phase III (c).

2,900 2,900 0

Condor Facilities, CA & ID .... Recovery facility construction and renovation ..................... 0 1,750 1,750

Creston NFH, MT ................... Jessup Mill Dam—Phase III (c) .......................................... 1,900 1,900 0

Dam Safety Program and Inspections................................................................................................ 650 650 0

Delta NWR, LA ....................... Kiosks and interpretive facilities ......................................... 0 100 100

Hagerman NWR, TX ............... Bridge Rehabilitation—Phase II (c) .................................... 1,800 1,800 0

Humboldt Bay NWR, CA ........ Seismic Safety Rehabilitation—Phase I (p/d) .................... 190 190 0

Iron River NFH, WI ................ Replace Domes at Schacte Creek with Building ................. 740 740 0

John Heinz NWR, PA .............. Complete/equipment furnish admin. wing .......................... 0 600 600

Jordan River NFH, MI ............ Replace Great Lakes Fish Stocking Vessel .......................... 200 200 0

Klamath Basin Complex, OR Water Supply and Management—Phase III ........................ 1,700 1,700 0

Leavenworth NFH, WA ........... Seismic Safety Rehabilitation—Phase I (p/d) .................... 170 170 0

Midway Atoll NWR ................. Hangar roof replacement ..................................................... 0 650 650

National Black-Footed Ferret

Cons. Ctr, CO.

New Endangered Species Facility—Phase III (c) ................ 2,260 2,260 0

Necedah NWR, WI ................. Rynearson #1 Dam—Phase II (c) ....................................... 2,725 2,725 0

Northwest Power Planning

Area.

Fish screens, etc. ................................................................. 0 3,000 3,000

Pelican Island NWR, FL ........ Interpretive Center and Administrative Facility—Phase I

(p/d/ic).

2,600 2,300 ¥300

Quinault NFH, WA ................. Replace Quarters .................................................................. 290 290 0

Red Rock Lakes NWR, MT ..... Seismic Safety Rehabilitation—Phase I (p/d) .................... 135 135 0

San Pablo Bay NWR, CA ....... Renovate Office—Phase II (c) ............................................. 2,500 2,500 0

Six NFHs in New England ..... Water Treatment Improvements—Phase III (c) ................... 2,630 2,630 0

Ted Stevens Anchorage Int’l

Airport, AK.

Hangar—Phase I (p/d) ........................................................ 536 0 ¥536

Tern Island NWR ................... Seawall replacement ............................................................ 0 2,000 2,000

Subtotal: Line Item

Construction.

............................................................................................... 27,357 36,021 8,664

Nationwide Engineering Services:

Demolition Fund ........... ............................................................................................... 0 1,336 1,336

32

[dollars in thousands]

Project Description Budget

request

Committee

recommendationDifference

Env. Compliance .......... ............................................................................................... 1,856 1,856 0

Seismic Safety Program ............................................................................................... 180 180 0

Waste Prevention and

Recycling.

............................................................................................... 150 150 0

Other Engineering Services................................................................................................ 6,306 9,306 3,000

Total ......................... ............................................................................................... 35,849 48,849 13,000

The Committee agrees to the following:

1. No administrative or other assessments may be levied against

individual projects. All administrative overhead should be budgeted

in the nationwide engineering services activity or in the general operations activity under Resource Management. This instruction

also applies to funds available from prior years. An additional

$3,000,000 has been provided to address all administrative expenses within nationwide engineering services in fiscal year 2002.

This issue is also addressed in the resource management and land

acquisition accounts.

2. No funds are to be obligated on the Pelican Island NWR, FL

visitors center until a 50 percent cost share has been identified.

The Service is expected to consult with the public in the area and

to explore thoroughly various options for siting the facility and is

expected to downsize the facility design and cost, consistent with

the volume of visitation at the refuge. The amount provided in the

recommendation should be sufficient for the Federal share of the

total cost of the facility. All of these issues need to be addressed

and approved by the Committee, following the reprogramming

process, prior to any obligation of funds.

3. The Committee expects the full scope of the education center

and exhibits at the Bear River NWR, UT to be completed with

funds made available in past years. If additional funds are required

to complete the headquarters accommodations for the Bear River

NWR, UT, the Service should realign funds from completed projects

to ensure that space, equipment and furnishings are provided, consistent with the Service’s staffing requirements analysis for the refuge.

4. The Committee has restored funds for the Service’s demolition

needs. These funds should be continued and increased, as needed,

in future budget requests.

LAND ACQUISITION

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $121,188,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 164,401,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 104,401,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... ¥16,787,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ ¥60,000,000

The Committee recommends $104,401,000, a decrease of

$16,787,000 below the 2001 enacted level and $60,000,000 below

the budget request. This amount includes $85,110,000 for line item

acquisition, $2,000,000 for emergencies and hardships, $1,000,000

33

for exchanges, $2,000,000 for inholdings and $14,291,000 for acquisition management. The change to the budget request is due to the

establishment of two new accounts in the Fish and Wildlife Service

rather than funding those programs as part of Federal land acquisition for the National Park Service. Those accounts are the Landowner Incentive Program and Stewardship Grants. They follow this

account.

The Committee recommends the following distribution of funds:

Committee

Area and State Recommendation

Archie Carr NWR (FL) (undeveloped land) ......................................... $1,000,000

Back Bay NWR (VA) ............................................................................. 3,200,000

Balcones Canyonlands NWR (TX) ........................................................ 1,000,000

Big Muddy NWR (MO) .......................................................................... 2,000,000

Bon Secour NWR (AL) ........................................................................... 1,000,000

Cahaba NWR (AL) ................................................................................. 1,500,000

Canaan Valley NWR (WV) .................................................................... 6,000,000

Cape May NWR (NJ) ............................................................................. 1,100,000

Cat Island NWR (LA) ............................................................................ 3,700,000

Charles M. Russell NWR (MT) ............................................................. 2,000,000

Columbia NWR (WA) ............................................................................ 2,000,000

Crane Meadows NWR (MN) ................................................................. 500,000

Edwin B. Forsythe NWR (NJ) .............................................................. 3,200,000

Florida Keys NWR Complex (FL) ......................................................... 2,500,000

Florida Panther NWR (FL) ................................................................... 500,000

Great Meadows NWR (MA) .................................................................. 2,000,000

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

Iron River Fish Hatchery (Glacial Springs) (WI) ................................ 285,000

J.N. Ding Darling NWR Complex (FL) ................................................ 3,000,000

Louisiana Black Bear Complex—Black Bayou NWR (LA) ................. 1,000,000

Minnesota Valley NWR (MN) ............................................................... 4,000,000

Montezuma NWR (NY) ......................................................................... 500,000

Nisqually NWR Complex (WA) ............................................................. 1,000,000

Northern Tallgrass Prairie NWR (MN/IA) .......................................... 1,000,000

Oregon Coast NWR Complex (OR) ....................................................... 2,100,000

Ottawa NWR (OH) ................................................................................ 1,000,000

Pelican Island NWR (Completes Lear and Michael tracts) (FL) ....... 6,400,000

Pond Creek NWR (AR) .......................................................................... 1,500,000

Rappahannock River Valley NWR (VA) ............................................... 1,825,000

Red River NWR (LA) ............................................................................. 1,000,000

Rhode Island NWR (RI) ........................................................................ 1,500,000

Sacramento River NWR (CA) ............................................................... 1,700,000

San Diego NWR (CA) ............................................................................ 5,000,000

San Joaquin River NWR (CA) .............................................................. 5,000,000

Sandy Point NWR (VI) .......................................................................... 500,000

Shiawassee NWR Complex (MI) ........................................................... 500,000

Silvio O. Conte NWR (MA) ................................................................... 1,100,000

Southeast Louisiana NWR Complex (LA) ............................................ 500,000

St. Marks NWR (FL) ............................................................................. 4,000,000

Stewart B. McKinney NWR (CT) ......................................................... 2,000,000

Waccamaw NWR (SC) ........................................................................... 1,000,000

Wallkill River NWR (NJ) ...................................................................... 3,000,000

Whittlesey Creek NWR (WI) ................................................................. 500,000

Subtotal ........................................................................................ 85,110,000

Emergency & Hardship ......................................................................... 2,000,000

Inholdings ............................................................................................... 2,000,000

Exchanges ............................................................................................... 1,000,000

Acquisition Management ....................................................................... 14,291,000

Total ............................................................................................. 104,401,000

The Committee has included bill language directing that no overhead, planning or other management costs may be deducted from

specific land acquisition project money. Project-specific funds are to

be used exclusively for land purchases. The Committee is providing

the budget request for acquisition management, which is intended

34

to pay for all acquisition related staff. Of the $14,291,000 for acquisition management, $6,000,000 is for planning purposes. The fiscal

year 2003 budget submission, and every budget thereafter, should

include a specific list detailing how those planning dollars will be

allocated including whether the project involves a boundary adjustment or establishment of a new refuge.

The Committee supports the need to conserve unique, threatened, or strategically important habitats. However, the Committee

remains concerned with the rate and seemingly never-ending expansion of individual refuges, without regard for finite budgets and

future operations and maintenance needs. The Committee believes

a more strategic approach is needed and expects the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service to: (1) make a concerted effort to acquire lands

within currently approved refuge boundaries; and (2) fully consider

the future cost of operations and maintenance needs when making

land acquisition requests.

The Committee is providing funds in the National Park Service

land acquisition account for their share of the Great Sand Dunes

National Monument and Preserve. The Committee expects the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service to include funding for their share of the

Preserve in future budget requests.

The $1,000,000 provided for Archie Carr NWR may not be used

to purchase land with existing structures.

The land acquisition program is funded under the conservation

spending program.

LANDOWNER INCENTIVE PROGRAM

This new program will provide funds for matching, competitively

awarded grants for technical and financial assistance for landowner incentive programs geared toward private landowners, and

will include habitat protection and restoration for the management

of federally listed, proposed or candidate species, or 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, 2001 .............................................................. $0

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 0

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 50,000,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +50,000,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ +50,000,000

The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for the landowner incentive program. The Administration proposed this same amount

as part of the land acquisition account. The Committee recommends funding it under this separate appropriations account to

distinguish it from Federal land acquisition. This program is funded under the conservation spending category.

STEWARDSHIP GRANTS

This new program will provide grants and other assistance to individuals and groups engaged in private conservation efforts that

benefit federally listed, proposed or candidate species, or other atrisk species.

35

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $0

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 0

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 10,000,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +10,000,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ +10,000,000

The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the stewardship

grants program. The Administration proposed this same amount as

part of the land acquisition account. The Committee recommends

funding it under this separate appropriations account to distinguish it from Federal land acquisition. This program is funded

under the conservation spending category.

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, 2001 .............................................................. $104,694,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 54,694,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 107,000,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +2,306,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ +52,306,000

The Committee recommends $107,000,000 for the cooperative en- dangered species conservation fund, an increase of $52,306,000

above the budget request for habitat conservation plan land acquisition. The recommended level is necessary to continue this very

important program with a relatively small increase above the fiscal

year 2001 level. This program is funded under the conservation

spending category.

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 $23,528,000 in fiscal year

2002 with $16,414,000 derived from this appropriation and

$7,114,000 from net refuge receipts estimated to be collected in fiscal year 2001.

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $11,414,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 11,414,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 16,414,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +5,000,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ +5,000,000

The Committee recommends $16,414,000 for the National wildlife refuge fund, an increase of $5,000,000 above both the budget

request and the fiscal year 2001 funding level. This program is

funded under the conservation spending category. The $5,000,000

increase is funded under the conservation spending category.

36

The Committee continues to be concerned about the priorities of

the Service with respect to meeting its obligations under the National wildlife refuge fund. The Committee continues to question

why the Service places such a high priority on acquiring more land

but does not request additional funding for the National wildlife

refuge fund.

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 48 States, 10

Canadian provinces, 21 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, 2001 .............................................................. $39,912,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 14,912,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 45,000,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +5,088,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ +30,088,000

The Committee recommends $45,000,000 for the North American

wetlands conservation fund, an increase of $5,088,000 above the

fiscal year 2001 level and $30,088,000 above the budget request.

Increases above the budget request include $28,884,000 for wetlands conservation and $1,204,000 for administration. This program is funded under the conservation spending category.

Bill Language is recommended specifying that the increase above

the fiscal year 2001 level is to be devoted to projects in the United

States. The Committee has made this recommendation based upon

the large number of high priority unfunded project applications in

the U.S. in fiscal year 2001 as compared with project applications

from Canada and Mexico.

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. This program is funded under the conservation spending

category.

37

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $0

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 0

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 5,000,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +5,000,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ +5,000,000

The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the Neotropical migratory bird conservation program. This newly authorized program

will provide critically needed resources for conservation of

neotropical migratory birds. The Committee expects the Service to

administer this grant program through the Service’s division of

bird habitat conservation following the model of the North American wetlands conservation program. No new administrative entity

should be established to administer this program. The program

should benefit from the administrative structure already in place

in the division of bird habitat conservation.

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 government, the CITES secretariat, and non-governmental organizations for the conservation of great apes.

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $3,243,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 3,243,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 4,000,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +757,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ +757,000

The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for the multinational

species conservation fund, an increase of $757,000 above both the

fiscal year 2001 level and the budget request. The recommended

funding includes $1,000,000 each for African elephant conservation,

rhinoceros and tiger conservation, Asian elephant conservation,

and great ape conservation. The Committee expects these funds to

be matched by non-Federal funding to leverage private contributions to the maximum extent possible.

38

STATE WILDLIFE GRANTS

The State wildlife grant program provides funds for States to develop and implement wildlife management and habitat restoration

for the most critical wildlife needs in each State. States are required to develop comprehensive wildlife conservation plans to be

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

for planning grants and at least a 50 percent cost share for implementation grants. This program is funded under the conservation

spending category.

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $49,890,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 0

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 100,000,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +50,110,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ +100,000,000

The Committee recommends $100,000,000 for State wildlife

grants, an increase of $100,000,000 above the budget request and

$50,110,000 above the amount provided through the fiscal year

2001 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The fiscal

year 2002 funds are to be distributed to States and territories

through a formula that is based 30 percent on land area and 70

percent on population. Each State or eligible entity must have developed, or committed to develop by October 1, 2005, a comprehensive wildlife conservation plan that must be approved by the Secretary of the Interior or her designee. These plans are to address

the conservation of each State’s or eligible entity’s full array of

wildlife, but are not expected to address every representative species or taxonomic group that may be present. With the preceding

clarification of the ‘‘full array’’ requirement, the Committee believes

that the plan elements identified in the Service’s January 2001

Federal Register notice provide a solid scientific basis for these

plans.

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

grant agreements with the Service using fiscal year 2002 funding.

If funds remain unobligated at the end of fiscal year 2003, the unobligated funds will be reapportioned to all States and eligible entities, together with any new appropriations provided in fiscal year

2004.

The method for the distribution of funds, and the conditions associated thereto, consolidate the previously appropriated allocation

grant program and the competitive grant program into a single allocation formula. Under the new program, States are required to

comply with the planning and cost sharing requirements of the

former competitive grants program but are guaranteed an allocation based on the new formula described above. The Committee is

concerned that these grants result in on-the-ground improvements

for wildlife as soon as possible and has included a requirement that

fiscal year 2002 funds be obligated within 2 fiscal years.

Not more than 3 percent of the appropriated amount may be

used for Federal administration of the program. Administrative

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

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

39

TRIBAL WILDLIFE GRANTS

The tribal wildlife grant program provides funds for wildlife conservation grants to Indian Tribes on a competitive basis. A portion

of the funding provided may be set aside to assist tribes in developing comprehensive wildlife conservation plans. This program is

funded under the conservation spending category.

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $0

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 0

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 5,000,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +5,000,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ +5,000,000

The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the tribal wildlife

grant program to support cooperative efforts with tribes to address

critical wildlife needs, including, but not limited to, wildlife management and habitat restoration projects. The Committee expects

the Service to establish criteria for a competitive grant program

and to assist tribes in developing wildlife conservation plans. Cost

sharing is not required but it is encouraged and consideration for

cost sharing should be incorporated into the criteria for the program.

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

The mission of the National Park Service is to preserve

unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the

national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration

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

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

The National Park Service, established in 1916, has stewardship

responsibilities for the protection and preservation of the heritage

resources of the National Park System. The system, consisting of

383 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, 2001 .............................................................. $1,386,190,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 1,470,499,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 1,480,336,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +94,146,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ +9,837,000

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table:

40

41

The Committee recommends $1,480,336,000 for the operation of

the National Park System for fiscal year 2002, an increase of

$94,146,000 above the 2001 level and an increase of $9,837,000

above the budget request. The Committee has redirected

$21,963,000 in the budget request and appropriated an additional

$9,837,000 to provide $28,000,000 in operational increases for the

units of the National Park System, $500,000 for Vanishing Treasures, $500,000 to continue the Business Plan initiative and

$2,800,000 for upgrading the telecommunications systems.

The Committee has included most of the budget request including an increase of $20,000,000 to continue the Natural Resource

Initiative, $15,703,000 for the Repair/Rehabilitation program,

$1,200,000 for bison monitoring at Yellowstone National Park and

$1,067,000 for the structural fire initiative.

Resource Stewardship.—The Committee recommends

$318,827,000 for resource stewardship, an increase of $31,869,000

above the 2001 level and $6,500,000 above the budget request. Included in this amount are increases above the 2001 level of

$3,047,000 for the Everglades CERP, $20,000,000 to continue the

Natural Resource Challenge, $1,200,000 for bison monitoring at

Yellowstone National Park, $6,000,000 for park increases, $500,000

for Vanishing Treasures and $4,248,000 for uncontrollable expenses. Programmatic decreases include a reduction of $931,000 for

streamlining and $2,194,000 for Everglades research.

Visitor Services.—The Committee recommends $297,543,000 for

visitor services, an increase of $10,711,000 above the 2001 level

and $9,000,000 above the budget request. Included in this amount

are increases above the 2001 level of $1,067,000 for the structural

fire initiative, $9,000,000 for park increases and $3,315,000 for uncontrollable expenses. Programmatic decreases include a reduction

of $1,673,000 for streamlining and $998,000 for the 2001 Presidential Inaugural.

Maintenance.—The Committee recommends $483,197,000 for

maintenance, an increase of $29,875,000 above the 2001 level and

$8,000,000 above the President’s request. Included in this amount

are increases above the 2001 level of $500,000 for PMIS support,

$15,703,000 for Repair/Rehabilitation, $1,531,000 for the facility

management software system, $2,656,000 to continue facility condition assessments, $8,000,000 for park increases and $8,299,000 for

uncontrollable expenses. Programmatic decreases include a reduction of $1,820,000 for streamlining and $2,994,000 for maintenance

management/condition assessment transfer. Within the increase

provided for repair and rehabilitation, the Service should provide

$400,000 for Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore and $300,000 for

Great Smoky Mountains National Park.

Park Support.—The Committee recommends $271,371,000 for

park support, an increase of $11,801,000 above the 2001 level and

$5,500,000 above the budget request. Included in this amount are

increases above the 2001 level of $650,000 for financial audits,

$5,000,000 in park increases, $500,000 for business plans and

$7,045,000 for uncontrollable expenses. Programmatic decreases include a reduction of $1,193,000 for streamlining, $200,000 for the

Apostle Island Wilderness Study and $100,000 for the Arlington

Boathouse Study.

42

External Administrative Costs.—The Committee recommends

$107,398,000 for external administrative costs, an increase of

$7,990,000 above the 2001 level and a reduction of $19,163,000

below the budget request. Included in this amount are increases

above the 2001 level of $2,800,000 for bandwidth needs and

$5,190,000 for uncontrollable expenses. The Committee has included bill language, which directs that the U.S. Park Police pension costs be considered mandatory spending in fiscal year 2003

and thereafter.

U.S. Park Police.—The Committee has included bill language

under the operations account which would correct a problem created by the fiscal year 2001 language limitations that preclude the

use of operations funds for any U.S. Park Police costs except for

emergencies and maintenance of administrative space. Some parks

have used the USPP to cover special events and have reimbursed

the police for unbudgeted costs for overtime and travel. Although

this is not done extensively, it is often the most cost effective way

of providing for the safety and security of the public attending special events.

Business Plans.—The Committee continues to be encouraged by

the effort the Service is making, with the assistance of the National

Parks and Conservation Association (NPCA), on the development of

business plans over the last three years. Many of the superintendents that have participated in the business plan process describe

it as providing a variety of financial management benefits and the

Committee agrees.

NPCA and its partners have indicated that their commitment to

support this effort during the developmental phase will end this

year. The Committee has included $500,000 to fund the staff and

support costs needed in the Office of the Comptroller to develop a

process that will allow all parks to complete a business plan document. These plans should provide the means to streamline other

management process requirements, including strategic planning,

GPRA reporting, and budget tracking. The funds should be used to

integrate these processes to minimize the burden on park areas of

redundant and overlapping systems.

The Committee is seriously considering channeling additional

operational increases to parks that not only complete the business

plans but fully use them in the day-to-day management of the park

units. In order to measure progress in this area, all parks with

business plans should report to the Comptroller and the National

Leadership Council no later than March 1, 2002, on the level to

which they have implemented these plans. The Committee will

carefully review each park unit’s progress.

Backlog Maintenance/Recreation Fee.—The Committee commends the Administration’s commitment to eliminate serious backlog maintenance in our National Park System. This Committee has

demonstrated its support to this effort by channeling over $1 billion

additional dollars over the last five years through various funding

sources including repair/rehabilitation, cyclic maintenance, housing

replacement, major construction, and the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program, created through this bill in fiscal year 1996.

The Committee supports the Administration in focusing increases from various sources on eliminating both the operational

and maintenance backlogs of the park units while limiting the esVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:43 Jun 21, 2001 Jkt 073179 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR103.XXX pfrm11 PsN: HR103
43

tablishment of new or expanded initiatives to critically important

areas such as the Natural Resource Challenge.

The Administration’s fiscal year 2002 budget includes a directive

to dedicate $100,000,000 of the Recreational Fee money to backlog

maintenance. While the Committee agrees that attaining the Administration’s goal of eliminating serious backlog maintenance over

the next four years will require dedication of several different funding sources for this purpose, the Committee does not agree with

strictly mandating that a specific portion of recreation fee money

be set aside for several reasons. First, this may be an impossible

goal for some parks that have little deferred maintenance on which

to spend their fee money. Second, in establishing the fee program,

the Committee intended that fee revenues be used to address a

number of park issues, including preservation of cultural and natural resources and visitor enhancements. Third, and most important, the Committee made a commitment when it established this

program that the fee money would not be used as an offset for appropriated funds. The Committee has kept that promise by significantly increasing operational and construction programs over the

last six fiscal years.

The Committee continues to urge the Service to take seriously

their construction backlog needs when allocating fee money. To

date, approximately 60 percent of the funds have been dedicated to

backlog maintenance with an emphasis on health and safety

projects. The Committee carefully reviews the use of these fee dollars and strongly encourages the park units to continue to make

backlog maintenance projects a high priority. The Committee continues to agree with the leadership of the National Park Service

that these dollars should not be used for operational needs. The

Committee will continue to provide additional dollars to help alleviate the operational backlog needs of the system.

Recreational Fee Demonstration Program.—The Committee has

extended the recreational fee program an additional four years

through 2006. The program, established in fiscal year 1996, has

provided the Park Service with over $457,000,000 in additional revenue to date. The Committee notes that the cost of collection has

remained fairly static at 20.7 percent. The Committee strongly encourages the Service to reduce this cost through the use of more

innovative collection techniques that do not require personnel. The

Service should provide a report to the Committee by February 1,

2002, which details by park unit the cost of collection and the use

of staff and other collection methods.

Independence NHP.—The Committee has taken seriously its commitment to reduce the significant maintenance needs of Independence National Historical Park. Since 1992, the Committee has provided $65,000,000, including $7,549,000 in this bill, with a heavy

emphasis on eliminating health and safety problems. Several years

ago, the Committee was approached about a unique public-private

partnership to construct a new Gateway Visitor Center, a new Liberty Bell complex, an Independence Park Institute, and a National

Constitution Center (NCC) along with landscaping improvements.

The Federal share of the $65,600,000 redevelopment project was

$3,500,000 for landscaping. In addition, $60,000,000 was provided

to complete the Federal share of the National Constitution Center.

44

In addition, the Committee was assured by the non-Federal partners and the Park Service that the operational and cyclic maintenance repair costs would, for the most part, remain unchanged. A

commitment was made that all new structures on Independence

Mall, with the exception of the NCC, would be funded fully by park

partners or through private donations rather than through Federal

appropriated dollars. With the exception of the new Liberty Bell

Pavilion, all operational and cyclic maintenance costs for new

structures, including the NCC, are the responsibility of the nonFederal park partners.

The Committee is aware that the costs for these non-Federally

funded structures have increased because of alterations to the

original plans. The Committee has no intention of appropriating

additional dollars for this project or dedicating any recreational fee

demonstration money toward this effort and expects the non-Federal partners to fulfill their commitment to this partnership.

South Florida Restoration.—The Committee continues its longstanding commitment to the environmental restoration of the Everglades and other natural areas in South Florida. The Committee

has provided $125,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, $2,000,000 more

than the budget request for operations, science, construction and

land acquisition needs.

The Committee continues to be concerned about the continued reductions to the science budget for this initiative and the slow obligation rate for the funds that have been appropriated. The Committee was assured at the beginning of this project, that the

science would guide both the construction and land acquisition

needs of this project. Given that the science budget started at

$12,000,000 and has decreased to $4,000,000, the Committee wonders if just the opposite has occurred. Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to contract immediately with the National

Academy of Sciences to undertake a review of the effectiveness of

the science portion of this initiative. The Academy should study

how appropriated funds have been used, determine if there is a

specific plan or strategy for research, and evaluate how the research has been applied to both the construction and acquisition requirements of this effort. The results of this study should be forwarded to the Committee no later than January 1, 2003.

Partnerships.—The Committee has included bill language in the

operations account which prohibits the Service from establishing a

new Associate Director position for Partnerships. Also denied is the

request for $5,000,000 for the National Park Foundation.

The Committee is perplexed by these requests. There is currently

an Associate Director for Cultural Resources, Stewardship and

Partnerships. As part of this office there are many individuals who

are working exclusively on partnerships throughout the Service.

Providing yet another leadership position to work on partnerships

and business practices appears to be duplicative and suggests that

partnerships and business practices are programs rather than techniques the Service is using to implement program goals.

The National Park Foundation was established to receive funds

and donations and raise monies for National Park units. With all

the unmet needs of the System, the Committee is not inclined to

provide funds to raise funds. The Committee would support the National Park Foundation working on projects that the Service and

45

the Administration considers high priorities, such as backlog maintenance projects that are in the agency’s five year plan.

The Committee is aware of concerns among the regional directors

and superintendents about the interaction between the Washington

Partnership Office, the field and regions. The Committee strongly

encourages all parties to work together to resolve these differences

so that park driven partnerships continue to flourish. The Committee encourages the Service to re-think its overall strategy for

partnership programs and management and to develop an approach that will (1) consolidate related partnership programs and

activities within the existing organizational structure to ensure

that existing staff and dollars are being used effectively to meet

National Park priorities; (2) develop a management framework that

actively involves all key headquarters, regional office and park representatives; and (3) support and assist regional office and park

priorities.

The Committee reminds the Service that partnerships have existed for many years. They should be encouraged when they meet

a priority need of individual park units. The Service should be cautious about situations that require longstanding operational and

maintenance commitments of non-Federal partners as opposed to

one-time construction needs. Considering the operational backlog

need that exists today, the Service should be cautious about partnership projects that result in new operational requirements. The

Service should not be involved in developing complicated, new, bureaucracies that focus on the number of new partnerships rather

than quality partnerships. Most importantly, the Service should

plan to use existing staff, park partners and the National Park

Foundation rather than hiring new FTEs. Partnership efforts

should enhance the priorities of the park rather than compete with

the existing operational and maintenance backlog needs.

The Committee requests that the National Park Foundation prepare a report on the progress being made to help parks and regional offices raise funds. The report should include a summary of

the funds raised by the Foundation for the individual parks and regional offices since October 1, 1996, as well as the amount of National Park funds which have gone to support the foundation’s efforts to leverage private monies. The report should be transmitted

to the Committee by January 15, 2002.

Park Construction.—The National Park Service is reminded that

construction funding competes against operational dollars for parks

and programs within the Subcommittee’s 302 (b) funding allocation. Superintendents should know that every additional dollar

that is pursued for construction and or land acquisition projects

that are not included in the President’s budget is a dollar that is

not available for operational requirements in the park units. When

a park receives funding for a construction project not in the President’s budget, other projects requested in the budget are deleted.

Regional directors should strongly discourage superintendents from

this practice. If there is to be a legitimate process for selecting priority construction projects, which is currently choosing by advantage, the parks should respect that process.

The Committee is also extremely concerned about the cost and

size of proposed visitor centers, heritage centers, and/or environmental education centers. Increasingly, the Committee is preVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:43 Jun 21, 2001 Jkt 073179 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR103.XXX pfrm11 PsN: HR103
46

sented, outside of the Administration’s budget proposal and fiveyear construction plan, proposed projects that are predicated on

considerable future increases in both visitation and park staffing to

justify facilities. In addition, nearly five years ago, this Committee

cautioned the parks to be more realistic in the development of park

General Management Plans with regard to new buildings of this

nature. That caution clearly has been ignored. Several recent proposals recommend visitor type facilities that were totally unacceptable and unrealistic.

The Committee expects the regional directors to be responsible

for personally scrutinizing these projects at the earliest stage of development to ensure that they are realistic and attainable in light

of existing and likely future budget realities. Consideration should

be given to the size of the facility, the location, current visitation

and staffing levels. The parks should be aware that the Committee

has funded very few visitor centers in recent years in order to reduce critical backlog needs, it has reduced the size of these centers

and required non-Federal cost sharing for many of them. The Committee is skeptical of visitation increases that are predicated upon

the completion of capital infrastructure. Visitor centers should be

considered within the regular framework for prioritizing construction projects.

While the Development Advisory Board (DAB) provides some review of project scope, these reviews do not happen until projects

are well beyond the conceptual phase and are into detailed design.

The Committee appreciates the work being done by the DAB and

strongly encourages the Board to continue to review carefully and

refine the costs and scope of construction projects.

The Service should prepare a report which describes options for

a process on how the general management planning and project

conception processes can be modified to address these concerns.

The Service should focus on options, which change or modify existing practices and procedures, and not expect increased funding to

add new processes or staff. The Committee expects the active participation of the National Leadership Council. This report should

be transmitted to the Committee no later than February 1, 2002.

In addition, the Service should move expeditiously to complete

work on proposed design standards and cost estimating tools that

will provide an important basis on which to determine the appropriate size and scope of proposed facilities. The Committee views

the completion of these efforts as an important step for the Service

to assure credibility in the management of its construction program. Funds should be identified within the professional services

arena to complete these projects. The Service should report to the

Committee no later than January 15, 2002.

Other.—The Committee is concerned about the effect that the

RM–57 policy related to medical standards for park rangers is having on the morale of all rangers and on the retention of experienced

and otherwise qualified rangers. The Committee encourages the

Service to consider additional changes to the standards including

applying the standards to new applicants only.

The National Park Service is directed to seek proposals from the

private sector as well as State and local governments to provide,

operate and maintain wet and dry slips at the Belle Haven Marina.

Land use should be limited to the current marina footprint except

47

that there should be no boat slips beyond the current sailing school

dock on the lagoon side of the peninsula. Extensions into the Potomac River beyond the current marina limits should first be evaluated for any impacts to Dyke Marsh. All work should comply with

current environmental laws. The Service should continue all concession activities during this interim review period.

Within available funds, the Service should provide $10,000 to

study an extension of the George Washington trail from its current

terminus at the American Legion Bridge through the Dranesville

District Park to Georgetown Pike. This amount is contingent on a

non-Federal match. Any future planning or acquisition needs

should be met by State or local governments.

Within available funds, the Service is directed to undertake a

study of the potential for expanded opportunities for additional

camping in Yosemite National Park. The study should identify

costs and other factors and should be completed and submitted to

the Committee no later than December, 2002.

The Committee also directs the Service to move forward expeditiously with the reconstruction of the Yosemite Lodge area, including associated restoration, the rerouting of Northside Drive, the Indian Cultural Center, and the Camp 4 expansion. The Service is

authorized to expend the necessary funding from the Flood Recovery appropriation to carry out these studies, including design for

the Yosemite Lodge, Camp 4 and the Indian Cultural Center areas.

The Committee expects the Service to begin implementation of

the Yosemite Valley Plan, concentrating its priorities on flood recovery, actions to enhance the visitor experience and access, expanding the in-valley shuttle system with clean-fuel technology,

restoration and implementing projects that make use of flood recovery, fee program and donated funds. The Committee expects the

Service to submit a list, within 60 days of enactment of this Act,

of projects it intends to initiate and complete by the end of fiscal

year 2004.

In addition, the Committee directs the Service to actively cooperate and participate with local counties in the preparation of county

general plans and to determine whether park administrative facilities, visitor services and facilities, housing or other facilities necessary for park operations can be located outside the boundaries of

the park. A report on the progress of this effort should be submitted to the Committee in December, 2002 and every year thereafter.

While the Committee continues to support the concept of a transportation system outside the boundary of Yosemite National Park,

it appears that there are a number of unanswered questions regarding its cost and location. The Committee expects that no action

will be taken without the concurrence of the House and Senate

Committees on Appropriation.

The Committee continues to be supportive of the Revolutionary

War/War of 1812 Study, which has been underway since fiscal year

1999. Although the Service has informed the Committee that additional funds are not needed in fiscal year 2002, the Committee expects that this effort will continue at a vigorous pace. Should the

Service find that they are in need of additional funds in fiscal year

2002, adequate funds should be provided.

48

The Committee supports the decision by the Ozark National Scenic Riverways (ONSR) to retain the carpentry and maintenance positions at the park. The Committee recognizes the urgent needs at

ONSR for key carpentry and maintenance personnel who have specialized skills in properly maintaining park facilities. The Committee expects that these maintenance positions will be retained at

ONSR.

The Committee commends the Service for beginning to include

the role of slavery in its interpretations at Civil War Battlefields

and Monuments. The inclusion of the role of slavery in the Civil

War has begun to provide a more complete and accurate historical

picture of its role in the War and the National Parks. The Committee encourages the Service to continue to diversify and expand

its interpretations where appropriate and to include how these

changes affect the demographics of National Park usage in its

quinquennial visitor demographic reports.

The Committee urges the Service to begin preparations for the

sesquicentennial of the start of the Civil War. The Committee requests that the Service form a blue ribbon panel to prepare a study

and report to the Congress on the most appropriate way to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the start of the Civil War while

including a complete and accurate historical picture of significant

events during the conflict.

The Committee notes that the Administration’s National Energy

Policy recognizes hydrogen fuel cells as a ‘‘promising type of distributed energy system’’ that is extremely ‘‘clean and efficient’’. The

Committee encourages the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service, in consultation with the Department of Energy, to investigate the use of hydrogen fuel cells in meeting the

goals of the Green Energy Parks program.

Coinciding with the start of the Centennial of Flight Celebration,

the Committee encourages the NPS to increase operational funds

for the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park to initiate educational programming and to provide adequate staffing of

the Wright-Dunbar and Huffman Prairie Flying Field Interpretive

Centers when these facilities are completed in 2002.

UNITED STATES PARK POLICE

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $77,876,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 65,260,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 65,260,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... ¥12,616,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The Committee recommends $65,260,000 for the United States

Park Police, a reduction of $12,616,000 from the enacted level and

the same as the budget request.

CONTRIBUTION FOR ANNUITY BENEFITS

The Committee has included bill language under this heading

which directs that the costs of the USPP pension plan be covered

the same way as the U.S. Secret Service by establishing a permanent, indefinite account with payments made directly to the District of Columbia by the U.S. Treasury on an actual cost monthly

49

basis. The cost associated with this legislative language is

$22,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.

NATIONAL RECREATION AND PRESERVATION

The National recreation and preservation appropriation provides

for the outdoor recreation planning, preservation of cultural and

National heritage resources, technical assistance to Federal, State

and local agencies, administration of Historic Preservation Fund

grants and statutory and contractual aid.

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $59,827,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 48,039,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 51,804,000

Comparison:.

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... ¥8,023,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ +3,765,000

The Committee recommends $51,804,000 for National recreation

and preservation, a decrease of $8,023,000 below the 2001 level and

$3,765,000 above the budget request.

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the

budget estimate by activity are shown in the following table:

50

51

Recreation programs.—The Committee recommends $549,000, an

increase of $8,000 above the enacted level and the same as the

budget request. Uncontrollable costs are provided.

Natural programs.—The Committee recommends $10,930,000, an

increase of $149,000 above the 2001 level and the same as the

budget request. Uncontrollable costs are provided. The Committee

is aware of a National Park Service effort to provide additional

funding for the eight established wild and scenic partnership rivers

located in the northeast. The Committee directs that the Service

give priority consideration to funding existing partnerships commitments, designated by Congress, such as these eight wild and scenic

rivers through the RTCA program which Congress has funded at

$8,213,000. The Service is reminded that other partnerships efforts

such as national heritage areas are also eligible for these funds.

Cultural programs.—The Committee recommends $20,019,000, a

decrease of $688,000 below the 2001 level and the same as the

budget request. Uncontrollable costs are provided. Within available

funds, the Committee expects that, through the National Center for

Preservation Technology, $250,000 will be provided to continue development of a model Heritage Education Initiative in cooperation

with Northeastern State University in Louisiana and $250,000 will

be provided to continue joint development of a Federal Preservation

Institute also located at the Northeastern State University. Within

available funds, $300,000 is for Heritage Preservation, Inc.

International park affairs.—The Committee recommends

$1,718,000, an increase of $16,000 above the 2001 level and the

same as the budget request. Uncontrollable costs are provided.

Environmental and compliance review.—The Committee recommends $397,000, an increase of $5,000 above the 2001 enacted

level and the same as the budget request. Uncontrollable costs are

provided.

Grant Administration.—The Committee recommends $1,582,000,

an increase of $28,000 above the 2001 level and the same as the

budget request. Uncontrollable costs are provided.

Statutory or contractual aid.—The Committee recommends

$4,151,000 for statutory or contractual aid, a reduction of

$9,715,000 below the 2001 level and an increase of $50,000 above

the budget request.

Heritage Partnership Program.—The Committee has provided

$12,458,000 for Congressional designated heritage areas, an increase of $2,174,000 above the enacted level and $3,715,000 above

the budget request. This amount provides $12,341,000 for the individual heritage areas (as shown in the table below) and $117,000

for administration.

The Committee strongly encourages the Park Service and the individual heritage areas to place priority attention on the completion and approval of management plans. The Committee gives priority consideration to areas that have approved completed plans.

Heritage areas are also eligible for Rivers, Trails and Conservation

program funds.

The Committee recommends the following distribution of funds:

Project Amount

America’s Agricultural Heritage Partnership (Silos and Smokestacks) ................................................................................................. $500,000

Augusta Canal National Heritage Area ............................................... 700,000

52

Project Amount

Automobile National Heritage Area ..................................................... 400,000

Cache La Poudre River Corridor .......................................................... 50,000

Cane River National Heritage Area ..................................................... 400,000

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

Erie Canalway National Heritage Area ............................................... 210,000

Essex National Heritage Area .............................................................. 1,000,000

Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area ..................................... 900,000

Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor ................... 500,000

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

Lackawanna Heritage Area .................................................................. 600,000

National Coal Heritage ......................................................................... 244,000

Ohio and Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor ............................... 1,000,000

Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Center 514,000

Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area ............................................... 1,000,000

Schuykill River Valley National Heritage Area .................................. 210,000

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

South Carolina National Heritage Corridor ........................................ 1,000,000

Tennessee Civil War Heritage Area ..................................................... 210,000

Wheeling National Heritage Area ........................................................ 593,000

Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area .............................................. 210,000

Project total ................................................................................. 12,341,000

URBAN PARK AND RECREATION FUND

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $29,934,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 0

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 30,000,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +66,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ +30,000,000

The Committee has included $30,000,000 for the Urban Park and

Recreation Fund, a slight increase over the enacted level. This program was not requested in the Administration’s budget. This program is funded under the conservation spending category.

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 within States to develop data for planning use.

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $94,239,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 67,055,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 77,000,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... ¥17,239,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ +9,945,000

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table:

53

54

The Committee recommends $77,000,000 for the historic preservation fund programs, a decrease of $17,239,000 below the 2001

level and an increase of $9,945,000 above the budget request.

These programs are funded under the conservation spending category.

The total amount provides $39,000,000 for State historic preservation offices, $3,000,000 for tribal grants, and $30,000,000 for the

Save America’s Treasures program. Funds are not provided for historically black colleges and universities because the Committee has

provided funding in previous bills to complete the authorized

projects.

The Committee has also provided $5,000,000 for a grant to the

National Trust for Historic Preservation, to assist in the perpetual

care and maintenance of the historic sites of the National Trust

Preservation in the United States, a congressionally-chartered organization authorized under 16 U.S.C. 461. The Committee intends

that the grant funds will be made available under the following

terms and conditions:

1. The full amount granted to the National Trust is to be deposited into a permanently restricted Historic Sites Fund account in

the same manner as other National Trust endowment funds. Any

income attributable to the grant will be added to the Historic Sites

Fund endowment account, and will be made available for authorized grant purposes.

2. The National Trust will make distributions from the amounts

deposited in the endowment fund account for the care and maintenance of National Trust Historic Sites, in amounts consistent with

its regularly established spending rate.

3. In accordance with established National Trust policy, distributions from the National Trust Historic Sites Fund account will be

matched as expended, dollar for dollar, with non-Federal funds

raised for the care and maintenance of National Trust Historic

Sites. Consequently, no further match requirement will be required

for the grant. Work carried out by the National Trust under the

grant will be in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s

Standards for the Treatment of Historic Places.

4. The National Trust will maintain adequate records and accounts relating to all financial transactions of, and distributions

from the National Historic Sites endowment account, and will

make such records available for audit and inspection by the National Park Service and the Comptroller General for a period of five

years following the date of the grant.

CONSTRUCTION

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $300,312,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 339,802,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 349,249,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +48,937,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ +9,447,000

The Committee recommends $349,249,000 for construction, an

increase of $48,937,000 above the 2001 level and $9,447,000 above

the budget request.

The Committee recommends the following distribution of funds:

55

Project Amount

Abraham Lincoln Library, IL ............................................................... $10,000,000

Acadia NP, ME (utilities and campgrounds) ....................................... 4,972,000

Apostle Islands NL, WI (utility systems) ............................................. 436,000

Big Bend NP, TX (replace sewer & planning) ..................................... 400,000

Big Cypress National Preserve, FL (rehabilitate trails) ..................... 5,500,000

Blue Ridge Parkway, NC (rehabilitate/replace guardrails) ................ 3,796,000

Boston NHP, MA (Bunker Hill) ............................................................ 3,751,000

Brown v. Board of Education NHS, KS (Monroe School) ................... 2,475,000

Cane River Creole NHP, LA (Oakland Plantation) ............................ 1,983,000

Cape Cod NS, MA (rehabilitation) ....................................................... 710,000

Cape Hatteras NS, NC (day-use facilities) .......................................... 1,173,000

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal NHP (preservation) .................................. 1,838,000

Colonial NHP, VA (Poor Potter) ........................................................... 718,000

Cuyahoga NP, OH (rehabilitation) ....................................................... 3,000,000

Dayton Aviation NHP, OH (Huffman & exhibits) .............................. 2,000,000

Delaware Water Gap NRA, PA (exhibits) ............................................ 500,000

Everglades NP, FL (modify water system) .......................................... 19,199,000

Everglades NP, FL (wastewater system) ............................................. 4,192,000

Fort McHenry NM & Historic Shrine, MD (rehabilitate seawall) ..... 1,480,000

Fort Washington Park, MD (restoration) ............................................ 700,000

Franklin D. Roosevelt NHS, NY (library) ............................................ 5,630,000

Gateway NRA (Jacob Riis/complete rehab.) ........................................ 4,130,000

Gateway NRA (Sandy Hook/provide safe access) ................................ 2,346,000

George Washington Memorial Parkway, VA (Arlington House) ........ 2,500,000

George Washington Memorial Parkway, MD (Glen Echo) ................. 2,400,000

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

Glacier Bay NP & Preserve, AK (maintenance facility) ..................... 4,233,000

Glacier NP, MT (stabilization) .............................................................. 6,000,000

Glacier NP, MT (water system) ............................................................ 5,485,000

Glen Canyon NRA, AZ (sewage system) .............................................. 5,138,000

Golden Gate NRA, CA (structural upgrade) ........................................ 13,000,000

Grand Canyon NP, AZ (rehabilitation) ................................................ 987,000

Great Smoky Mountains NP, TN (replace facilities) .......................... 4,703,000

Independence NHP, PA (replace walkways) ........................................ 966,000

Independence NHP, PA (utilities & exhibits) ...................................... 6,583,000

Jean Lafitt NHP & P, LA (rehabilitate Decatur House &

Chalmette) .......................................................................................... 500,000

John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley NHA ................................... 1,000,000

John Day Fossil Beds NM, OR (rehabilitation) .................................. 8,421,000

Keweenaw NHP, MI (rehabilitation) ................................................... 2,500,000

Lava Beds NM, CA ................................................................................ 4,131,000

Manassas NBP, VA (stabilization) ....................................................... 1,436,000

Mesa Verde NP, CO (reconstruction) ................................................... 4,037,000

Mojave National Preserve, CA (Kelso exhibits) .................................. 750,000

Morristown NHP, NJ (rehabilitation) .................................................. 600,000

Mt. Rainier NP, WA (Guide House) ..................................................... 1,500,000

National Capital-Parks-Central, VA (Jefferson Memorial) ................ 2,600,000

National Capital-Parks-Central, VA (Lincoln Memorial) ................... 4,992,000

National Capital-Parks-Central, VA (upgrade Ford’s Theatre) ......... 1,562,000

National Underground RR, OH ............................................................ 4,000,000

Olympic NP, WA (restoration) .............................................................. 25,847,000

Oregon Caves NM, OR .......................................................................... 1,004,000

Petrified Forest NP, AZ (water line) .................................................... 5,929,000

Point Reyes NS, CA (rehabilitation) .................................................... 1,285,000

Redwood NP, CA (remove failing roads) .............................................. 2,552,000

Saint Croix NSR, WI (planning) ........................................................... 360,000

Saint Croix Island IHS, ME (preservation) ......................................... 713,000

San Francisco Maritime National Historic Site .................................. 7,465,000

Sequoia NP, CA (restoration) ............................................................... 1,480,000

Stones River NB, TN (rehabilitation & planning) .............................. 2,900,000

SW Pennsylvania Heritage, PA (rehabilitation) ................................. 3,000,000

Timucuan Preserve, FL (signs & exhibits) .......................................... 500,000

Tumacacori NHP, AZ ............................................................................ 944,000

White House, DC (rehabilitation) ......................................................... 6,500,000

Wilson’s Creek NB, MO (complete library) ......................................... 250,000

Yellowstone NP, WY .............................................................................. 7,224,000

Yellowstone NP, WY (restoration & rehabilitation) ........................... 4,730,000

56

Yellowstone NP (water & wastewater treatment facility) .................. 2,008,000

Project Total .................................................................................... 246,044,000

Emergency/unscheduled ........................................................................ 3,500,000

Housing replacement ............................................................................. 15,000,000

Dam safety ............................................................................................. 2,700,000

Equipment replacement ........................................................................ 17,960,000

Construction planning ........................................................................... 16,250,000

Pre-design & Supp Services .................................................................. 9,150,000

Construction Program Management & Operation .............................. 17,405,000

General Management Plans ................................................................. 11,240,000

Regional Office Capacity ....................................................................... 10,000,000

Total Construction .......................................................................... $349,249,000

The Committee has included an additional $10,000,000 in this

account to assist regional offices deal with the increased workload

associated with reducing the backlog maintenance in the National

Park System. Since 1995, the Committee has tripled the line-item

construction and repair/rehabilitation programs and created the

Recreational Fee Demonstration Program, which has yielded nearly

$500,000,000 in additional non-appropriated funds primarily for

this purpose.

Coupled with the downsizing of the Denver Service Center, this

situation has added significantly to the workload and the regional

offices have had difficulty providing the needed services to the

parks. In response, the Committee agreed to a reprogramming of

$3,500,000 in fiscal year 1999 to help deal with this problem. The

Committee expects that this additional $10,000,000 will provide the

appropriate staffing levels and expertise to deal with this increased

focus on eliminating the serious construction backlog in the National Park System. The Committee cautions the Service to use

these funds wisely and notes that they are to be used exclusively

for the execution of repair/rehabilitation, fee demonstration, and

construction backlog projects. The Committee expects a report by

December 1st of each year on the allocation of these funds.

The Committee has included $3,000,000 for continued rehabilitation work at Cuyahoga National Park; $400,000 for the George

Washington Memorial Parkway and $3,000,000 for the Southwest

Pennsylvania Heritage Commission. Also included is $400,000 to

replace a water and sewer facility at Big Bend National Park and

$2,000,000 to continue ongoing development at Dayton Aviation

National Historical Park including work on the Huffman field and

exhibits. Within available planning funds, $400,000 is for Cuyahoga National Park.

The Committee has appropriated $1,000,000 to date on the rehabilitation work at Morristown National Historical Park. Included in

this bill is $600,000 to complete the planning. The Committee intends to appropriate $3,200,000 in fiscal year 2003 which will complete the Federal share of this project. The Committee expects the

Service to hold the total project cost to $6,000,000, of which

$2,800,000 will be provided from other Federal or private sources. Also included in the bill is $250,000 to complete the Wilson’s

Creek National Battlefield Library; $500,000 for exhibits in the

Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area; $500,000 to complete rehabilitation at the Decatur House and Chalmette, part of

the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park, and $2,900,000 to complete renovations at Stones River National Battlefield.

57

Within the amount appropriated for planning, $125,000 is provided to initiate a management plan for the Ogden City Historic

District. These funds are subject to a non-Federal match. The Committee has included $1,500,000 for health and safety re- pairs at the Guide House in Mt. Rainier National Park, $500,000

for signs and exhibits at Timucuan Ecological and Historical Preserve, which will be matched with non-Federal funds, $10,000,000

for the Lincoln Library, $4,000,000 for construction of the National

Underground Railroad Freedom Center, and $1,000,000 for the

Blackstone River Valley, NHA. The Committee has not included

$5,000,000 for the National Park Foundation. A more detailed explanation can be found in the operations account. As mentioned above, the Committee included $500,000 for rehabilitation work at Jean Lafitte NHP&P, including repairs to the

Decatur House in response to termite damage and for improvements at the Chalmette Battlefield. In a previous Act, the Committee directed the National Park Service to develop a task force

to work with the Service on improvements to this facility. The

Committee has yet to see those recommendations and directs the

Service to comply with the fiscal year 2000 request no later than

December 1, 2001.

The Committee is aware that the Service is currently planning

for a facility at Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument. The

total project cost should not exceed $3,000,000.

The Committee strongly supports the Little Bighorn Battlefield

National Monument Indian Memorial but was unable to include

funding at this time because of the focus, by both the Administration and the Committee on health and safety construction backlog

projects. Funding for this project, which would commemorate the

lives and traditions of the Cheyenne, Sioux, and other Indian nations, is long overdue. Should additional funding become available

in fiscal year 2002, the Committee intends to make this a high priority.

The Committee is aware of efforts by the Department of the Interior to work with State and local authorities to prepare land use

plans for the Bureau of Mines property near Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. The Committee has deferred consideration of funding for

this project pending conclusion of these discussions and presentation to the Committee of a land use plan which clarifies the total

cost of the project, the Federal share, and more precise details regarding the role to be played by the Federal government. The Committee is hopeful that a formal proposal can be considered prior to

conference on the fiscal year 2002 bill.

The Service has developed a plan for a multi-use facility in

Washita Battlefield NHS that is too large when compared with facilities with similar numbers of visitors and employees that are

elsewhere in the System and in other land managing bureaus. The

leadership of the Service shares this concern and has directed that

the facility be redesigned and downsized. The Service has acknowledged that they have the funds to redesign the facility and that

construction could not begin until fiscal year 2003. The Committee

directs that the final design of this joint facility be no more than

$4,000,000, including all construction, exhibits, office, public and

maintenance space, and all other items needed. The Committee intends to provide $3,500,000 in the fiscal year 2003 National Park

58

Service budget and $500,000 in the Forest Service budget for this

purpose. Any additional needs or unexpected cost overruns should

be met by non-Federal sources. Of the total amount provided for construction, $50,000,000 is

funded under the conservation spending category.

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

(RESCISSION)

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. ¥$30,000,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... ¥30,000,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... ¥30,000,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... 0

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The Committee recommends the rescission of $30,000,000 in annual contract authority provided by the 16 U.S.C. 460l–10a. This

authority has not been used in years, and there are no plans to use

it in fiscal year 2002.

LAND ACQUISITION AND STATE ASSISTANCE

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $215,141,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 557,036,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 261,036,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +45,895,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ ¥296,000,000

The Committee recommends $261,036,000 for land acquisition

and State assistance, an increase of $45,895,000 above the enacted

level and a reduction of $296,000,000 below the budget request.

This amount includes $87,667,000 for line item projects, $4,000,000

for emergencies and hardships, $12,000,000 for acquisition management, $3,369,000 for inholdings, and $154,000,000 for the Stateside program of which $4,000,000 is for administrative expenses.

The Committee recommends the following distribution of funds:

Committee

Area and State Recommendation

Blue Ridge Parkway, (NC/VA) .............................................................. $1,000,000

Brandywine Battlefield (PA) ................................................................. 1,500,000

Cape Cod NS (MA) ................................................................................ 2,000,000

Cumberland Gap NHP (KY/VA) ........................................................... 100,000

Cuyahoga Valley NP (OH) .................................................................... 1,000,000

Dayton Aviation Heritage NHP (OH) .................................................. 750,000

Death Valley NP (CA) ........................................................................... 150,000

Delaware Water Gap NRA (PA/NJ) ..................................................... 700,000

Ebey’s Landing NHR (WA) ................................................................... 1,000,000

Everglades—Grant to the State of Florida .......................................... 16,000,000

Everglades—Modified Water Delivery Project .................................... 20,000,000

Fort Sumter NM (SC) ............................................................................ 1,750,000

Fort Union Trading Post NHS (ND) .................................................... 100,000

Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County Battlefields Memorial

NMP (VA) ........................................................................................... 2,000,000

Golden Gate NRA—Mori Point (CA) .................................................... 2,500,000

Grand Teton NP (Resor Ranch) (WY) .................................................. 4,000,000

Great Sand Dunes NM&P (CO) ............................................................ 2,000,000

Greenbelt Park (Jaeger Tract) (MD) .................................................... 1,000,000

Guilford Courthouse NMP (NC) ........................................................... 800,000

Gulf Islands NS (Cat Island) (MS) ....................................................... 2,000,000

Ice Age NST (WI) ................................................................................... 2,500,000

Indiana Dunes NL (IN) ......................................................................... 2,000,000

Lowell NHP (MA) .................................................................................. 857,000

Mississippi NRRA (Riverview) (MN) .................................................... 850,000

59

Committee

Area and State Recommendation

Moccasin Bend NHS (Rock-Tenn and Serodino tracts) (TN) ............. 2,000,000

Mojave NP (CA) ..................................................................................... 1,300,000

Morristown NHP (NJ) ........................................................................... 750,000

North Cascades NP (Thunder Creek) (WA) ......................................... 1,000,000

Olympic NP (WA) .................................................................................. 1,210,000

Palo Alto Battlefield NHS (TX) ............................................................ 1,250,000

Pinnacles NM (CA) ................................................................................ 3,300,000

Saguaro NP (AZ) .................................................................................... 4,000,000

Sand Creek Massacre NHS (CO) .......................................................... 300,000

Santa Monica Mtns. NRA (Upper Ramirez Canyon) (CA) ................. 2,000,000

Shenandoah Valley Battlefields NHD (VA) ......................................... 2,000,000

Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve (FL) ................................ 1,000,000

Voyageurs NP (MN) ............................................................................... 1,000,000

Subtotal ........................................................................................ 87,667,000

Emergency & Hardship ......................................................................... 4,000,000

Inholdings & Exchanges ....................................................................... 3,369,000

Acquisition Management ....................................................................... 12,000,000

Total Federal ................................................................................... 107,036,000

Stateside Grants ............................................................................. 150,000,000

Stateside Administration ............................................................... 4,000,000

Grand Total ..................................................................................... 261,036,000

The Committee has retained the current allocation formula for

stateside grants.

The Committee has not provided funds for Gettysburg National

Military Park because the park has been carrying large unobligated balances for the last several years. Currently there is a $6

million balance available for land purchases. The funds for Greenbelt Park are subject to a non-Federal match.

The Committee has included land acquisition funds requested in

the President’s budget for the South Florida Restoration project despite the fact that there is a large unobligated balance. The Committee strongly encourages the Department of the Interior to spend

these previously appropriated funds as quickly as possible.

The Committee, with reservation, has included funds for the

Great Sand Dunes National Monument and Preserve. The Committee is aware that there is still a dispute between the landowners and the National Park Service and, thus, no final agreement to purchase. The Committee is concerned because there are

so many priority acquisition needs in the four land management

agencies with landowners that are willing to sell. While the Committee is very supportive of this project, consistent with longstanding Committee policy, it will consider reprogramming these

funds to other projects if a final deal is not forthcoming.

The $2,000,000 included for Santa Monica Mountains National

Recreational Area is for the acquisition of approximately 255 acres

of land in the Upper Ramirez Canyon that serve to link two of the

Park’s principal core habitat areas-Zuma-Trancas Complex and

Malibu Creek State Park. No funds included for Santa Monica

Mountains NRA shall be used to continue land acquisition for the

Backbone Trail. Adequate funds and lands have been provided by

previous appropriations and non-Federal purchases along the trail’s

alignment.

As is the past, the Committee directs that the Federal land acquisition at Santa Monica Mountains NRA be matched by non-Federal monies. This means new land or new dollars dedicated to the

60

protection of park lands within the recreation area’s boundaries. By

June 30 of each year, the Service shall certify the level of non-Federal contributions to land acquisition at this site. It is the Committee’s intent that land acquisition funds that may be provided in

subsequent appropriations will not exceed the value of the non-Federal effort for the prior certification period. The Service is encouraged to review non-Federal appraisals, wherever possible, in certifying the non-Federal contribution.

Funds included for Moccasin Bend NHS are subject to authorization.

The Committee has included bill language under Administrative

Provisions which permits the conveyance of a leasehold or freehold

interest in the Cuyahoga National Park.

UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

The United States Geological Survey was established by an act

of Congress on March 3, 1879 to provide a permanent Federal

agency to conduct the systematic and scientific ‘‘classification of the

public lands, and examination of the geological structure, mineral

resources, and products of the National domain’’. The USGS is the

Federal Government’s largest earth-science research agency, the

Nation’s largest civilian mapmaking agency, and the primary

source of data on the Nation’s surface and ground water resources.

Its activities include conducting detailed assessments of the energy

and mineral potential of the Nation’s land and offshore areas; investigating and issuing warnings of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, and other geologic and hydrologic hazards; research on the geologic structure of the Nation; studies of the geologic features, structure, processes, and history of other planets of

our solar system; topographic surveys of the Nation and preparation of topographic and thematic maps and related cartographic

products; development and production of digital cartographic data

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

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $882,800,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 813,376,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 900,489,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +17,689,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ +87,113,000

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table:

61

62

63

The Committee recommends $900,489,000 for surveys, investiga- tions, and research, an increase of $87,113,000 above the budget

request and an increase of $17,689,000 above the 2001 enacted

level.

The Committee restored a number of high-priority research program that were proposed for reduction or elimination. The Committee believes that the Department of the Interior and other Federal agencies should make resource decisions based on the best

science available. The Survey’s principal goals and objectives

should include an appropriate mix of basic and applied science that

address both the needs of the Department of the Interior as well

as important scientific issues of national concern. The Committee

has commissioned a number of studies by the Survey and the National Academy of Sciences that provided detailed recommendations on a program by program basis. The Committee believes that

this informed process should help the Department develop a better

science agency serving the Nation’s best long-term interests.

National mapping program.—The Committee recommends

$130,673,000 for the national mapping program, an increase of

$7,005,000 above the budget request and $247,000 above the 2001

level, including increases above the 2001 level of $1,829,000 for

fixed costs and $7,000 for the gateway to the Earth program for a

total program level of $3,000,000 and decreases of $500,000 for the

civil applications program, $589,000 for the urban dynamics program, and $500,000 for the earth science information center consolidation.

Geologic hazards, resources and processes.—The Committee recommends $228,187,000 for geologic hazards, resources, and processes, an increase of $14,384,000 above the budget request and

$2,866,000 above the 2001 level, including increases above the 2001

level of $3,761,000 for fixed costs, $400,000 for the advanced seismic network, $1,000,000 for the expansion of the coastal geology

program and decreases of $299,000 for Hoover Dam, $1,522,000 for

the Alaska minerals program, and $474,000 for the Yukon Flats assessment.

The Committee continues to hold the view that the minerals information program is an important and appropriate function for

the Survey, The Committee understands that the Survey’s minerals program will be reviewed by the National Research Council

in fiscal year 2002. The Committee looks forward to the findings

of this review, especially as they relate to the Survey’s mineral information activities.

The Committee has maintained funding for light distancing and

ranging (LIDAR) technology at the 2001 level to assist with the

listing of Chinook Salmon and Summer Chum Salmon under the

Endangered Species Act. These funds should be used in the Puget

Sound region to contract for the continued mapping of drainage

systems, stream systems, and to identify potentially unstable

slopes.

The Committee reiterates its position relative to the need to enhance and expand the Survey’s coastal geology program, and therefore has provided an increase of $1,000,000 above the enacted level

for the Coastal and Marine Geology program to continue the process of developing a comprehensive multi-disciplinary coastal program within the Survey. The Committee directs the Survey to conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:43 Jun 21, 2001 Jkt 073179 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR103.XXX pfrm11 PsN: HR103
64

tinue in the development of a coastal program beginning with the

Southeast region with a research agenda designed to address the

most critical issues facing this region. The Committee recommends

that this work be conducted with goals and objectives consistent

with the discussion of ‘‘Future Program Emphasis’’ contained in the

National Academy review of the Survey’s Coastal and Marine Geology program. The Committee further directs the Survey to develop

a comprehensive national coastal program as part of the fiscal year

2003 budget request.

The Committee has continued the Survey’s current programs

that address water quality, land subsidence, and sea-level rise in

coastal Louisiana. The Committee would support efforts by the

Survey to expand these programs to Lake Pontchartrain. The Committee understands that the University of New Orleans has similar

efforts underway, and would encourage the Survey to coordinate

any future activities with the University and the Pontchartrain

Management Conference.

As was the case last year, and the year before, the Committee

continues to believe that the Survey’s highest hazards-related priority should be to continue to upgrade its various hazards monitoring networks, to acquire quality hazards information, and to engage in quality research. Therefore, the Committee has provided

funding for the Survey’s ‘‘Real Time Hazards’’ initiative.

Water resources investigations.—The Committee recommends

$205,520,000 for water resources investigations an increase of

$46,037,000 above the budget request and an increase of

$2,007,000 above the 2001 level, including increases above the 2001

level of $2,794,000 for fixed costs and $540,000 for the water resources research institutes, and decreases of $299,000 for the Lake

Champlain study, $499,000 for the Hawaii ground water study,

$195,000 for Noyes Slough in Alaska, and $334,000 for the Maryland ground water study, which still provides $100,000 for the continuation of this project.

Within the funds provided for the water resources division up to

$1,000,000 is for the Survey to participate in the university based

consortium called the Long-Term Estuary Assessment Group for

the purpose of developing assessment and monitoring systems relating to the Mississippi River.

The Committee is concerned about the future of water availability for the Nation. Water is vital to the needs of growing communities, agriculture, energy production, and critical ecosystems.

Unfortunately, a nationwide assessment of water availability for

the United States does not exist, or, at best, is several decades old.

The Committee directs that by January 31, 2002, the Survey prepare a report describing the scope and magnitude of the efforts

needed to provide periodic assessments of the status and trends in

the availability and use of freshwater resources.

The Committee directs the Survey to contract with the National

Academy of Sciences to examine water resources research funded

by all Federal agencies and by significant non-Federal organizations that fund water resources research. The research to be examined should include the topics of water quality, quantity, and water

use. The Academy’s report should suggest the content and coordination mechanisms for a comprehensive water research program

for the Nation, as well as examination of the adequacy of current

65

coordination mechanisms. The report should respond to the question of whether the Nation is making an adequate level of investment in water resources research and describe how the Nation can

benefit from water resources research.

In light of severe drought conditions, the Survey is urged to work

with the Flint River Water Planning and Policy Center to identify

critical stream gaging stations that would be needed for real time

water flow data.

Biological research.—The Committee recommends $163,461,000

for biological research an increase of $14,199,000 above the budget

request and an increase of $2,892,000 above the 2001 level, including increases from the 2001 level of $2,904,000 for fixed costs,

$500,000 for amphibian research, $500,000 for the National Biological Information Infrastructure, (Tennessee node), and $416,000

for the Great Lakes research vessel, and decreases of $748,000 for

the Mark Twain lead study, $500,000 for CBI, and $180,000 for the

Yukon salmon study.

The Committee has continued funding for the current management and operation of the National Office of the Gap Analysis Program in Moscow, Idaho. The Committee supports this ongoing effort and directs the National Office to administer all funds provided for GAP, with the mission of completing a nation-wide GAP

dataset of both land and aquatic resources. The National Office

should provide a report to the Committee no later than May 1,

2002 on the allocation of funds to State projects.

Science support.—The Committee recommends $86,255,000 for

science support, an increase of $4,989,000 above the budget request

and $12,523,000 above the 2001 level for fixed costs.

Facilities.—The Committee recommends $86,393,000 for facilities, an increase of $499,000 above the budget request and a decrease $2,846,000 below the 2001 level, including increases above

the 2001 level of $8,378,000 for fixed costs and decreases of

$898,000 in on-time emergency supplemental funds, and

$10,326,000 as a technical adjustment to realign bureau support

costs.

MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE

The Minerals Management Service is responsible for collecting,

distributing, accounting and auditing revenues from mineral leases

on Federal and Indian lands. In fiscal year 2002, MMS expects to

collect and distribute about $6.2 billion from more than 80,000 active Federal and Indian leases.

The MMS also manages the offshore energy and mineral resources on the Nation’s Outer Continental Shelf. To date, the OCS

program has been focused primarily on oil and gas leasing. Over

the past few years, MMS has begun 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.

66

ROYALTY AND OFFSHORE MINERALS MANAGEMENT

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $133,116,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 149,368,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 149,867,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +16,751,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ +499,000

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table:

67

68

The Committee recommends $149,867,000 for royalty and off- shore minerals management, an increase of $499,000 above the

budget request and an increase of $16,751,000 above the 2001

level. The Committee recommendation includes increases above the

2001 level of $8,962,000 for fixed costs, $1,963,000 for financial

management, $4,003,000 for minerals revenue management transition, $7,396,000 for the Gulf of Mexico workload, and $7,300,000 to

continue the royalty-in-kind pilot programs, and decreases of

$14,967,000 for royalty reengineering, $1,987,000 for bureau

streamlining, and $599,000 for the Center for Marine Resources

and Environmental Technology. Changes in appropriated funds

also reflect an increase of $4,680,000 resulting from a decline in

offsetting receipts in the OCS lands activity.

OIL SPILL RESEARCH

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $6,105,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 6,105,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 6,105,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... 0

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The Committee recommends $6,105,000, to be derived from the

Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, to conduct oil spill research and financial responsibility and inspection activities associated with the

Oil Pollution Act of 1990, Public Law 101–380. The Committee recommendation is equal to both the budget request and the fiscal

year 2001 level.

OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

(OSM), through its regulation and technology account, regulates

surface coal mining operations to ensure that the environment is

protected during those operations and that the land is adequately

reclaimed once mining is completed. The OSM accomplishes this

mission by providing grants to those States that maintain their

own regulatory and reclamation programs and by conducting oversight of State programs. Further, the OSM administers the regulatory programs in the States that do not have their own programs

and on Federal and tribal lands.

Through its abandoned mine land (AML) reclamation fund account, the OSM provides environmental restoration at abandoned

coal mines using tonnage-based fees collected from current coal

production operations. In their unreclaimed condition these abandoned sites may endanger public health and safety or prevent the

beneficial use of land and water resources.

REGULATION AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $100,854,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 102,175,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 103,175,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +2,321,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ +1,000,000

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table:

69

70

The Committee recommends $103,175,000 for Regulation and technology, including the use of $275,000 in civil penalty collections, which is $1,000,000 above the request and $2,321,000 above

the 2001 level. The increased funding will cover the OSM fixed cost

increases and help the States with their fixed cost increases. The

Committee is concerned that the large, one-time appropriation for

the West Virginia State program last year has not been fully utilized.

ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION FUND

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $201,992,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 166,783,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 203,554,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +1,562,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ +36,771,000

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table:

71

72

The Committee recommends $203,554,000 for the Abandoned

mine reclamation fund, an increase of $1,562,000 above the 2001

funding level and $36,771,000 above the request. The Committee

recognizes the great amount of reclamation work that remains to

be done and has maintained the funding increase for this program

which was provided the past two years. The Committee does not

have the resources this year to continue the special allocation provided in fiscal year 2001 for the anthracite region of Pennsylvania

but the Committee does recognize how important, and large, the

clean-up work is for this region. The Committee has continued the

authority for the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative at a total

of $10,000,000, returned the minimum State funding level to

$1,500,000 as it was prior to fiscal year 2001, and provided

$500,000 to continue the demonstration project in Pennsylvania

dealing with resource recovery from acid mine drainage.

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 one million Native Americans

through 12 regional offices and 83 agency offices. In addition, the

Bureau provides education programs to Native Americans through

the operation of 115 day schools, 56 boarding schools, and 14 dormitories. Lastly, the Bureau administers more than 43 million

acres of tribally owned land, and 11 million acres of individually

owned land.

OPERATION OF INDIAN PROGRAMS

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $1,738,575,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 1,780,486,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 1,790,781,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +52,206,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ +10,295,000

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table:

73

74

75

76

The Committee recommends $1,790,781,000 for the operation of Indian programs, an increase of $10,295,000 above the budget request and an increase of $52,206,000 above the fiscal year 2001

level. The Committee agrees to all internal transfers by the BIA in

the budget request. The Committee has provided increases above

the enacted level to continue to fund the Administration’s request

to fix the long-standing problems associated with management of

the Indian trust funds.

Tribal priority allocations.—The Committee recommends

$753,830,000 for tribal priority allocations, an increase of

$3,350,000 above the budget request and $20,805,000 above the

2001 level, including increases above the 2001 level of $1,376,000

resulting from internal transfers, $8,611,000 for fixed costs,

$3,350,000 for self governance compacts fixed costs, $3,000,000 for

the ISD fund, $11,000 for contract support, 1,500,000 for tribal

courts, $1,000,000 for real estate services, $3,000,000 for real estate appraisals, and $1,500,000 for probate backlog and a decrease

of $2,543,000 for welfare assistance.

Other recurring programs.—The Committee recommends

$584,748,000 for other recurring programs, an increase of

$5,320,000 above the budget request and $17,893,000 above the

2001 level, including increases above the 2001 level of $6,728,000

for fixed costs, $9,129,000 for ISEP school operations program,

$1,000,000 for tribally controlled community colleges, $400,000 for

Columbia River fisheries management, $285,000 for the Great

Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, and $454,000 for the

bison program, and a decrease of $103,000 for internal transfers.

Non-recurring programs.—The Committee recommends

$68,876,000 for non-recurring programs, an increase of $1,104,000

above the budget request and a decrease of $2,317,000 below the

2001 level, including increases above the 2001 level of $559,000 for

fixed costs and $75,000 for the Washington ferry assessment, and

decreases of $56,000 for internal transfers, $256,000 for self governance grants, $998,000 for the distance learning project,

$299,000 for tribal guiding light, $146,000 for Alaska legal services,

and $1,196,000 for the Signal Peek road project.

Within the $3,000,000 provided for the ‘‘Jobs in the Woods’’ initiative, $400,000 should continue to be used by the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission for the Wildstock Restoration Initiative.

The Committee has provided $75,000 for the Bureau to work cooperatively with the State of Washington, the Department of

Transportation, and other stakeholders on an assessment of Northwest ferry operations and capital facility needs. Bureau funding is

limited on this project at this time to cooperation on the assessment.

Central office operations.—The Committee recommends

$58,105,000 for central office operations, the same as the budget

request and an increase of $369,000 above the 2001 level, including

increases above the 2001 level of $590,000 for fixed costs,

$1,000,000 for ADP services, and $2,000,000 for security investigations associated with trust fund reform, and decreases of

$3,221,000 for internal transfers.

Regional office operations.—The Committee recommends

$62,679,000 for regional office operations, the same as the budget

request and an increase of $7,367,000 above the 2001 level, includVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:43 Jun 21, 2001 Jkt 073179 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR103.XXX pfrm11 PsN: HR103
77

ing increases above the 2001 level of $1,524,000 for fixed costs and

$3,843,000 for internal transfers, $1,000,000 for range management, and $1,000,000 for land title and records.

Special programs and pooled overhead.—The Committee recommends $262,543,000 for special programs and pooled overhead,

an increase of $521,000 above the budget request and an increase

of $8,089,000 above the 2001 level, including increases above the

2001 level of $6,089,000 for fixed costs and $5,000,000 for the law

enforcement initiative, and decreases of $897,000 for the

Crownpoint Institute, $1,000,000 for employee displacement costs,

and $1,103,000 for internal transfers.

No funds were requested in the fiscal year 2002 budget for the

Crownpoint Institute of Technology. The Committee has deferred

consideration of funding for the Institute at this time, pending clarification of the funding situation at Crownpoint, because of confusion about various funding sources for support of the Institute. The

2001 Appropriations Act required the Institute to supply to the

Committee a report detailing total revenues and expenditures. At

the time of Committee action on the 2002 bill, the required report

had not been submitted. Pending submission of the required report,

the Committee cannot approve further funds for the Institute.

The Committee encourages the Bureau to support efforts of New

Mexico Native American Pueblos in the Rio Grand Valley to improve the habitat of their lands which in turn will improve the

quality of water in the Rio Grand River. The Committee believes

that the Bureau should be actively involved in providing technical

assistance to the Pueblos as part of an overall effort by the Department to minimize the social and economic impacts of the endangered silvery minnow.

The Committee remains concerned that the Bureau has shown

little progress in addressing the land issues of the Canoncito Band

of Navajos. The Committee directs the Bureau to accelerate its efforts to open, at least, a part time lands office at Canoncito, New

Mexico.

The Committee is aware of two innovative programs underway

by the Tohono O’odham Nation in Arizona. The Nation has developed a Higher Education Services program to assist tribal members

in identifying available funding sources for higher education, as

well as preparatory course work. The Nation has also developed an

employment assistance program to assist tribal members to find

employment through direct employment assistance and vocational

training. The Committee encourages the Bureau to favorably review these programs as it develops the 2003 budget.

CONSTRUCTION

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $356,618,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 357,132,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 357,132,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +514,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table:

78

79

The Committee recommends $357,132,000 for construction, the

same as the budget request and $514,000 above the fiscal year

2001 level.

Education.—The Committee recommends $292,503,000 for education construction as requested and $162,000 above the 2001 level.

Funding is provided for six replacement schools: the Wingate

Dorm, NM; the Polacca Day School, AZ; the Holbrook Dorm, AZ;

the Sante Fe Indian School, NM; the Ojibwa Indian School, ND;

and the Paschal Sherman Indian School, WA. Advance planning

and design is funded at $5,000,000, employee housing is funded at

$3,114,000, and facilities improvement and repair is funded at

$161,590,000.

The Committee has provided phase I funding for the Sante Fe

Indian School. The Bureau is directed to provide phase II funding

as part of its 2003 budget submission.

Public safety and justice.—The Committee recommends

$5,541,000 for public safety and justice, the same as the budget request and $12,000 above the 2001 level.

Resources management.—The Committee recommends

$50,645,000 for resources management, the same as the budget request and $111,000 above the 2001 level.

General administration and construction management.—The

Committee recommends $8,443,000 for general administration and

construction management, the same as the budget request and

$229,000 above the 2001 level.

The Committee has included bill language allowing the Bureau

to use funds from settlements arising from cost overruns at the

Dunseith Day School on the Turtle Mountain Reservation to be

used for other school construction needs.

INDIAN LAND AND WATER CLAIM SETTLEMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS

PAYMENTS TO INDIANS

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $37,443,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 60,949,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 60,949,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +23,506,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The Committee recommends $60,949,000 for Indian land and

water claim settlements and miscellaneous payments to Indians,

the same as the budget request and an increase of $23,506,000

above the 2001 level. Funding includes $625,000 for White Earth,

$250,000 for Hoopa-Yurok, $24,728,000 for the Ute settlement,

$142,000 for Pyramid Lake, $7,950,000 for Rocky Boys, $6,254,000

for Michigan Great lakes fishing, $5,000,000 for the Shiviwitz

Band, $2,000,000 for Santo Domingo Pueblo, $8,000,000 for Colorado Ute, and $6,000,000 for Torres Martinez.

INDIAN GUARANTEED LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $4,977,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 4,986,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 4,986,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +9,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

80

The Committee recommends $4,986,000 for the Indian guaran- teed loan program account as requested and an increase of $9,000

above the 2001 level.

DEPARTMENTAL OFFICES

INSULAR AFFAIRS

ASSISTANCE TO TERRITORIES

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, U.S. Virgin Islands and the Commonwealth of

the Northern Marianas Islands (CNMI) and also the three freely

associated States: the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), the

Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) and the Republic of Palau.

The permanent and trust fund payments to the territories and the

compact nations provide substantial financial resources to these

governments.

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $75,366,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 69,450,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 72,289,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... ¥3,077,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ +2,839,000

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table:

81

82

The Committee recommends $72,289,000 for assistance to territories, $3,077,000 below the fiscal year 2001 level and $2,839,000

above the budget request.

Territorial Assistance.—The Committee recommends $21,469,000,

$3,174,000 below the fiscal year 2001 level and $2,839,000 above

the budget request. The increase above the budget request includes

$800,000 for Guam compact impact payments, $500,000 for CNMI

compact impact payments, up to $200,000 for a grant to the Virgin

Islands Water and Power Authority Buy-out Committee to conduct

a detailed study of the feasibility of altering the utility situation in

the territory, and $1,339,000 for the Virgin Islands emergency loan

repayment. The Committee has provided a special allocation of $1,339,000

for the Virgin Islands in order to forgive previous emergency loans

to the Territory that were used to recover from the economic impact from Hurricane Hugo. The Committee has also given the Secretary authority to use other Federal funds, previously appropriated to the Virgin Islands, but not yet expended, for emergency

loan forgiveness, up to a total of $3,500,000, if the $1,339,000 allocation is not sufficient. Under the terms of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, as amended, agency action to forgive a borrower’s

repayment obligations on a direct loan constitutes a modification of

such direct loan and requires an appropriation to cover the cost of

such modification. In fiscal year 2001, the Virgin Islands Community Disaster Loan No. 841, made following Hurricane Hugo in

1989, was modified when a portion of the accrued interest on the

loan was forgiven. The net present value of the loan to the United

States, thereafter, was reestimated as provided by OMB Circular

No. A–11. Following reestimate, the net present value of this loan does not now exceed $3,500,000, and will not exceed such amount

when the funds provided herein are made available. Of the

amounts made available for technical assistance, up to $1,339,000

shall be transferred to the Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) to cover the cost of FEMA’s forgiveness of the entire

amount of the repayment obligation and for the cancellation of the

Virgin Islands Community Disaster Loan No. 841 (Hurricane

Hugo). The Secretary shall also transfer additional funds appropriated to the Virgin Islands in 1992, up to $2,161,000, to the

FEMA for forgiveness of this loan if the $1,339,000 is not sufficient

to cover the reestimated value of the outstanding loan.

The Committee is encouraged by work to address the brown tree

snake problem, and encourages the Department to work diligently

with the Marine Resources Pacific Consortium, coordinated by the

University of Guam, to enhance management and preservation of

coral reefs among the Pacific Islands of the CNMI, Guam, American Samoa, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of

Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands.

American Samoa.—The Committee recommends $23,100,000 as

requested, which is $97,000 above the 2001 level for operations

grants. The Committee is still very concerned about continuing fiscal problems in American Samoa. Last year the Committee encouraged the American Samoa government to take decisive action to

control government spending and payroll costs and enhance revenues. The Committee expressed an expectation that American

Samoa would develop a new financial recovery plan and complete

83

an MOU with the Secretary of the Interior that clearly stipulates

fiscal and operational reforms and cost reductions with clear benchmarks. The Committee stated that if this was not done by the time

the Committee considered the fiscal year 2002 budget, it would seriously consider reducing the American Samoa government operations appropriation. The Committee is very disappointed that the

financial recovery plan and MOU were not completed by the imposed deadline. The Department is directed to withhold $1,000,000

in first quarter funding from the American Samoa operations

grant. This money may not be disbursed to American Samoa until

a satisfactory plan and MOU have been approved by the Department and transmitted to the Committee. The MOU must include

specific benchmarks with scheduled reports and an implementation

schedule which begins no later than the first quarter of fiscal year

2002. The Department is further directed to withhold additional

funds each quarter, as the Secretary determines appropriate, until

scheduled benchmarks are met; unless the Secretary sends the

Committee a letter which clearly explains the justifiable reason for

failure to meet any scheduled benchmark. The American Samoa

Government is reminded that authorizing legislation for the Federal loan backed by the tobacco settlement requires a balanced

budget by fiscal year 2003.

The Committee has included bill language which directs the Secretary to increase compensation of the High Court Justices because

their compensation may no longer be competitive with others in the

Federal system. To address this situation, the Committee is directing the Secretary to use up to $20,000 of the American Samoa

funding increase to raise the judge’s compensation to the maximum

amount allowed by regulation.

Northern Mariana Islands/Covenant grants.—The Committee

recommends $27,720,000 for CNMI covenant grants as requested,

which is equal to the 2001 level. The Committee has accepted the

Administration’s requested funding distribution but, in order to

maintain the compact impact payment to the CNMI at the fiscal

year 2001 level of $1,000,000, an additional $500,000 is allocated

for this purpose within the technical assistance activity. The Committee notes that local economic conditions in the CNMI have made

it difficult for the CNMI government to match Federal CIP assistance with local funds. The Committee encourages the Interior Department to re-evaluate the local match requirement to ensure sufficient flexibility exists in order for the CNMI government to obtain

needed Federal assistance.

Guam.—The Committee notes the $4,580,000 payment to Guam

using Covenant grant funds is to address the impact resulting from

the implementation of the Compact of Free Association. Although

the Committee does not have the resources to maintain the fiscal

year 2001 compact impact payment, the Committee has added an

additional $800,000 above the budget request for this purpose within the technical assistance activity.

84

COMPACT OF FREE ASSOCIATION

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $20,726,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 23,245,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 23,245,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +2,519,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table:

85

86

The Committee recommends $23,245,000 for the compact of free association as requested, $2,519,000 above the 2001 level. The

Committee notes the lack of progress of the Republic of the Marshall Islands at renegotiating terms of their compact with the

United States. The Committee is encouraged by the active negotiations being conducted by the Federated States of Micronesia. The

OIA and the State Department negotiators are encouraged to provide the Committee semi-annual updates on the status of Compact

negotiations with the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands.

DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $64,178,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 64,177,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 64,177,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... ¥1,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 0

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table:

87

88

The Committee recommends $64,177,000 for salaries and expenses, the same as the budget request and $1,000 below the fiscal

year 2001 level.

The Committee is aware that many public land management decisions impact the daily lives of citizens who live near these lands

and the people whose livelihoods depend on the multiple use of our

public lands. This human dimension of Federal government actions

in many cases has been totally left out of the decision making process leading to a schism between Federal managers and local citizens. The Committee encourages the Secretary of Agriculture and

the Secretary of the Interior to work with universities to develop

a State by State multi-cultural awareness program that can become part of the respective Department’s ongoing training programs. A pilot socio-economic based cultural training program in

New Mexico, with its tri-cultural heritage, would prove a good testing ground for this effort.

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $40,108,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 42,207,000

Recommended, 2002 .................................................................... 45,000,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +4,892,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ +2,793,000

The Committee recommends $45,000,000, $4,892,000 above the

fiscal year 2001 level and $2,593,000 above the budget request. The

increase is to address the large workload increases for natural resource, endangered species, Indian programs, and other issues.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $27,785,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 30,490,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 30,490,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +2,705,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The Committee recommends $30,490,000 for salaries and expenses, an increase of $2,705,000 above the below the fiscal year

2001 level and the same as the budget request.

OFFICE OF SPECIAL TRUSTEE FOR AMERICAN INDIANS

FEDERAL TRUST PROGRAMS

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $109,985,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... $99,224,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 99,224,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... ¥10,761,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The Committee recommends $99,224,000 for the office of the special trustee for American Indians the same as the budget request

and a decrease of $10,761,000 below the 2001 level. The Committee

89

has provided $2,496,000 for executive direction and $96,728,000 for

program operations, support, and improvements.

The Committee remains very concerned over the escalating costs

associated with the Cobell v. Norton litigation. In the fiscal year

2001 Conference Report, the managers directed the Department to

provide a comprehensive report to the Committee detailing the

costs and benefits associated with the Department’s proposed efforts to use a statistical sampling methodology for an historical Individual Indian Money Accounts (IIM) accounting. To date the Congress has appropriated over $31,000,000 for litigation related activities of which approximately $17,000,000 has been used to conduct an historical accounting of the five named plaintiffs and their

antecedents.

The Court of Appeals recently upheld the lower Court ruling requiring an historical accounting. The Committee believes that this

places additional pressure on the Government to begin some type

of reconciliation process. The Committee has yet to receive the Department’s report for a sampling approach, and has not included

any additional funds for an historical accounting in fiscal year

2002. Before the Department agrees to any method for undertaking

an historical IIM accounting, the Committee directs the Department to submit a comprehensive report to the Committee detailing

the costs and benefits and likely results associated with any proposal.

The Congress has already provided approximately $614,000,000

for trust reform efforts. This includes the development and implementation of the Trust Fund Accounting System and the development and partial deployment of the Trust Asset and Accounting

Management System and associated efforts in the area of data

cleanup, records management, real estate services and a host of

other reform projects that make up the High Level Implementation

Plan. Beginning in fiscal year 1996, this Committee made a commitment to provide the support and resources necessary to ensure

that the Department puts in place the hardware, software, people,

and training to fix the broken trust systems.

However, the Committee has no interest in appropriating additional resources for litigation support when these resources come at

the expense of on-the-ground Indian programs designed to promote

the well being of the Indian and Alaska Native populations. Therefore, the Committee reiterates its position that it will not appropriate hundreds of millions of dollars for an historical accounting

that provides funds for a protracted reconciliation process whose

outcome is unlikely to be successful. If the Department, working

with the plaintiffs and the Court, cannot find a cost effective method for an historical accounting, the Congress may have to consider

a legislative remedy to resolve this and other litigation related

issues.

INDIAN LAND CONSOLIDATION

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $8,980,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 10,980,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 10,980,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +2,000,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

90

The Committee recommends $10,980,000 for Indian land consolidation, the same as the budget request and $2,000,000 above the

2001 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 $41

million in receipts in fiscal year 2002, 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, 2001 .............................................................. $5,391,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 5,497,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 5,497,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +106,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The Committee recommends $5,497,000 for the natural resource

damage assessment fund, which is equal to the budget request and

$106,000 above the fiscal year 2001 level.

GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

The Committee recommends continuing several provisions carried in previous bills as follows. Sections 101 and 102 provide for

emergency transfer authority with the approval of the Secretary.

Section 103 provides for warehouse and garage operations and for

reimbursement for those services. Section 104 provides for vehicle

and other services. Section 105 provides for uniform allowances.

Section 106 provides for twelve-month contracts. Sections 107

through 110 prohibit the expenditure of funds for Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leasing activities in certain areas. These OCS

provisions are addressed under the Minerals Management Service

in this report. Section 111 limits the investment of Federal funds

by tribes and tribal organizations to obligations of the United

States or obligations insured by the United States. Section 112 prohibits the National Park Service from reducing recreation fees for

non-local travel through any park unit.

Section 113 continues a provision permitting the transfer of

funds between the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians for the Trust Management Improvement Project High Level Implementation Plan.

91

Section 114 requires the renewal of grazing permits and leases

by the Bureau of Land Management until the Secretary completes

processing of the permit or lease application.

Section 115 continues a provision allowing the hiring of administrative law judges to address the Indian probate backlog.

Section 116 permits the redistribution of tribal priority allocation

and tribal base funds to alleviate funding inequities.

Section 117 continues a provision placing a limitation on establishment of a Kankakee National Wildlife Refuge in Indiana and

Illinois that is inconsistent with the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers’ efforts to control flooding and siltation in that area.

Section 118 continues a provision requiring the allocation of Bureau of Indian Affairs postsecondary schools funds consistent with

unmet needs.

Section 119 limits the use of the Huron Cemetery in Kansas City

to religious purposes.

Section 120 prohibits the use of funds for plans or studies associated with draining Lake Powell.

Section 121 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 122 extends for one year a provision regarding the use

of transportation fees under the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998.

Section 123 continues a provision authorizing a cooperative

agreement with the Golden Gate National Parks Association.

Section 124 continues a provision permitting the Bureau of Land

Management to retain funds from the sale of seeds and seedlings.

Section 125 continues a provision permitting a tribal school construction demonstration program.

Section 126 continues a provision permitting the sale of improvements and equipment at the White River Oil Shale Mine in Utah

and the retention and use of those funds by the Bureau of Land

Management and the General Services Administration.

TITLE II—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. 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, 5 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.

Last year the Congress fully funded the national fire plan submitted by the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior. This effort provides critically needed resources to manage the impacts of

92

wildfires on communities and the environment. The Committee remains committed to this effort and understands that this requires

the long-term involvement of Federal, State and local governments

and Tribes, working with citizens and industries. The Committee

has invested in a broad program which: (1) provides firefighting resources and personnel; (2) funds rehabilitation and restoration; (3)

invests in active management to reduce wildfire risk by reducing

hazardous fuels; (4) provides State and volunteer assistance and invests in research and development; and (5) requires continual and

careful accountability to monitor performance. This effort is discussed in detail under the wildland fire management account heading.

FOREST AND RANGELAND RESEARCH

Research and development sponsors basic and applied scientific

research. This research should provide both credible and relevant

knowledge about forests and rangelands and new technologies that

can be used to sustain the health, productivity, and diversity of private and public lands to meet the needs of present and future generations. Research is conducted across the U.S. through six research stations, the Forest Products Laboratory, and the International Institute of Tropical Forestry in Puerto Rico as well as cooperative research efforts with many of the Nation’s universities.

The Committee stresses that this research and development should

support all of the Nation’s forests and rangelands and that technology transfer and practical applications are vital.

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $229,111,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 234,979,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 236,979,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +7,868,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ +2,000,000

The Committee recommends $236,979,000 for forest and rangeland research, $2,000,000 above the budget request and $7,868,000

above the 2001 funding level. The funding allocation covers the

budget request, which provides an increase that partially covers

uncontrolled cost increases. The Committee has also provided increases above the request of $300,000 for Bent Creek, NC to maintain long-term silvicultural studies, expand efforts to restore the

American chestnut, and assess the role of fire in forest regeneration, $250,000 above the base for urban forestry research at Syracuse, NY and Davis, CA, and $200,000 for Coweeta, NC to maintain long-term hydrological research, repair weirs, and upgrade

long-term climate and stream gauging stations. The Committee

continues the ‘‘CROP’’ project on the Colville National Forest at the

$200,000 level. The Committee is aware that reduced timber harvesting from public forests has greatly increased the demands on

the Nation’s private forestlands as a source of wood and fiber.

These same non-Federal lands are also under increasing pressures

for recreation, wildlife, and environmental quality. The Committee

encourages the Forest Service to focus its research on private land

issues as well as public lands, including forest productivity, water

quality, and sustained management, and to expand its collaborative research efforts with the nation’s forestry schools.

93

The forest inventory and analysis (FIA) program within research is funded at the budget request, $32,498,000, plus an additional

$1,250,000 to be used in those States that provide substantial costshares to their programs. The Committee encourages the Forest

Service to increase its FIA effort in those States which help costshare the program; currently certain States are substantive partners whereas others, including many in the west, have contributed

very little. The Committee also directs that FIA funding be included in other accounts. State and Private forestry includes

$8,015,000 for cost-share efforts within the forest resource information and analysis activity, an increase of $3,000,000 above the request, and $2,810,000, as requested, within the forest health activities. The National forest system account includes $6,200,000 for

FIA activities, as requested, within the inventory and monitoring

activity. The FIA total recommended funding is $50,773,000. This

is nearly double the appropriated funding provided in FY 1998. The

Committee would consider consolidating funding for the FIA program in one account in the future if additional States demonstrated

their commitment and involvement by helping fund the 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.

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $295,596,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 237,829,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 277,771,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... ¥17,825,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ +39,942,000

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table:

94

95

The Committee recommends $277,771,000 for State and private forestry, $39,942,000 above the budget request and $17,825,000

below the 2001 funding level. This funding includes $104,000,000

within the conservation spending category created in fiscal year

2001.

Forest health management.—The Committee recommends

$67,170,000 for forest health management, $3,000,000 above the

request and $9,105,000 below the 2001 funding level for these activities including the emergency pest management appropriation.

The Committee reiterates its concern with forest health in the

broad sense. The Committee expects the Forest Service to keep insect and disease risk maps up-to-date and provide the Congress

with updated maps as they become available. The Committee recommends $23,866,000 for cooperative lands forest health management, $1,000,000 above the request and

$1,355,000 above the 2001 funding level. This funding should fully

fund the Slow-the-spread gypsy moth program and provide additional resources for work to control and manage the Asian longhorned beetle in urban settings.

Cooperative fire protection.—The Committee recommends

$30,363,000 for cooperative fire protection in the State and private

forestry account, $429,000 above the 2001 funding level and equal

to the budget request for these activities. The Committee has also

provided full funding for the cooperative fire portion of the national

fire plan within the wildland fire management account, which includes $50,383,000 for State fire assistance and $8,262,000 for volunteer fire assistance.

Cooperative forestry.—The Committee recommends $175,225,000

for cooperative forestry, $36,942,000 above the budget request and

$9,173,000 below the 2001 funding level. This funding includes

$104,000,000 within the conservation spending category,

$42,415,000 above the request for these activities. The conservation

spending category includes $60,000,000 for forest legacy,

$36,000,000 for urban and community forestry, and $8,000,000 for

the stewardship incentives program for private landowner assistance.

The Committee recommends $32,941,000 for forest stewardship

as requested, $159,000 above the 2001 funding level. This includes

$500,000 for activities in the New York City watershed as requested and increases the Chesapeake Bay watershed program to

a total of $520,000. The Committee recommends $8,000,000 for the

stewardship incentives program (SIP), which was not requested nor

funded in fiscal year 2001. The SIP funds private landowner, costshare activities which improve the Nation’s forests, watersheds,

and wildlife and native plant habitats. The Committee encourages

the Forest Service to develop a strategic approach to the allocation

of the SIP funds so as to maximize environmental and community

benefits. The Committee recommends $36,000,000 for the urban

and community forestry activity, $358,000 above the 2001 funding

level and $4,196,000 above the request. This recommendation includes $250,000 to support the Northeastern Pennsylvania community forestry program and $200,000 for the National Tree Trust’s

Champion Tree project. The Committee has provided $8,015,000,

$3,000,000 above the request, for the Forest resource information

and analysis activity created in fiscal year 2001. These funds

96

should be used to implement a cost-share effort in partnership with

the State foresters and others to enhance the forest inventory and

analysis program, which is managed within the forest research and

development branch. The funds should be used to accelerate the inventory cycle time and should be used in those States which can

provide cost-shares of funds or in-kind services.

The Committee has maintained the forest legacy program at the enacted level, plus the rescission, for a total of $60,000,000, which

is $29,921,000 above the request. The Committee has included bill

language which requires the Forest Service to obtain approval of

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations before making final allocations of project funding. The Committee directs the

Forest Service to allocate forest legacy funding to those projects

which enhance Federal lands, Federal investments or complement

past Federal assistance efforts and see that public access is provided to the greatest extent practicable. States should explain and

justify projects before Federal funding is provided. The Committee

also expects the Forest Service to require cost-shares for each individual project and monitor these cost-shares closely. The Committee is concerned that some forest legacy projects may go forward

with inadequate professional lands expertise, especially concerning

appraisals and titles. The Committee expects the Forest Service to

work diligently to provide these services as appropriate and require

the States to do the same. The Committee directs a one-year moratorium on new Forest legacy projects in Puerto Rico to allow the

Commonwealth time to complete previously allocated projects and

develop an island-wide forest legacy approach which does not include Federal acquisitions.

The Committee recommends the following allocation of forest legacy project funds:

Project Amount

Howe Creek Ranch, CA ......................................................................... $500,000

Treetops, CT ........................................................................................... 1,000,000

McCandless Ranch, HI .......................................................................... 3,000,000

Mt. Washington Hi-Rock camp, MA ..................................................... 500,000

Nanejoy, MD .......................................................................................... 45,000

West Branch phase II, ME .................................................................... 1,000,000

Thompson-Fisher phase II, MT ............................................................ 1,000,000

Kimball Pond, NH ................................................................................. 700,000

Melvin Valley, NH ................................................................................. 500,000

NJ Highlands, Newark watershed, NJ ................................................ 5,000,000

Crown Towers, NJ ................................................................................. 1,500,000

NY City watershed, NY ......................................................................... 500,000

Adirondack Lakes, NY .......................................................................... 2,000,000

TN River Gorge, Cummings Cove, TN ................................................. 1,000,000

TN small projects, TN ........................................................................... 100,000

North Chickamauga, TN ....................................................................... 500,000

Anderson-Tully, TN ............................................................................... 2,600,000

Bar-J tract, phase III, UT ..................................................................... 780,000

Castle Rock, UT ..................................................................................... 1,000,000

Chateaugay, VT ..................................................................................... 500,000

Tomahawk Northwoods phase II, WI ................................................... 4,000,000

Forest Service tech assist. & admin ..................................................... 2,500,000

State need assessments and planning ................................................. 1,000,000

Subtotal ........................................................................................ 31,225,000

Administration & State priorities ........................................................ 28,775,000

Total Forest Legacy .................................................................... 60,000,000

The Committee notes its substantial investment in the Highlands area in New Jersey. This area encompasses over two million

97

acres of environmentally unique and economically important lands.

This area is the major source of clean drinking water to the New

Jersey and New York metropolitan region as well as a critical wildlife habitat and a recreational resource for millions of people. The

U.S. Forest Service is currently conducting an updated study of the

Highlands region to help determine what remaining open space

areas in the Highlands must be preserved. The entire region, in the

backyard of the Nation’s largest and most densely populated metropolitan areas, is under serious threat of development.

The Committee requests the Secretary of the Interior to join the

Secretary of Agriculture in reviewing the findings of this study and

report to the Committee on ways the Federal government can partner with State, county, local and private efforts to preserve critical

lands within this nationally significant area in the Northeast. In

the past two years, $62,000,000 has been provided by these nonFederal entities to purchase critical areas within in the Highlands.

The Committee believes that the Federal government should be a

major partner in this preservation effort and recommends that the

Secretaries consider as a model, the Sterling Forest project in the

same region which has been a big success. The Committee recommends $21,069,000 for economic action pro- grams, $7,750,000 below the request and $9,200,000 below the

2001 level. The Committee notes that when the Wood Education

and Resource Center, WV, was brought back into the Federal system there was a clear agreement that the center would earn receipts and therefore decrease the Federal subsidy over time. Therefore, the Committee believes that level funding is appropriate. The

Committee was not able to fund the small diameter initiative within the forest products conservation and recycling activity but expects the Forest Service to consider using some of the economic action funds provided within the national fire plan for this purpose.

The Cradle of Forestry conservation education allocation includes

$150,000 for the Pisgah Institute and $100,000 for the Cradle of

Forestry in America Interpretive Association.

The Committee notes that MTBE contamination has already

caused more than one-third of the wells in South Lake Tahoe to be

closed and that these substances are advancing rapidly on the Lake

itself. The Committee encourages the Forest Service to work with

the South Lake Tahoe Public Utility District and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency to determine a method for cleaning up this

problem.

Within the economic action program the Committee recommends

the following distribution of funds:

[Dollars in thousands]

Program 2001 enacted

Budget

request

Committee

recommendation

Economic Recovery Base Program ............................................................................................ .............. $6,999 $3,600

TN Overhill regional economic develop ........................................................................... .............. .............. 200

Kiski Basin, PA econ action ............................................................................................ .............. .............. 200

Graham & Swain Cts, NC ................................................................................................ .............. 0 75

Subtotal, Economic Recovery ...................................................................................... 3,634 6,999 4,075

Rural Development Base Program ............................................................................................ .............. 7,400 4,800

98

[Dollars in thousands]

Program 2001 enacted

Budget

request

Committee

recommendation

NE & Midwest allocation ................................................................................................. .............. 2,500 2,500

Four Corners Sustainable Forestry ................................................................................... .............. 500 750

Hawaii forestry initiative ................................................................................................. .............. 100 100

NY City watershed rural development ............................................................................. .............. 150 300

NY City watershed enhancement ..................................................................................... .............. 250 500

Subtotal, Rural Development ...................................................................................... 4,681 10,900 8,950

Forest Prod Cons. & Recy. ........................................................................................................ 1,078 1,300 1,500

Small diameter initiative ................................................................................................. 0 5,000 0

Subtotal, Forest Prod. Conserv. & Recy ...................................................................... 1,078 6,300 1,500

Wood in Transportation ............................................................................................................. 920 1,920 800

Subtotal, Programs ...................................................................................................... 10,313 26,119 15,325

Special Projects:

Wood Educ. & Resource Center, WV ................................................................................ 2,494 2,700 2,494

Lake Tahoe erosion control grants, CA NV ...................................................................... .............. 0 2,000

Cradle of forestry conserv. ed, NC .................................................................................. .............. .............. 250

KY mine waste reforestation ........................................................................................... .............. .............. 1,000

Other Items ............................................................................................................................... 17,462 .............. ..............

Subtotal, Special Projects ........................................................................................... 19,956 2,700 5,744

Total ............................................................................................................................. 30,269 28,819 21,069

The Committee recommends $9,200,000 for the Pacific Northwest

Assistance programs, $379,000 below the fiscal year 2001 level and

$425,000 below the request. This funding includes $900,000 to continue the University of Washington and Washington State University technology transfer extension activities, $300,000 for the University of Washington landscape ecology program, and $123,000 for

assessment of the Pacific Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative.

International forestry.—International forestry is provided

$5,013,000 as requested, $24,000 above the fiscal year 2001 funding level. The Committee is encouraged by the successful partnerships in the international program and expects the program to continue its efforts concerning, among other activities, invasive species

control and management and migratory species habitat conservation.

NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM

Within the National Forest System, 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 2000 over 2.54 billion board feet of timber was harvested on NFS lands. More than 9,000 farmers and ranchers pay

for permits to graze cattle, horses, sheep and goats on 74 million

acres of grassland, open forests, and other forage-producing acres

of the National forest system. The NFS includes over 133,000 miles

of trails and 23,000 developed facilities, including 4,389 campVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:43 Jun 21, 2001 Jkt 073179 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR103.XXX pfrm11 PsN: HR103
99

grounds, 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 400 threatened or endangered species. Half of the Nation’s big

game habitat and coldwater fish habitat, including salmon and

steelhead, is located on National forest system lands and waters.

In addition, in the 16 western States, where the water supply is

sometimes critically short, about 55 percent of the total annual

yield of water is from National forest system lands.

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $1,305,065,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 1,314,191,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 1,326,445,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +21,380,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ +12,254,000

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table:

100

101

The Committee recommends $1,326,445,000 for the National forest system, $12,254,000 above the budget request and $21,380,000

above the 2001 funding level. The funding increase covers a portion

of the fixed costs and includes an increase in recreation management above the request as described below. The forest products request is fully funded, an increase of $11,059,000 above the fiscal

year 2001 level.

Last year the Congress, working in cooperation with other entities, established a new, simplified budget structure for National

forest system activities in order to facilitate fiscal management

practices. Although it is too early to determine the merits of this

new system, the Committee is encouraged by Forest Service efforts

to more clearly display work and performance measures in the

budget justification. In addition, the Committee supports the development of an enhanced budget formulation and allocation tool to

facilitate building budgets from the field level and linking budget

requests to real, on-the-ground needs and accomplishments. This

budget formulation tool must clearly display appropriated as well

as non-appropriated sources of funding for Forest Service activities.

The Committee expects that future budget justifications will reflect

a level of formulation that specifically includes field-based priorities. The Committee directs the Forest Service to provide a report

no later than 90 days from enactment of this Act on its assessment

of the new process, what changes, if any, are planned, and how the

new process will affect the level of information provided to the Congress in the annual budget justifications. The Committee also realizes that the systematic flaws in Forest Service accountability

clearly outlined by the National Academy of Public Administration

(NAPA) need to be addressed and monitored for the long haul.

Land management planning.—The Committee recommends

$70,358,000 for land management planning as requested,

$7,776,000 below the 2001 level. The Committee is concerned that

forest planning efforts have been delayed and therefore the Forest

Service is encouraged to complete its revision of the forest-planning

rule in an expeditious manner. The Committee is also concerned

that forest plans do need to be updated but that management activities should not be unduly delayed further due to process-oriented litigation dealing with the age of a forest plan. The Forest

Service must limit planning activities to these funds and not use

other funds to support the land management planning activity.

Inventory and monitoring.—The Committee recommends

$173,816,000 for inventory and monitoring as requested, $253,000

below the 2001 level. The Committee notes that this allocation includes $6,200,000, as requested, for activities associated with the

Forest Inventory and Analysis program. Within the allocation the

Committee has included $550,000 for the Lake Tahoe basin and

$250,000 for the Waldo Lake basin, OR, for watershed assessments

and adaptive management activities to develop long-term, scientifically valid management for these ultra-oligotrophic watersheds.

Recreation, heritage and wilderness.—The Committee recommends $245,000,000 for recreation heritage and wilderness,

$9,878,000 above the budget request and $15,237,000 above the

2001 level. The Committee has provided a substantial funding increase that should be used to enhance service to the public and

protect National forest system lands and waters as well as heritage

102

sites and activities. Within the increase, $2,000,000 is provided for

the Forest Service to establish a revolving account in support of the

recreational fee demonstration program as explained in the front of

this report. The Committee expects the Forest Service to develop

an enhanced understanding of the operational needs and infrastructure backlog within the recreation program and convey this

information in future budget justifications. The Committee continues to monitor the Forest Service implementation of the recreation fee demonstration program and expects the agency to remain

flexible and innovative in using this authority to enhance service

to the American public. This issue is discussed in more detail within Title III, which includes language to begin phase II of this program. The Committee stresses that recreation fees should never be

used to replace appropriated funds; the fees should be used for direct improvements on-site that enhance the recreation experience.

The Committee is concerned that the manner in which indirect cost

pools are assessed has unfairly affected recreation programs and

created a disincentive for the recreation fee demonstration program. This problem should be addressed forthwith. The challenge

cost share (CCS) program funding for recreation use should be no

less than the 2001 level. Volunteer work and contributions by the

recreation community, especially the national scenic and historic

trail organizations, are impressive and accordingly the Committee

has provided funding increases in support of these efforts. The

Committee recognizes the National significance of the Pacific Crest,

Continental Divide, and Florida National Scenic Trails and the Nez

Perce National Historic Trail and directs that funding for management for these trails should be increased $500,000 above the request. Similarly, funding for those parts of the Appalachian, North

Country and Ice Age National Scenic Trails and the Lewis & Clark,

Santa Fe, Iditarod, Oregon, California, and Pony Express and

Overmountain Victory National Historic trails managed by the Forest Service should be funded $300,000 above the request. The Committee has also included an increase of $200,000 above the request

to maintain the fiscal year 2001 effort regarding the Pacific Crest

Trail (PCT) manager and conduct other work along the PCT. The

Committee would appreciate a clear and complete delineation of

funding needs in the fiscal year 2003 budget justification for all aspects of national trail management, including maintenance, administration, construction and land acquisition.

Wildlife and fish habitat management.—The Committee recommends $132,047,000 for wildlife and fish habitat management,

$300,000 above the request and $3,303,000 above the 2001 level.

The increase above the request is for threatened, endangered and

sensitive species work on the National Forests of North Carolina.

The Forest Service should collaborate with the National Fish and

Wildlife Foundation and other partners to see that effective conservation projects are implemented on the ground.

Grazing management.—The Committee recommends $34,570,000

as requested for grazing management, $788,000 above the 2001

funding level.

Forest products.—The Committee recommends $266,340,000 for

forest products as requested, $11,059,000 above the 2001 funding

level. The Committee notes the reduced timber harvests acknowledged by the new Administration in the budget justification. The

103

Committee encourages the Forest Service to carefully reestablish

this program so that the Forest Service can provide cost-effective

and environmentally sound forest products for the Nation and at

the same time improve forest health and watershed conditions. The

Committee remains very concerned about the health of forests on

National forest system lands and accordingly has provided a variety of mechanisms to enhance vegetation management activities.

The Committee encourages the Forest Service to use this funding

strategically to focus more resources to those areas of the Nation

that are at risk to insect, disease or wildfire loss. The Committee

is particularly interested in the end-result stewardship contracting

pilot projects and encourages the Forest Service to be sure that

these efforts are successfully implemented and monitored, and that

subsequent reports are submitted to the Congress as appropriate.

The Committee urges the Forest Service to speed-up implementation of the botanical forest products pilot program.

To ensure that Congress is adequately informed and notified of

progress or delays in implementing the fiscal year 2002 program,

the Committee requests that the agency continue its regular, quarterly reporting of timber sale preparation, offer, sale and harvest

accomplishments—including a region-by-region status report. The

Committee expects the reports to include detailed information on

the status of the timber sales pipeline and an identification of the

volumes offered, sold, and harvested categorized as net merchantable sawtimber. Timber program accomplishments should report

timber actually sold and transferred to purchasers, and the volume

offered. The reports are to be as comprehensive as possible and

provide information on both green and salvage sales. Any additional salvage opportunities that may arise during fiscal year 2002

should not impact green sale targets.

Vegetation and watershed management.—The Committee recommends $188,913,000 for vegetation and watershed management,

$1,000,000 above the budget request and $7,279,000 above the

2001 funding level. The Committee has included $300,000 to continue the CROP program to treat stagnated stands on the Colville

NF and $700,000 above the requested funding level for watershed

improvement activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The Committee

remains concerned with the impracticality of the small urban lot

management program within the Lake Tahoe Basin management

unit. The Committee directs the Forest Service to once again work

with partners within the basin and the affected States to provide

alternative scenarios for taking care of these urban lots that does

not rely on the Federal workforce. The Forest Service should report

to the Committee by April 15, 2002 on progress regarding the Lake

Tahoe urban lot situation.

Minerals and geology management.—The Committee recommends $48,956,000 as requested for minerals and geology management, $1,116,000 above the 2001 funding level.

Land ownership management.—The Committee recommends

$88,434,000 for land ownership management as requested,

$2,016,000 above the 2001 funding level. The Committee directs

the Forest Service to maintain the full time lands team to work on

the Pacific Crest Trail project and focus on those trails segments

where access and public service needs are greatest.

104

The Committee is aware that non-profit organizations serving

underprivileged groups on the Coronado National Forest in Arizona

are facing problems concerning fees for special land uses. The Committee urges the Forest Service to facilitate use of National forest

system lands by worthy groups, as appropriate and authorized.

Law enforcement operations.—The Committee recommends

$77,000,000 for law enforcement operations, $1,076,000 above the

budget request and $2,806,000 above the 2001 funding level. The

Committee remains concerned about special law enforcement problems associated with marijuana eradication in the Daniel Boone

National Forest and therefore has added $500,000 above the request for these efforts. The Committee is also concerned about the

particularly bad drug enforcement problems on NFS lands in Missouri and has added $500,000 above the request for law enforcement operations on the Mark Twain NF. The remainder of the increase above the request is to partially offset fixed costs.

Land Between the Lakes NRA.—The Committee directs the Administration to use the Land Between the Lakes Protection Act

Trust Fund for environmental education purposes only and not to

offset normal operations of the NRA. The Committee has provided

funding within established accounts sufficient to provide at least

$8,100,000 for LBL operations; the NRA is of national significance

so its operational funding should come from national allocations

and not solely from Southern Region sources. The Committee is

generally pleased with the Forest Service management of this unit

now that it is no longer managed by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The Committee recognizes the complexity of this transition in management and accordingly has provided language in Title

III (Section 330) which extends an administrative provision for two

years allowing the Forest Service to use procurement authorities

similar to those used in the recent past by the TVA. The Committee expects the Forest Service to use normal NFS authorities

after this period.

General.—The Committee remains concerned about accountability for funds. As discussed in last year’s Committee report, the

Forest Service is to maintain all specific Congressional designations, in any amount, or to submit a reprogramming request if any

such designation is proposed for a change. The Committee is also

concerned about ‘‘National commitments’’ and ‘‘Washington Office

external’’ charges. These items should be clearly displayed and explained in the budget justification and efforts should be made to reduce these expenses.

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

Appropriation enacted, 2001 (excluding emergency) ....................... $837,283,000

Contingent emergency enacted, 2001 ............................................... 1,042,975,000

Total Wildland fire management enacted, 2001 .............................. 1,880,258,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 1,280,349,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 1,402,305,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... ¥477,953,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ +121,956,000

The Committee recommends $1,402,305,000 for wildland fire

management, $121,956,000 above the budget request and

$477,953,000 below the 2001 funding level for the national fire

plan. The recommended funding level is $52,462,000 less than the

105

enacted level when the emergency fire suppression operations funding provided in fiscal year 2001 of $425,063,000 is not considered.

The Committee recognizes the serious situation concerning

wildland fire management and the need for a sustained commitment of resources and talent throughout the Nation. This effort requires an integrated approach utilizing skills across the entire

spectrum of the agency and from many partners, especially the

States. The Committee has provided for fire readiness and suppression operations at the requested levels. Other wildfire related operations are also important, including hazardous fuels treatments,

fixing facilities, rehabilitating and restoring lands, research and development related to wildfire management and the impacts of fire

in wild lands, forest health, and State and private assistance activities. The Committee has attempted to maintain the funding level

of most of the sub-components of the national fire plan, although

some shortfalls remain. The Committee recommends the following

detailed distribution of funds for the national fire plan within the

Forest Service:

[Dollars in Thousands]

Program 2001

enacted

2002

request

Committee

recommendation

Recommended compared to:

Enacted Request

Wildland Fire Management:

Preparedness, readiness .............................. $590,588 $616,618 $616,618 $26,030 $0

Joint Fire Science program ................. 7,982 0 0 ¥7,982 0

Research & development new systems 12,573 6,000 0 ¥12,573 ¥6,000

Subtotal, Preparedness ................... 611,143 622,618 616,618 5,475 ¥6,000

Operations: Suppression .............................. 319,325 321,321 321,321 1,996 0

Emergency Fire Contingency ........................ 425,063 0 0 ¥425,063 0

Operations: Other Activities

Hazardous fuels .................................. 205,157 209,010 227,010 21,853 18,000

Facilities backlog ................................ 43,903 20,376 38,000 ¥5,903 17,624

Rehabilitation and restoration ............ 141,688 3,668 81,000 ¥60,688 77,332

Research and development ................. 15,965 16,265 27,265 11,300 11,000

Joint fire science ................................. 0 4,000 8,000 8,000 4,000

Forest health federal lands ................ 6,982 6,982 6,982 0 0

Forest health coop lands .................... 4,992 4,992 4,992 0 0

Economic action programs ................. 12,472 12,472 12,472 0 0

Community & private land assis. ....... 34,923 0 0 ¥34,923 0

State fire assistance ........................... 50,383 50,383 50,383 0 0

Volunteer fire assistance .................... 8,262 8,262 8,262 0 0

Subtotal, Other fire operations ....... 524,727 336,410 464,366 ¥60,361 127,956

Total, Wildland Fire Mgmt .............. 1,880,258 1,280,349 1,402,305 ¥477,953 121,956

Nat’l fire plan in State & private forestry

State fire assistance ........................... 24,945 25,310 25,310 365 0

Volunteer fire assistance .................... 4,989 5,053 5,053 64 0

Total National Fire Plan ................. $1,910,192 $1,310,712 $1,432,668 ¥$477,524 $121,956

Although the Committee has provided substantial resources for

the national fire plan, it reiterates the need for increased fiscal accountability for these funds. The Committee expects that there will

be no more financial management situations such as occurred at

the end of fiscal year 2000 when large expenditures were posted

the last day of the fiscal year. Furthermore, the Committee expects

the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to consider

expenses when pursuing fire management strategies, especially

106

during large, siege-like fire events when vast resources are often

spent. The Committee has included bill language as requested

which liquidates these fiscal year 2000 obligations.

The Committee has continued bill language from fiscal year

2001, which provided expanded contracting and cooperative agreement authorities that facilitate wildfire management and hazardous fuels reduction activities, especially in the wildland-urban

interface. The Committee has also included bill language as requested allowing the transfer of certain funds to the Department

of the Interior and the Department of Commerce to reimburse Endangered Species Act mandated consultation costs incurred during

the implementation of the wildfire program. The Committee expects that the respective Departments will pursue sufficient funds

for these activities in subsequent years. The Committee remains

very concerned that the Knutson-Vandenberg (KV) reforestation

fund has been used to fund emergency fire suppression operations

and that these funds have not been repaid. The Committee expects

the Administration to make a good faith effort to repay the KVfund so that the vital reforestation and land improvement activities

are not put at jeopardy.

The Committee has fully funded the preparedness and suppression operations request. The apparent decrease below the request

in preparedness is due to a transfer out of certain research and development technology development activities which are now included, although at a level below the fiscal year 2001 level, within

the other fire operations category. The hazardous fuels allocation

includes $16,000,000 for the Quincy Library Group, CA, work as requested, $2,000,000 for the Lake Tahoe basin, and at least

$5,000,000 for activities of the Collaborative Forest restoration program, as authorized, in New Mexico. The Committee has provided

$38,000,000 for the wildfire facilities backlog, a reduction of

$5,903,000 from the enacted. The Committee notes the huge facilities backlog and the need to provide adequate facilities as the agencies upgrade their fire capabilities and readiness.

The Committee has restored $81,000,000 for the burned area rehabilitation and restoration program first proposed in fiscal year

2001. This funding level is $77,332,000 above the budget request

but still $60,688,000 below the fiscal year 2001 level. This expanded program is designed to go beyond emergency stabilization

to include the reintroduction of native plants into these burned

over areas before exotic species can gain a foothold. The Committee

directs the Department to incorporate this program into the development of its 2003 budget request. Based on these efforts, the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture are to report jointly to the Congress by December 31, 2001, with specific plans and recommendations to supply native plant materials for emergency stabilization

and longer-term rehabilitation and restoration efforts.

The Committee has provided $8,000,000 for the joint fire science

program, the same as the enacted level. This program is producing

important scientific and technical information, often in collaboration with the nation’s forestry schools, that is needed to support the

large effort concerning hazardous fuels and other fire management

issues. The Committee has also provided funding for research and

development activities within the national fire plan. This includes

a transfer of $7,982,000 from the preparedness activity, which was

107

intended for new technology development, to the other fire operations activity. The Committee has included $600,000, as requested, within the research and development allocation for the

University of Montana national center for landscape fire analysis.

The Committee encourages the Forest Service to carefully consider

allocating some of the economic action fire plan funding for the

small diameter initiative at the Forest Products Lab requested as

part of the normal State and private forestry request.

The Committee has provided $50,383,000 for State fire assistance, as requested and the same as the enacted national fire plan

level. This funding is in addition to the $25,310,000 provided under

the State and private forestry heading. The Committee has also included $8,262,000 for volunteer fire, as requested. This brings the

volunteer fire funding to a total of $13,315,000, a very large increase over pre-national fire plan funding levels.

The Committee was pleased with the detailed 2001 financial and

action plan submitted by the two Secretaries. Within 90 days of enactment of this Act the Committee expects a similar plan showing

the proposed expenditure of funds and work proposed to be accomplished.

The Committee cautions the Department of Agriculture to ensure

that overhead costs for fire activities are strictly controlled. Overhead charges should be kept to the minimum required, based on

actual services received or standard agency methodology.

The Committee understands that fire management plans are

critical strategic documents that guide the full range of fire management activities. The Committee continues to support the use of

wildland fire funds to complete these plans. Because of the critical

nature of these plans, the Committee directs the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to develop a schedule for revising and completing all new fire plans no later than the end of fiscal year 2004.

This planning schedule must incorporate the standards outlined in

the Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy.

The Committee understands that fuels treatment activities by

mechanical thinning of dense forests and woodlands is often required before fire can safely be reintroduced to restore ecological

health and reduce wildfire hazards near communities. The Committee encourages the Forest Service to utilize funds from this Act

to develop projects and expand partnerships with private enterprise to develop sustainable local industries and markets for products from woodland or other areas to supplement ongoing work by

the Department of the Interior.

To enhance the effectiveness of fuels and rehabilitation treatments, particularly in the wildland urban interface, it is desirable

to extend some projects onto adjacent non-Federal lands. The Committee directs that funds from this Act may be used by the Forest

Service to enter into cooperative agreements to conduct fuels treatment, emergency stabilization and rehabilitation activities on adjacent non-Federal lands when these projects protect Federal resources and the overall watershed health of which the Federal

lands are a part. The Committee has addressed this issue in Title

III by clarifying the use of cooperative agreements (Section 328)

and by extending the cooperative agreements authority originally

108

established in Section 323 of the fiscal year 1999 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (Section 331).

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $517,427,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 523,727,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 535,513,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +18,086,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ +11,786,000

The Committee recommends $535,513,000 for capital improvement and maintenance, $18,086,000 above the enacted and

$11,786,000 above the request. This recommendation includes

$50,000,000 from the conservation spending category for deferred

maintenance needs and infrastructure improvement. This conservation category allocation is $497,000 below the request. The Committee appreciates the project detail provided in the budget justification and expects this practice to continue except that the Forest Service is encouraged to consolidate display of small capital

projects within a region.

The Committee agrees to the following distribution of funds:

[Dollars in thousands]

Project/Activity 2001 enacted

2002 request

Committee

Recommendation

Recommended

compared

to Request

Facilities:

Maintenance .......................................................................................... 73,145 93,926 93,926 0

Capital improvement ............................................................................ 74,371 74,024 74,024 0

Congressional priorities: ................ ................ ................ 0

Allegheny NF campgrounds, PA ................................................... ................ ................ 900 900

Allegheny NF Marienville RS, PA ................................................. ................ ................ 975 975

Big Bear center, CA ..................................................................... ................ ................ 1,000 1,000

Cherokee NF recreation projects, TN ........................................... ................ ................ 1,000 1,000

Cradle Forestry volunteer facilities, NC ....................................... ................ ................ 1,165 1,165

Gladie Creek center, KY ............................................................... ................ ................ 718 718

Grey Towers NHS, PA ................................................................... ................ ................ 500 500

Lake Tahoe, restrooms & Tallic rehab ........................................ ................ ................ 570 570

Nantahala NF recreation project, NC .......................................... ................ ................ 850 850

Timberline Lodge ADA rehab, OR ................................................ ................ ................ 964 964

Waldo Lake rehab, OR ................................................................. ................ ................ 500 500

Wayne NF SO, OH ......................................................................... ................ ................ 1,000 1,000

Subtotal, congressional priorities ........................................... 18,414 ................ 10,142 10,328

Subtotal, facilities ................................................................... 165,930 167,950 178,092 10,142

Roads:

Maintenance .......................................................................................... 129,715 170,291 170,291 0

Capital improvement ............................................................................ 103,219 67,600 67,600 0

Lake Tahoe, Eagle Falls rehab ............................................................. ................ ................ 455 455

Congressional priorities ........................................................................ 2,095 ................ ................ 0

Subtotal, Roads ....................................................................... 235,029 237,891 238,346 455

Trails:

Maintenance .......................................................................................... 30,932 40,434 40,434 0

Capital improvement ............................................................................ 33,950 26,955 26,955 0

Congressional priorities: ....................................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................

FL National scenic trail ............................................................... ................ ................ 500 500

Continental Divide Trail ............................................................... ................ ................ 1,000 1,000

Pinhoti Trail, GA ........................................................................... ................ ................ 186 186

Subtotal, congressional priorities ........................................... 1,696 ................ 1,686 1,686

109

[Dollars in thousands]

Project/Activity 2001 enacted

2002 request

Committee

Recommendation

Recommended

compared

to Request

Subtotal, trails ........................................................................ 66,578 67,389 69,075 1,686

Subtotal, projects/activities .................................................... 467,537 473,230 485,513 12,283

Conservation category .................................................................................... 49,890 50,497 50,000 -497

Total .................................................................................................. 517,427 523,727 535,513 11,786

Facilities.—The Committee recommends $178,092,000 for facilities maintenance and capital improvement, $12,162,000 above the

fiscal year 2001 level and $10,142,000 above the request. The Committee has fully funded the requested funds for facility maintenance and capital improvement. The Committee directs that the

funds for the Grey Towers National Historic Site rehabilitation be

contingent upon receiving at least equal matching funds from the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or other sources. The Nantahala

NF funding is for the Hanging Dog campground rehabilitation and

improvements to the Lemmons Branch boat ramp on Fontana

Lake, NC, a cooperative project with the TVA and the NC Wildlife

Resources Commission. Cherokee NF funding is for the Ocoee Dam

#2 project, Spring Creek campsite rehabilitation and reconstructing

the Lost Corral horse camp. The Committee directs the Forest

Service to transfer the $500,000 provided in Public Law 106–291

under the Capital Improvement and Maintenance account designated for the Allegheny NF visitor services to the State and Private Forestry account, Economic Action activity for visitor services

at the Allegheny NF.

Roads.—The Committee recommends $238,346,000 for road

maintenance and capital improvement, $3,317,000 above the fiscal

year 2001 level and $455,000 above the request. As provided in fiscal year 1999, the timber purchaser road credit program is eliminated. The Committee recommendation includes no appropriated

funds to improve or construct timber access roads. Timber purchasers will reconstruct access roads if needed; funds recommended

by the Committee provide needed design and National Environmental Policy Act mandated environmental review, public involvement and disclosure. The Committee has maintained the road decommissioning authority at $15,000,000. The Committee expects to

continue to receive regular reports and briefings on progress attacking the huge backlog of deferred maintenance and repair, especially as it relates to the activities funded through the road and

trails fund and the infrastructure improvement funds provided in

the conservation spending category. The Committee is aware of the

critical need for repair work related to Forest highway 17 in the

Chequamegon-Nicolet NF, WI, and believes this project should be

given the highest priority when considering the allocation of the

fiscal year 2002 infrastructure improvement funding.

Trails.—The Committee recommends $69,075,000 for trails maintenance and capital improvement, $2,497,000 above the fiscal year

2001 level and $1,686,000 above the request. This fully funds the

administration request for trails capital improvement. The Committee expects that the National scenic and historic trails will have

priority in funding allocations. Under the National forest system

110

account specific provisions are included for National scenic and historic trails management, with special emphasis on the Pacific Crest

Trail.

LAND ACQUISITION

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $150,872,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 130,877,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 130,877,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... ¥19,995,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The Committee recommends $130,877,000 for land acquisition, a

decrease of $19,995,000 below the enacted level and the same as

the budget request. This amount includes $113,377,000 for line

item acquisition, $13,000,000 for acquisition management,

$1,500,000 for cash equalization, $2,000,000 for inholdings and

$1,000,000 for wilderness protection. This program is funded under

the conservation spending category.

The Committee recommends the following distribution of funds:

Committee

Area and State Recommendation

Angeles NF (CA) .................................................................................... $2,000,000

Arapaho NF (Beaver Brook) (CO) ........................................................ 6,600,000

Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF (RY Timber) (MT) ..................................... 7,000,000

Big Sur Ecosystem (Los Padres NF) (CA ) .......................................... 7,660,000

Bonneville Shoreline Trail (UT) ........................................................... 1,000,000

Chattahoochee NF (Chattahoochee River) (GA) .................................. 1,000,000

Chattooga W&SR/Watershed (NC/SC) ................................................. 975,000

Chippewa and Superior NF (MN Wilderness) (MN) ........................... 1,855,000

Cibola NF (La Madera) (NM) ............................................................... 3,925,000

Cleveland NF (CA) ................................................................................. 1,000,000

Columbia River Gorge NSA (OR/WA) .................................................. 6,000,000

Dakota Prairie Grasslands (Griffin Ranch) (ND) ................................ 1,450,000

Daniel Boone NF (KY) ........................................................................... 3,000,000

Florida National Scenic Trail (FL) ....................................................... 4,000,000

Francis Marion NF (SC) ........................................................................ 7,000,000

Gallatin NF (Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem) (MT) .......................... 3,000,000

Green Mtn. NF (VT) .............................................................................. 1,250,000

Hoosier NF (Unique Areas) (IN) ........................................................... 1,500,000

I–90 Corridor/Plum Creek (WA) ........................................................... 2,000,000

Idaho Wilderness/W&S Rivers—Seminole Reach (ID/MT) ................. 2,862,000

Lake Tahoe Basin MU (High Meadows) (CA) ..................................... 4,000,000

Lewis and Clark Historic Trail (ID/MT) .............................................. 1,500,000

Mark Twain NF (Ozark Mtn. Streams & Rivers) (MO) ..................... 1,000,000

Midewin NTGP (IL) ............................................................................... 500,000

Osceola NF (Pinhook—N. Florida Wildlife Corridor) (FL) ................. 4,500,000

Pacific Crest Trail (CA/WA/OR) ........................................................... 2,000,000

Pacific Northwest Streams (OR/WA) ................................................... 5,000,000

Pisgah NF (Lake James) (NC) .............................................................. 2,500,000

Red Mountain (Uncompahgre) (CO) ..................................................... 4,600,000

San Bernardino NF (CA) ....................................................................... 3,000,000

Sawtooth NF (easements—Sawtooth NRA) (ID) ................................. 5,000,000

Sedona Red Rock (Coconino NF) (AZ) .................................................. 6,500,000

Tahoe NF (North Fork Am. River) (CA) .............................................. 1,700,000

Wayne‘NF (OH) ...................................................................................... 1,000,000

White Mtn. NF (NH) ............................................................................. 1,500,000

Wild and Scenic Rivers PNW (OR/WA) ............................................... 1,500,000

Wisconsin Wild Waterways (Cheq-Nicolet NF) (WI) .......................... 2,500,000

Subtotal ........................................................................................ 113,377,000

Wilderness Protection ............................................................................ 1,000,000

Critical Inholdings, Opportunities ........................................................ 2,000,000

Cash Equalization .................................................................................. 1,500,000

111

Committee

Area and State Recommendation

Acquisition Management ....................................................................... 13,000,000

Total ............................................................................................. 130,877,000

The Committee has included $7,660,000 for the Big Sur Ecosystem acquisition. This completes the Federal share of this

project.

ACQUISITION OF LANDS FOR NATIONAL FORESTS SPECIAL ACTS

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $1,067,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 1,069,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 1,069,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +2,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The Committee recommends $1,069,000 for acquisition of lands

for National forests, special acts, as requested. These funds are

used pursuant to several special acts, which authorize appropriations from the receipts of specified National forests for the purchase of lands to minimize erosion and flood damage to critical watersheds needing soil stabilization and vegetative cover.

ACQUISITION OF LANDS TO COMPLETE LAND EXCHANGES

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $233,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 234,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 234,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +1,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The Committee recommends $234,000 as requested for acquisition of lands to complete land exchanges under the Act of December 4, 1967 (16 U.S.C. 484a). Under the Act, deposits made by public school districts or public school authorities to provide for cash

equalization of certain land exchanges can be appropriated to acquire similar lands suitable for National forest system purposes in

the same State as the National forest lands conveyed in the exchanges.

RANGE BETTERMENT FUND

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $3,293,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 3,290,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 3,290,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... ¥3,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The Committee recommends $3,290,000, 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.

112

GIFTS, DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS FOR FOREST AND RANGELAND

RESEARCH

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $92,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 92,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 92,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... 0

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The Committee recommends $92,000, 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, 2001 .............................................................. $5,488,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 5,488,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 5,488,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... 0

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The Committee recommends $5,488,000, as requested, for the

management of national forest lands for subsistence uses in Alaska.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS, FOREST SERVICE

The Committee has retained administrative provisions contained

in previous years. The Committee has provided for a program of

$2,000,000 for the Youth Conservation Corps, funded through the

conservation spending category. The Committee has also continued

the authority for transfers to the National Forest Foundation

(NFF) and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, including a

transfer of up to $300,000 to the NFF for administrative purposes.

The Committee is encouraged by these partnership efforts and is

hopeful that the newly energized National Forest Foundation can

make progress. The Committee has also continued the wildland fire

transfer authority, which allows use of funds from other accounts

during wildfire emergencies when other wildfire emergency funds

are not available, except now the Secretary may use any funds

available to her.

The Committee remains concerned about the increasing level of

transfer from the Forest Service to the Department of Agriculture

for the working capital fund and other programs. While it would

appear to the Committee that these assessments should decline in

light of implementation of the new accounting system and the assumption of greater operations responsibility by the Forest Service,

Departmental costs continue to increase resulting in the increased

assessments. In addition, the Committee is extremely concerned

about funds going to the National Finance Center (NFC). Even

though the Forest Service has taken on many aspects of financial

management formerly provided by the Center, it appears that the

Forest Service continues to bear a disproportionate share of the entire Department’s costs for the NFC. Accordingly, the Committee

113

directs that during fiscal year 2002 the Secretary may not transfer

more funds for working capital and other ‘‘Green Book’’ charges

from the Forest Service to the Department than were transferred

during fiscal year 2000. If additional funds are required by the Department, the Secretary should follow accepted reprogramming procedures to request the Committees on Appropriations for additional

transfer authority. The Committee expects the Secretary to reevaluate the manner in which these charges are calculated and

billed so they are more fair and can be more accurately displayed

in budget justification.

The Committee is continuing its comprehensive approach to

guarantee accountability and efficiency for the Forest Service

Knutson-Vandenberg reforestation trust fund (KV fund), the salvage sale fund and the brush disposal fund. The Committee and

the public remain concerned and watchful concerning the expenditure and use of these funds. The Committee notes that there is

widespread agreement that the reforestation, watershed improvement and wildlife habitat restoration work supported by the KV

fund are all vital to the management of the National forest system.

The Committee agrees to the following:

(1) Maintain the limitation on administrative costs, limiting the

use of indirect funds from the KV salvage sale, and brush disposal

funds to 20% of expenditures.

(2) National forest system funds shall not be used to supplement

administration of the KV, salvage sale or brush disposal funds.

(3) The Forest Service is directed to submit a plan of operations

regarding these three funds to the House and Senate Committees

on Appropriations. The Committee requires that this plan provide

sufficient detail to explain and justify the program of work and expected accomplishments at each National forest unit using KV

funds.

(4) The plan of work should include understandable performance

measurements; monitoring of KV fund activities should be an essential component of implementation; and projected and actual unit

costs should be clearly depicted.

(5) The Committee stresses that the work funded by the KV fund

shall only include those activities that are authorized by law, such

as reforestation, and improving the future productivity of the renewable resources in the timber sale area. This allows work on watershed improvements and fish, wildlife, and plant habitat improvements as well as maintenance and construction related to authorized activities.

(6) The Committee expects that the Forest Service will not use

the three trust funds at the regional or Washington office level except for activities strictly related to program management and

oversight, fiscal management, and policy development that relates

directly to implementing activities authorized by these funds.

(7) These trust funds shall not be used for Department of Agriculture general assessments or for general assessments or National

commitments within the Forest Service.

(8) The Committee directs the Forest Service to include a detailed display in all future budget justifications of the anticipated

program of work for these funds in the upcoming year. This display

should also provide a clearly understandable presentation of how

the forest and habitat improvement activities supported by these

114

funds relate to activities funded with discretionary appropriations.

This display should indicate relative priorities and present an integrated approach to forest management.

The Committee is aware that many public land management decisions impact the daily lives of citizens who live near these lands

and the people whose livelihoods depend on the multiple use of our

public lands. This human dimension of Federal government actions

in many cases has been totally left out of the decision making process leading to a schism between Federal managers and local citizens. The Committee encourages the Secretary of Agriculture and

the Secretary of the Interior to work with universities to develop

a State by State multi-cultural awareness program that can become part of the respective Department’s ongoing training programs. A pilot socio-economic based cultural training program in

New Mexico, with its tri-cultural heritage, would prove a good testing ground for this effort.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

The Committee has recommended the transfer of $36,000,000 in

prior year clean coal technology funds to the Elk Hills School

Lands Fund. That transfer is included in the Elk Hills School

Lands Fund appropriations bill language. The Committee understands that these funds are excess to the clean coal technology requirements for program completion and they will be used for the

4th of 7 payments to the Elk Hills School Lands Fund.

The Committee agrees that up to $14 million in prior year funds

may be used for administration of the clean coal technology program in fiscal year 2002.

The Committee does not object to the continued support of the

U.S./China Energy and Environmental Center, which promotes the

use of American energy technology that will greatly reduce emissions and improve energy efficiency.

FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Fossil energy research and development programs make prudent

investments in long-range research and development that help protect the environment through higher efficiency power generation,

advanced technologies and improved compliance and stewardship

operations. These activities safeguard our domestic energy security.

This country will continue to rely on traditional fuels for the majority of its energy requirements for the foreseeable future, and the

activities funded through this account ensure that energy technologies continue to improve with respect to emission reductions

and control and energy efficiency.

Fossil fuels, especially coal, are this country’s most abundant and

lowest cost fuels for electric power generation. They are why this

country enjoys the lowest cost electricity of any industrialized economy. The prospects for technology advances for coal and other fossil

fuels are just as bright as those for alternative energy sources such

as solar, wind and geothermal. The power generation technology

research funded under this account has the goal of developing virtually pollution-free power plants within the next 15 or 20 years

115

and doubling the amount of electricity produced from the same

amount of fuel.

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $432,464,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 449,000,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 579,000,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +146,536,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ +130,000,000

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table:

116

117

118

119

The Committee recommends $579,000,000 for fossil energy re- search and development, an increase of $130,000,000 above the

budget request and $146,536,000 above the fiscal year 2001 level.

The increase above the 2001 level is attributable to the first year

funding of $150,000,000 for the clean coal power initiative proposed

by the Administration and supported by the Committee. The Committee believes that this initiative is a much needed follow-on to

the power plant improvement initiative funded with prior year

clean coal funding as part of the fiscal year 2001 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The Committee encourages the

Department to dedicate funding under this initiative to technologies that will improve the energy efficiency of, and reduce

emissions at, existing power plants over the short term in addition

to exploring breakthrough technologies for the power plants of the

future. Changes to the budget request are as follows. In fuels and power systems, there is an increase of $4,500,000 for central systems/innovations for existing plants, of which $3,500,000

is for mercury control and PM 2.5 monitoring, data and analysis

and $1,000,000 is for Vision 21. In advanced systems, there is an

increase of $5,000,000 for integrated gasification combined cycle

programs, of which $1,000,000 is for Vision 21 and $4,000,000 is

for the Wilsonville facility; and an increase of $18,500,000 for turbine programs, of which $2,500,000 is for Vision 21 and

$16,000,000 is for next generation turbines (including $3,000,000

for continuing the Ramjet technology project).

In distributed generation systems/fuel cells, there are increases of $1,000,000 for advanced research and $2,000,000 for Vision 21/

hybrids. In sequestration research and development there is an increase of $11,500,000, of which $10,000,000 is for greenhouse gas

control research and $1,500,000 is for the carbon sequestration

science/focus area at the National Energy Technology Laboratory. In fuels research, there are increases of $16,000,000 for the ultra

clean fuels program as part of the transportation fuels and chemicals subactivity and $2,000,000 for advanced research, of which

$1,000,000 is for C–1 chemistry and $1,000,000 is for advanced

separation technology.

In natural gas technologies, increases include $5,050,000 to partially restore the gas hydrates program, $3,000,000 for infrastructure technology, $1,000,000 to restore the effective environmental

protection program, and $10,200,000 in exploration and production,

of which $3,800,000 is to restore partially the research base,

$3,000,000 is to restore National laboratory/industry partnerships,

and $3,400,000 is for the Deep Trek program (research on deep gas

resources).

In petroleum/oil technology, increases include $11,000,000 for exploration and production, of which $6,000,000 is to restore National

laboratory/industry partnerships and $5,000,000 is for the Oil

Prime program (advanced university research); $9,100,000 for reservoir life extension, of which $6,000,000 is for reservoir field demonstrations, $3,000,000 is for the preferred upstream management

practices program, and $100,000 is for program support; and

$5,400,000 to restore the effective environmental protection program.

Other recommended changes to the budget request include increases of $6,000,000 for the cooperative research and development

120

program, $1,400,000 to restore the import/export authorization program, $1,350,000 to restore partially the general plants project activity, and $16,000,000 to restore funding for staffing and contract

support in program direction, of which $4,000,000 is for headquarters and $12,000,000 is for the National Energy Technology

Laboratory.

The Committee agrees to the following:

1. Excess prior year funds from the steelmaking feedstock project

should be redirected to high priority programs at the National Energy Technology Laboratory and to minimize any disruptions to ongoing research and development contracts. Every effort should be

made to use these funds to live up to our commitments with industry partners, consistent with plans and schedules developed in cooperation with those partners.

2. Within the increase provided for the next generation turbines program, $3,000,000 is to continue ramgen technology research.

3. Within the funds provided for fuel cell research and development, cooperative efforts with McDermott, Inc. should be continued

in fiscal year 2002 at the fiscal year 2001 level.

4. Within the oil technology program, the Department is encouraged to pursue research on corrosion, scale, and methane-hydrate

inhibition.

5. The NETL should continue to be actively involved in the management of the black liquor gasification program and in the mining

industries of the future program. The petroleum industries of the

future program should be closely coordinated with the other oil research and development programs funded under this account.

6. The Department should consider, through the power plant improvement initiative or the clean coal power initiative, a commercial scale (greater than 250 MW) demonstration of high-energy

electron scrubbing on an existing coal-fired plant using low cost

high sulfur coal and increasing plant output. The Committee understands that such technology will improve the economics and

overall performance of power plants while maintaining compliance

with environmental standards.

7. The Department should, in cooperation with industry, pursue

a deep water oil and gas research program.

8. Crosscutting programs—cooperative programs with States and

the energy efficiency science initiative—are continued in fiscal year

2002 under the energy conservation appropriation. These projects

should be coordinated closely with the fossil energy program so

that the highest priority energy research projects are funded. This

same direction applies to the reciprocating engines program.

ALTERNATIVE FUELS PRODUCTION

(RESCISSION)

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. ¥$1,000,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... ¥2,000,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 0

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +1,000,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ +2,000,000

The Committee has not agreed to the rescission of $2,000,000 in

unobligated balances from this account. The Committee understands that there are no funds available for rescission at this time.

121

NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES

The Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves are managed by

the Department of Energy to achieve the greatest value and benefit

to the Government. In fiscal year 1998, NPR–1 (Elk Hills) was sold

as mandated by the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal

year 1996. That Act also directed the Department to conduct a

study of the remaining properties—3 Naval Oil Shale Reserves and

NPR–2 and NPR–3. The National Defense Authorization Act for

fiscal year 1998 directed the transfer of 2 of the oil shale reserves

(NOSR–1 and NOSR–3) to the Department of the Interior. On January 14, 2000, the Department announced it would return a portion of the NOSR–2 property in Utah to the Ute Indian Tribe. Two

properties remain under the jurisdiction of the Department of Energy. They are NPR–2 in Kern County, CA and NPR–3 in Natrona

County, WY. The DOE continues to be responsible for routine operation and maintenance of NPR–3, management of the Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center at NPR–3, lease management at NPR–

2, and continuing environmental and remediation work at Elk

Hills. Over the past few years these programs have been operated

largely with prior year unobligated balances. Those balances are

now exhausted and base appropriations must be restored.

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $1,596,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 17,371,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 17,371,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +15,775,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table:

122

123

The Committee recommends $17,371,000 for the operation of the

naval petroleum and oil shale reserves, which is equal to the budget request.

ELK HILLS SCHOOL LANDS FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Payment to the Elk Hills school lands fund was part of the settlement associated with the sale of Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 1. Under the settlement, payments to the fund are to be

made over a period of seven years.

The Committee recommends $36,000,000 for the Elk Hills school

lands fund, which is equal to both the budget request and the

amount available for fiscal year 2001. In fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends deriving these funds by transfer from excess

prior year balances in the clean coal technology account. This represents the fourth of seven payments to the fund, which was established as a part of the sale of the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve in California (to settle school lands claims by the State).

ENERGY CONSERVATION

The energy conservation program of the Department of Energy

conducts cooperative research and development projects aimed at

sustaining economic growth through more efficient energy use. Activities financed through this program focus on improving existing

technologies and developing new technologies related to residential,

commercial, industrial and transportation energy use. In fiscal year

2001, funds and programs were transferred from the building sector and industry sector research activities to establish a new distributed generation activity that addresses critical energy needs for

next generation clean, efficient, fuel flexible technologies for industrial, commercial and institutional applications. These technologies

use the waste heat energy rejected during electricity generation

from microturbines, reciprocating engines and fuel cells in the form

of cooling, heating and power. This waste heat utilization is referred to as ‘‘combined heat and power’’. Also funded under the energy conservation heading are the Federal energy management

program, which focuses on improving energy efficiency in Federal

buildings, the low-income weatherization assistance program, and

State energy program grants.

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $813,442,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 755,805,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 940,805,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +127,363,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ +185,000,000

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table:

124

125

126

The Committee recommends $940,805,000 for energy conserva- tion, an increase of $185,000,000 above the budget request and

$127,363,000 above the fiscal year 2001 level. Changes to the budget request are detailed below.

In buildings research and standards, increases include $6,000,000 for competitive research and development, $5,000,000

for Building America in the residential buildings program,

$2,000,000 for commercial buildings integration, and $17,000,000

for equipment materials and tools, of which $2,000,000 is for lighting research and development (including hybrid lighting),

$3,000,000 is for space conditioning and refrigeration, $500,000 is

for appliances and emerging technologies, $1,000,000 is for analysis

tools and design strategies, $4,000,000 is for lighting and appliance

standards, and $6,500,000 is for building envelope research, of

which $2,000,000 is for a competitive solicitation, $3,000,000 is for

windows research (including electrochromics) and $1,500,000 is for

other high priority building envelope technology.

In building technology assistance, there is an increase of $10,300,000 for community energy programs, of which $6,000,000

is for Rebuild America, $2,000,000 is for information outreach, and

$2,300,000 is for training and assistance for State and Federal

building energy codes.

Other increases for the buildings sector programs include $2,000,000 to restore cooperative programs with the States,

$4,000,000 to restore the energy efficiency science initiative and

$10,000,000 for the Federal energy management program, of which

$5,000,000 is for project financing, $4,000,000 is for technical guidance and assistance (State grants to provide local support), and

$1,000,000 is for planning, reporting, and evaluation. For industry sector research, increases include $26,200,000 for industries of the future (specific) programs, of which $4,000,000 is

for steel, $3,500,000 is for aluminum, $2,000,000 is for metal casting, $1,800,000 is for glass, $7,000,000 is for chemicals, $2,800,000

is for petroleum (to support small refinery projects), $500,000 is for

agriculture, $3,000,000 is for mining, and $1,600,000 is for supporting industries. For industries of the future (crosscutting), increases include $6,000,000 for technical assistance/best practices

and $21,000,000 for enabling technology, of which $7,000,000 is for

materials research, $1,000,000 is for combustion systems/boiler research, $10,000,000 is for industrial gasification, and $3,000,000 is

to restore the sensors and controls program funding. Other increases include $2,000,000 to restore cooperative programs with the

States and $4,000,000 to restore the energy efficiency science initiative.

For distributed generation technologies, there is an increase of

$16,500,000, including $4,000,000 for microturbine technology,

$5,000,000 for reciprocating engine technology, $3,000,000 for National Energy Technology Laboratory support and university research on reciprocating engines (through Fossil Energy), $4,000,000

for systems integration, and $500,000 for management and planning to provide for fixed costs and essential staffing.

For transportation sector research, there is net increase of

$28,700,000 for vehicle technology research and development, including a decrease of $500,000 for the Graduate Automotive Technology Education program and increases of $4,000,000 for hybrid/

127

light and heavy vehicle propulsion, $2,700,000 for hybrid/high

power energy storage, $3,500,000 for hybrid/advanced power electronics and the Department is directed to down select from 3 to 2

contracts, $8,000,000 for combustion and emissions control,

$3,500,000 for heavy truck engine research and development and

the Department is expected to fund at least two natural gas engine

projects, $3,500,000 for electric vehicle/advanced battery development, and $4,000,000 for heavy vehicle systems optimization. The

Committee expects the Department to focus its truck research on

a broad array of options and not limit the program to diesel engine

research.

Other transportation program increases include $5,000,000 for fuels utilization, of which $3,000,000 is for advanced petroleum

based fuels for heavy trucks and lighter vehicles and $2,000,000 is

for alternative fuels for medium and heavy trucks; $10,000,000 for

materials technologies, of which $1,000,000 is for automotive propulsion materials, $8,000,000 is for lightweight materials technologies (including high strength/weight reduction materials) and

$1,000,000 is for the High Temperature Materials Laboratory;

$3,300,000 for technology deployment, of which $3,000,000 is for

the clean cities program and $300,000 is for advanced vehicle competitions. There are also increases of $2,000,000 to restore cooperative programs with the States and $4,000,000 to restore the energy

efficiency science initiative.

Bill Language is recommended requiring 25 percent cost sharing

for weatherization programs. The language exempts direct grants

to Indian Tribes and allows waivers by the Secretary of Energy for

up to 50% of the cost-sharing requirement for an individual State

under certain circumstances. The Committee notes that the costsharing requirement does not depend exclusively on State appropriations but that any non-Federal funds, including utility funds,

can be counted towards the requirement. The Committee has provided the full amount requested for energy conservation grant programs, $311,000,000. Of the amount provided, $249,000,000 is for

weatherization assistance grants and $62,000,000 is for State energy conservation grants. With the funds provided for weatherization and State grants in this bill and the 25 percent cost share, a

minimum of $388,750,000 will be available for weatherization programs in fiscal year 2002.

The Committee agrees to the following:

1. The cooperative programs with the States and the energy efficiency science initiative should be closely coordinated with the Fossil Energy Research and Development program to ensure that the

highest priority research needs across both the Fossil Energy and

Energy Conservation accounts are addressed. The cooperative programs with the States should also be coordinated with the Energy

Information Administration.

2. Within the funds provided for building sector programs, the oil

heat research program is to be continued at the fiscal year 2001

level.

3. The Northwest Alliance for Transportation Technologies

should be funded at least at the $3,000,000 level in fiscal year

2002.

4. The Department needs to do a better job of working with industry partners in developing and implementing long-term reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:43 Jun 21, 2001 Jkt 073179 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR103.XXX pfrm11 PsN: HR103
128

search plans and in requesting funding in budget submissions to

support those plans. The Committee has been particularly concerned about the lack of commitment to the natural gas research

plan, including natural gas vehicles, over the past few years and

encourages the Department to work closely with industry on the

plan. The increases provided above the budget request should be

directed, in part, to that plan in close coordination with industry

partners.

5. The controlled thermo-mechanical processing project in the industries of the future program should continue at the fiscal year

2001 level during fiscal year 2002.

6. The Department needs to provide a more detailed breakout of

funding in the distributed generation technologies activity in future

budgets. The Committee has agreed to provide flexibility for the

first full year of funding for the program in order to take advantage

of the most promising opportunities. However, the Committee expects that, in fiscal year 2003 and beyond, a more definitive justification with greater funding detail by subactivity will be incorporated in the budget requests.

7. Within the funds provided for distributed generation technologies, the Department should accelerate research and development on thermally activated technologies for packaged cooling,

heat and power systems.

8. The Committee continues to be concerned that the Department

of Energy has ignored the Committee’s reprogramming procedures

in the energy conservation area. In fiscal year 2001, nearly

$1,000,000 was realigned to increase the buildings sector management and planning activity and $500,000 was used to fund the

graduate automotive technology education program for which the

Congress did not provide funding in fiscal year 2001. The Committee expects full compliance with the reprogramming guidelines

by the Department in the future. The Committee will consider addressing this problem in statutory language if violations continue.

The Committee recognizes that experimental fuel cell vehicles,

including buses and trucks, are already on the nation’s roads, and

that auto makers are scheduling the release of prototype fuel cell

passenger cars in 2004. Because undetected hydrogen leaks pose a

grave threat to public safety, it is imperative that the development

of hydrogen detection systems be encouraged. The Committee encourages the Department of Energy to work with industry to facilitate the establishment of enabling safety technologies that are essential for public acceptance of effective and efficient alternatives

to conventionally powered vehicles.

ECONOMIC REGULATION

The economic regulation account funds the independent Office of

Hearings and Appeals which is responsible for all of the Department’s adjudication processes except those that are the responsibility of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The amount

funded by this Committee is for those activities specific to this bill:

mainly those related to petroleum overcharge cases. All other activities are funded on a reimbursable basis from the other elements

of the Department of Energy. Prior to fiscal year 1997, this account

also funded the Economic Regulatory Administration.

129

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $1,996,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 1,996,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 1,996,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... 0

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The Committee recommends $1,996,000 for economic regulation,

equal to both the budget request and the fiscal year 2001 level. The

Committee expects the Department to submit a plan by March 1,

2002, for phasing out direct funding for the Office of Hearings and

Appeals from the Interior bill over the next three years. The Committee is concerned about the high cost of employees in this office

and concerned that the casework, funded by the Interior and related agencies appropriation, has not been brought to a timely completion.

STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve was created by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 to provide the United States with

adequate strategic and economic protection against disruptions in

oil supplies. The SPR program was established as a 750 millionbarrel capacity crude oil reserve with storage in large underground

salt caverns at five sites in the Gulf Coast area. It is connected to

major private sector distribution systems and maintained to

achieve full drawdown rate capability within fifteen days of notice

to proceed with drawdown. Storage capacity development was completed in September 1991; this provides the capability to store 750

million barrels of crude oil in underground caverns and to be ready

to deploy at the President’s direction in the event of an emergency.

As a result of the decommissioning of the Weeks Island site in

1999, the Reserve lost 70 millions barrels of capacity. However, the

Department has reassessed the capacities of the remaining storage

sites and estimates those sites are currently capable of storing 700

million barrels. During 1998, an inventory of 561 million barrels

provided 60 days of net import protection. In 2001, 588 million barrels provide 53 days of net import protection. The decline in days

of net import protection is the result of the growth of U.S. requirements for imported crude oil and the reduction in U.S. domestic oil

production.

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $160,637,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 169,009,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 179,009,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +18,372,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ +10,000,000

The Committee recommends $179,009,000 for operation of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, an increase of $10,000,000 above the

budget request and $18,372,000 above the fiscal year 2001 level.

The increase is for phase one of a program to continuously de-gas

the oil at the various reserve sites.

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

The Energy Information Administration is a quasi-independent

agency within the Department of Energy established to provide

timely, objective, and accurate energy-related information to the

Congress, executive branch, State governments, industry, and the

130

public. The information and analysis prepared by the EIA is widely

disseminated and the agency is recognized as an unbiased source

of energy information by government organizations, industry, professional statistical organizations and the public.

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $75,509,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 75,499,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 78,499,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +2,990,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ +3,000,000

The Committee recommends $78,499,000 for the Energy Information Administration, an increase of $3,000,000 above the budget request and $2,990,000 above the fiscal year 2001 level. The increase

is for the fixed costs at EIA and is necessary to ensure that essential energy data and analysis programs are not reduced.

The Committee agrees to the following:

1. The EIA should continue the State Energy Price and Expenditure Report and the State Data Report.

2. EIA should continue its international analysis capability enhancement efforts; and should incorporate as appropriate, the results of its interruptible natural gas study into its data and analysis efforts.

3. The Changing Structure of the Electric Power Industry report

should be continued annually.

4. EIA should also continue, on schedule, its information processing technology improvements.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICES

The provision of Federal health services to Indians is based on

a special relationship between Indian tribes and the U.S. Government first set forth in the 1830s by the U.S. Supreme Court under

Chief Justice John Marshall. Numerous treaties, statutes, constitutional provisions, and international law have reconfirmed this relationship. Principal among these is the Snyder Act of 1921, which

provides the basic authority for most Indian health services provided by the Federal Government to American Indians and Alaska

Natives. The Indian Health Service (IHS) provides direct health

care services in 36 hospitals, 58 health centers, 4 school health centers, and 44 health stations. Tribes and tribal groups, through contracts with the IHS, operate 13 hospitals, 161 health centers, 3

school health centers, and 249 health stations (including 170 Alaska village clinics). The IHS, tribes and tribal groups also operate

7 regional youth substance abuse treatment centers and 2,152

units of staff quarters.

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $2,265,663,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 2,387,014,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 2,390,014,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +124,351,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ +3,000,000

131

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table:

132

133

The Committee recommends $2,390,014,000 for Indian health

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

$124,351,000 above the fiscal year 2001 level. Changes to the budget request are discussed below. Hospital and clinic programs are increased by $17,000,000, in- cluding $15,000,000 for the Indian health care improvement fund,

$1,000,000 for Joslin diabetes programs, and $1,000,000 for technology upgrades. Other increases include $15,000,000 for contract

health services and $1,000,000 in the urban program to restore

funding for the SIPI and First Nations dental programs in the Albuquerque, New Mexico area. Decreases include $10,000,000 in direct operations for the Federal cost of Navajo contract conversion

and $20,000,000 in contract support costs.

The Committee agrees to the following:

1. In distributing the funding increase for contract health services, the Service should consider the needs of the Hopi people for

inpatient services now that the Keams Canyon Hospital has been

closed.

2. The disparate treatment of contract support costs between BIA

and IHS needs to be addressed. This issue is discussed in more detail below.

3. No new and expanded contracts may be executed beyond those

that can be accommodated within the funds provided for contract

support costs. An increase of $20,000,000 has been provided for

such costs.

4. Funds for the pharmacy residency program remain in the base

for fiscal year 2002.

5. Last year’s direction on the use of loan repayment program

funding should continue to be followed in fiscal year 2002.

Bill language is included limiting the execution of new and expanded self-determination contracts and self-governance compacts

once the amount available for contract support costs has been committed. The language also prohibits any increase in direct contract

support cost funding for existing contracts. The Committee expects

the Service to request additional funding in fiscal year 2003 for any

new or expanded contracts that are requested but not consummated in fiscal year 2002 because of a funding shortfall. Likewise the Committee expects the Service to request any needed Federal costs for contract conversion in the fiscal year 2003 budget.

The Committee continues to be concerned by the disparate treatment of contract support costs by the various agencies, especially

the differences between the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service.

Indirect and start-up contract support costs are paid by both BIA

and IHS, but at different rates. Examples of indirect costs include

costs for financial management, property and procurement management, data processing and information management, insurance

and risk management, audits, executive management, human resource management, planning and evaluation, office services, legal

services, and facilities management. Examples of start-up costs include costs for computer hardware and software, training and staff

development, systems development, and equipment and furnishings

to support the administrative unit.

The Indian Health Service currently pays about $55,000,000 in

direct contract support costs and BIA pays no direct contract supVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:43 Jun 21, 2001 Jkt 073179 PO 00000 Frm 00133 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR103.XXX pfrm11 PsN: HR103
134

port costs. Examples of direct contract support costs include costs

for unemployment taxes, discipline-specific training, workers compensation, long distance telephone charges, and postage. The Committee’s recommended language does not take direct contract support cost funding away from tribes that are currently receiving

such funds. However, the Committee continues to be concerned

that the Indian Health Service independently elected to pay these

optional costs several years ago without justifying the need for

these funds through the Office of Management and Budget and

Congressional budget processes.

The Committee believes that it is imperative to have a single,

consistent policy across all agencies with respect to the payment of

contract support costs. The Office of Management and Budget

should take the lead on establishing this policy and request the appropriate level of funding to implement the policy in fiscal year

2003 and beyond. In the meantime, IHS should receive OMB approval on the payment of direct contract support costs prior to instituting any policy for new and expanded contracts in fiscal year

2002.

INDIAN HEALTH FACILITIES

The need for new Indian health care facilities has not been fully

quantified but it is safe to say that many billions of dollars would

be required to renovate existing facilities and construct all the

needed new hospitals and clinics. The IHS has estimated that as

many as 21 hospitals and 52 health centers should be considered

for replacement; renovations should be considered for 16 hospitals,

82 health centers, and 284 health stations; and 15 new health centers and 21 new health stations should be considered. Safe and

sanitary water and sewer systems for existing homes and solid

waste disposal needs currently are estimated to amount to over

$830 million for those projects that are considered to be economically feasible.

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $363,103,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 319,795,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 369,795,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +6,692,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ +50,000,000

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table:

135

136

The Committee recommends $369,795,000 for Indian health facilities, an increase of $50,000,000 above the budget request and

$6,692,000 above the fiscal year 2001 level. Changes to the budget

request include $1,000,000 in maintenance and improvement to restore the Portland Area AMEX program and $49,000,000 in hospital and clinic construction, including $2,600,000 for Pinon, AZ

clinic infrastructure, $5,000,000 for Pawnee, OK clinic infrastructure, $1,500,000 for Sisseton, SD clinic design, $5,000,000 for Bethel, AK clinic staff quarters (phase II), $2,000,000 for Zuni, NM staff

quarters (Phase I), $1,000,000 to restore funding for dental units,

$26,900,000 for small ambulatory care facilities, and $5,000,000 to

restore funding for joint ventures.

The Committee agrees to the following distribution of hospital

and clinic construction funds:

Project Budget request Committee

recommendation

Fort Defiance, AZ (hospital) ........................................................................................ $14,327,000 $14,327,000

Pinon, AZ (clinic) ......................................................................................................... 0 2,600,000

Winnebago, NE (hospital) ............................................................................................ 23,241,000 23,241,000

Pawnee, OK clinic ........................................................................................................ 0 5,000,000

Sisseton, SD clinic ....................................................................................................... 0 1,500,000

Bethel, AK quarters ..................................................................................................... 0 5,000,000

Zuni, NM quarters ....................................................................................................... 0 2,000,000

Dental units ................................................................................................................. 0 1,000,000

Small ambulatory care facilities ................................................................................. 0 26,900,000

Joint ventures .............................................................................................................. 0 5,000,000

Totals .............................................................................................................. 37,568,000 86,568,000

The Committee agrees to the following:

1. The Service should continue to work on needed improvements

to the facilities priority system so that the full range of need for

facilities in Indian country is given appropriate consideration.

2. Funding for staff quarters construction needs to receive a

higher priority in future budget requests.

3. The methodology used to distribute facilities funding should

address the fluctuating annual workload and maintain parity

among IHS areas and tribes as the workload shifts.

4. 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.

5. Sanitation funds should not be used to provide sanitation facilities for new homes funded by the housing programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The HUD should

provide any needed funds to the IHS for that purpose.

6. 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.

7. The IHS should continue to support tribes in identifying and

implementing alternative and innovative approaches to funding

construction and repair and replacement of health care facilities

throughout Indian country, including cost-sharing arrangements

and the enhanced use of third-party collections for improving aging

137

facilities. These alternative approaches should not result in increased operational funding requirements for IHS.

Bill language is included to continue the joint venture program

and permit up to two new facilities under that program. Priority

must first be given to facilities already on the priority list.

OTHER RELATED AGENCIES

OFFICE OF NAVAJO AND HOPI INDIAN RELOCATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The dispute between the Hopi and Navajo tribes is centuries-old.

The Hopi were the original occupants of the land with their origin

tracing back to the Anasazi race whose presence is recorded back

to 1150 A.D. Later in the 16th century the Navajo tribe began settling in this area. The continuous occupation of this land by the

Navajo led to the isolation of the Hopi Reservation as an island

within the area occupied by the Navajo. 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 larger Navajo tribe and the smaller

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.

At this time approximately 300 households remain be relocated,

of which 33 are full-time residents on the Hopi Partitioned Land.

A total of 3,198 families have been relocated from the Hopi Partitioned Land.

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $14,967,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 15,148,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... 15,148,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +181,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The Committee recommends $15,148,000 for salaries and expenses of the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation, the

same as the budget request and $181,000 above the 2001 enacted

level.

138

INSTITUTE OF AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE CULTURE AND

ARTS DEVELOPMENT

PAYMENT TO THE INSTITUTE

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $4,116,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 4,490,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 4,490,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +374,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The Committee recommends $4,490,000 for the Institute of

American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development, the same as the budget request and $374,000 above the 2001

enacted level.

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

The Smithsonian Institution is unique in the Federal establishment. Established by the Congress in 1846 to carry out the trust

included in James Smithson’s will, it has been engaged for over 150

years in the ‘‘increase and diffusion of knowledge among men’’ in

accordance with the donor’s instructions. For some years, it used

only the funds made available by the trust. Then, before the turn

of the century, it began to receive Federal appropriations to conduct some of its activities. With the expenditure of both private and

Federal funds over the years, it has grown into one of the world’s

great scientific, cultural, and intellectual organizations. It operates

magnificent museums, outstanding art galleries, and important research centers. Its collections are among the best in the world. Its

traveling exhibits bring beauty and information throughout the

country.

The Smithsonian attracted approximately 33,500,000 visitors in

2000 to its museums, galleries, and zoological park. Additional millions also view Smithsonian traveling exhibitions, which appear

across the United States and abroad, and the annual Folklife Festival. As custodian of the National Collections, the Smithsonian is

responsible for more than 140 million art objects, natural history

specimens, and artifacts. These 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. Other significant study efforts

draw their data and results directly from terrestrial, marine, and

astrophysical observations at various Smithsonian installations.

The Smithsonian complex presently consists of 15 exhibition

buildings in Washington, DC and New York City in the fields of

science, history, technology and art; a zoological park in Washington, DC and an animal conservation and research center in

Front Royal, Virginia; the Anacostia Museum, which performs research and exhibit activities in the District of Columbia; a preservation, storage and air and spacecraft display facility in Suitland,

Maryland; a natural preserve in Panama and one on the Chesapeake Bay; an oceanographic research facility in Fort Pierce, Florida; astrophysical stations in Cambridge, Massachusetts and Mt.

Hopkins, Arizona and elsewhere; and supporting administrative,

laboratory, and storage areas.

139

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $386,902,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 396,200,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 396,200,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +9,298,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table:

140

141

The Committee recommends $396,200,000 for salaries and expenses, the same as the budget request and $9,298,000 above the

below the fiscal year 2001 level.

The Committee has not approved the request of $325,000 for the

Smithsonian Associates and $650,000 for the Smithsonian Affiliations programs. These activities have historically been funded on

the Trust side. Given the significant financial demands placed on

the Smithsonian, including escalating costs for backlog maintenance, overrun costs associated with the National Museum of the

American Indian and growing operational needs for the new Dulles

air and space facility, the Committee does not approve of moving

any activities from the Trust side to federal appropriations.

The Committee has limited salaries and expenses funding to one

year availability and expects the Smithsonian to spend those funds

in fiscal year 2002 for the stated purposes. The Smithsonian has,

over the last several years, carried over significant sums of money

and submitted requests to use those funds for purposes other than

what was described in the annual budget justification and what the

Committee approved in the bill. It is not the intent of the Committee to provide discretionary funding.

The Committee is concerned that the agricultural exhibit at the

American History Museum fails to convey a sufficient appreciation

for the contribution of agriculture to our history and our economy.

The Committee urges the Institution to establish an advisory council composed of the Secretary of Agriculture, agricultural historians

and representatives of agricultural production, conservation, and

research and education organizations to review the exhibit and develop recommendations for how this exhibit could be improved and

made more representative of agriculture’s role in American life including the establishment of interactive displays similar to those

found in other sections of the museum. The Committee directs the

Institution to submit a report of this council’s findings to the Committee in advance of hearings on the fiscal year 2003 budget.

REPAIR, RESTORATION AND ALTERATION OF FACILITIES

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $57,473,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 67,900,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 67,900,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +10,427,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The Committee recommends $67,900,000, the same as the budget

request and $10,427,000 above the fiscal year 2001 level. This

amount is consistent with the amount recommended by the Smithsonian to deal with the most critical backlog maintenance needs.

Some of these needs include replacement of utilities, security systems, heating and air conditioning, roofs and major structural repairs.

The Committee has included the request of $6,000,000 to replace

the roof of the A & I building. These funds will instead be used for

design and planning work for the entire structure.

142

CONSTRUCTION

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $9,479,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 30,000,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 30,000,000

Comparison:.

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +20,521,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The Committee recommends $30,000,000 for construction, the

same as the budget request and $20,521,000 above the fiscal year

2001 level.

The Committee has provided the $30,000,000 requested in the

President’s budget for the National Museum of the American Indian on the Mall. It is the Committee’s understanding that the

project cost overrun exceeds $100,000,000.

While some of the cost overruns were out of the control of the

Smithsonian, such as changes mandated by the Commission of

Fine Arts and inflation in construction costs, most of the charges

result from new cultural and artwork items, exhibit components

that have grown in scope, items left out of the original budget estimate such as retail and concession spaces and problems associated

with the unprecedented complexity of the building design. The

Committee is deeply concerned that the Smithsonian has practiced

no management restraints on this project. Earlier in the year, the

Smithsonian attributed the overrun to steel prices and construction

inflation, when in fact, there have been millions of dollars in cost

overruns attributable to controllable items. The Committee is particularly concerned that this additional $30,000,000 could have

been spent on the significant maintenance backlog in the

Smithsonian’s existing buildings. Now many critical backlog

projects will be delayed. The Committee expects no additional escalation in this project and directs the Smithsonian to fulfill its commitment to raise a majority of the remaining balance.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

The Committee has been concerned about the recent actions

taken by the Smithsonian to set a new direction for science in the

Institution, particularly the attempt to close the Conservation and

Research Center in Front Royal, Virginia. The Committee commends the Board of Regents for directing the Smithsonian to form

a Science Commission to advise the Smithsonian Regents on future

new research strategies.

The Committee supports the principle of reviewing existing research programs and improving the focus of those programs, including greater collaboration within and outside the Smithsonian.

However, the process for making significant research changes must

be thoroughly vetted within the research community and through

the budget process. The Committee expects that no action regarding the science programs and related facilities of the Institution

will be taken until the new Science Commission has made recommendations to the Regents and the Regents have approved those

recommendations.

The Committee has included bill language mandating that the

Smithsonian follow the Committee’s reprogramming guidelines.

143

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 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, 2001 .............................................................. $64,638,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 66,229,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 68,967,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +4,329,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ +2,738,000

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table:

144

145

The Committee recommends $68,967,000 for salaries and expenses of the National Gallery of Art, an increase of $2,738,000

above the budget request and $4,329,000 above the fiscal year 2001

level. The increase above the budget request includes $1,903,000

for art collection care, of which $1,369,000 is to restore the special

exhibits budget and $534,000 is for fixed costs. Other increases for

fixed costs include $230,000 for operation and maintenance of

buildings and grounds, $388,000 for security, and $217,000 for general administration.

The Committee notes that level funding for special exhibits is

critical for both 2002 exhibits and for multi-year exhibition planning.

REPAIR, RESTORATION AND RENOVATION OF BUILDINGS

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $10,847,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 14,220,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 14,220,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +3,373,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The Committee recommends $14,220,000 for repair, restoration

and renovation of buildings at the National Gallery of Art, the

same as the budget request and an increase of $3,373,000 above

the fiscal year 2001 level. The increase above the 2001 level is to

continue implementation of the Gallery’s long-term facilities improvement plan.

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, 2001 .............................................................. $13,969,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 15,000,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 15,000,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +1,030,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for operations and

maintenance, the same as the budget request and an increase of

$1,031,000 above the 2001 enacted level.

CONSTRUCTION

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $19,956,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 19,000,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 19,000,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... ¥956,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The Committee recommends $19,000,000 for construction, the

same as the budget request and a decrease of $956,000 below the

fiscal year 2001 level.

146

The Committee commends the leadership of the Center for its effectiveness and efficiency in operating the Center and managing its

construction projects.

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 America and the world.

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $12,283,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 7,796,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 7,796,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... ¥4,487,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The Committee recommends $7,796,000 for salaries and expenses, the same as the budget request and $4,487,000 below the

fiscal year 2001 level.

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS

GRANTS AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $97,785,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 98,234,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 98,234,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +449,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with estimates by activity are shown in the following table:

147

148

The Committee recommends $98,234,000 for grants and adminis- tration, which is $449,000 above the 2001 enacted level and equal

to the budget request. The funding increase is to partially offset

fixed cost increases. The Committee has continued all grant funds

in the grants and administration account as was established in fiscal year 2001. The Committee expects the NEA to use these grants

to enhance outreach efforts to more of the Nation, especially for underserved rural and urban areas which have not had substantial

NEA granting activity in the recent past. The Committee has not

provided funding for an office move, so the Committee expects to

see a supplemental budget request if the General Services Administration proceeds with such an action. The Committee is generally

pleased with the implementation of the Congressional reforms to

the NEA and therefore the Committee encourages the NEA to pay

careful attention to the letter and spirit of these recent reforms in

order that previous granting problems do not reoccur. The Committee notes that the Challenge America Arts Fund is included

under a separate heading and is recommended for $7,000,000 for

fiscal year 2002.

Bill language in Title III retains provisions in last year’s bill regarding restrictions on individual grants, subgranting, and seasonal support (Sec. 315); authority to solicit and invest funds (Sec.

316); priority for rural and underserved communities, priority for

grants that encourage public knowledge, education, understanding,

and appreciation of the arts, designation of a category for grants

of national significance, and a 15-percent cap on the total amount

of grant funds directed to any one State (Sec. 317).

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES

The National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) was created

in 1965 to encourage and support National progress in the humanities. The NEH provides, through a merit-based review process,

grants in support of education, research, document and artifact

preservation, and public service in the humanities.

GRANTS AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $104,373,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 104,882,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 104,882,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +509,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table:

149

150

The Committee recommends $104,882,000 for grants and admin- istration the same as the budget request and $509,000 above to the

2001 level. The Committee has not provided funding for an office

move, so the Committee expects to see a supplemental budget request if the General Services Administration proceeds with such an

action. The funding increase is to partially offset fixed cost increases.

MATCHING GRANTS

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $15,621,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 15,622,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 15,622,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +1,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The Committee recommends $15,622,000 for matching grants,

$1,000 above the 2001 funding level and equal to the budget request.

INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES

OFFICE OF MUSEUM SERVICES

GRANTS AND ADMINISTRATION

The Institute for Museum and Library Services (IMLS) was created in the Museum and Library Services Act of 1996 (Public Law

104–208) which merged library services functions of the Department of Education into the Institute of Museum Services. These

functions now come under the Office of Museum Services (OMS)

portion of the IMLS. The OMS appropriation remains in the Interior and related agencies bill and the Office of Library Services appropriation remains in the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill. The OMS provides operating support, conservation support and professional services to assist museums. General

operating support is competitively awarded to assist museums with

essential operating expenditures.

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $24,852,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 24,899,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 24,899,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +47,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table:

151

152

The Committee recommends $24,899,000 for the Office of Museum Services, the same as the budget request and $47,000 above

the 2001 level. The Committee has not provided funding for an office move, so the Committee expects to see a supplemental budget

request if the General Services Administration proceeds with such

an action. The funding increase is to partially offset fixed cost increases.

CHALLENGE AMERICA ARTS FUND

CHALLENGE AMERICA GRANTS

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $6,985,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 7,000,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 7,000,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +15,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The Committee recommends $7,000,000, as requested for the

Challenge America Arts Fund, an appropriation created in fiscal

year 2001 when it was funded at $6,985,000. The fund provides

grants for outreach activities of the National Endowment for the

Arts.

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, 2001 .............................................................. $1,076,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 1,274,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 1,274,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +198,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The Committee recommends $1,274,000 for the Commission of

Fine Arts, the same as the budget request and $198,000 above the

2001 funding level. The funding increase is to partially offset fixed

cost increases and provide a minor staff increase. The Committee

continues legislative language added previously which allows the

Commission to charge fees for its publications and to credit such

fees to this account to be expended without further appropriation.

The Committee expects the Commission to facilitate the timely

completion of the World War II Memorial on the National Mall.

153

NATIONAL CAPITAL ARTS AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $6,985,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 7,000,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 7,000,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +15,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs program was established in Public Law 99–190 to support artistic and cultural programs in the Nation’s Capital. The Committee recommends

$7,000,000, the same as the budget request and $15,000 above the

2001 level. The Committee encourages the Administration not to

request any competitive grant programs to be administered by the

Commission of Fine Arts.

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, 2001 .............................................................. $3,182,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 3,310,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 3,400,000

Comparison:.

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +218,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ +90,000

The Committee recommends $3,400,000 for the Advisory Council

on Historic Preservation, $218,000 above the 2001 level and

$90,000 above the budget request. The funding increase is to partially offset fixed cost increases. The Committee has not provided

funding for an office move, so the Committee expects to see a supplemental budget request if the General Services Administration

proceeds with such an action.

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.

154

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $6,486,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 7,253,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 7,253,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +767,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The Committee recommends $7,253,000, the same as the budget

request and $767,000 above the 2001 level. This substantial funding increase was necessitated due to costs of the agency’s recent office move. The Committee expects the National Capital Planning

Commission to facilitate the timely completion of the World War II

memorial on the National mall.

UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL COUNCIL

HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM

In 1980 Congress passed legislation creating a 65 member Holocaust Memorial Council with the mandate to create and oversee a

living memorial/museum to victims of holocausts. The museum

opened in April 1993. Construction costs for the museum came

solely from donated funds raised by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial

Museum Campaign and appropriated funds were used for planning

and development of programmatic components, overall administrative support, and annual commemorative observances. Since the

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, 2001 .............................................................. $34,363,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 36,028,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 36,028,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +1,665,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The Committee recommends $36,028,000, the same as the budget

request and $1,665,000 above the below the fiscal year 2001 level.

PRESIDIO TRUST

PRESIDIO TRUST FUND

Appropriation enacted, 2001 .............................................................. $33,327,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 22,427,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 22,427,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... ¥10,900,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ................................................................ 0

The Committee recommends $22,427,000, the same as the budget

request and $10,900,000 below the below the fiscal year 2001 level.

TITLE III—GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 301 provides for public availability of information on consulting services contracts.

Section 302 prohibits activities to promote public support or opposition to legislative proposals.

Section 303 provides for annual appropriations unless expressly

provided otherwise in this Act.

155

Section 304 limits the use of personal cooks, chauffeurs or servants.

Section 305 limits assessments against programs without Committee approval.

Section 306 limits the sale of giant sequoia trees by the Forest

Service.

Section 307 prohibits the use of funds by the National Park Service to enter into a contract requiring the removal of the underground lunchroom at Carlsbad Caverns NP, NM.

Section 308 continues a limitation of funding relating to a pedestrian bridge between New Jersey and Ellis Island.

Section 309 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 310 limits 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 311 concerns the Jobs in the Woods program and timber

dependent areas in Washington, Oregon, Alaska and northern California.

Section 312 extends the recreational fee demonstration program

for 4 additional years and makes other modifications, including

prohibiting the use of recreational demonstration program fees in

excess of $500,000 for the construction of any permanent structure

without advance Committee approval.

Section 313 makes permanent a provision carried last year exempting properties administered by the Presidio Trust from certain

taxes and special assessments.

Section 314 prohibits the use of funds for posting clothing optional signs at Canaveral NS, FL.

Section 315 contains reforms and limitations dealing with the

National Endowment for the Arts.

Section 316 permits the collection and use of private funds by the

National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for

the Humanities.

Section 317 continues direction to the National Endowment for

the Arts on funding distribution.

Section 318 prohibits the use of funds to support governmentwide administrative functions unless they are justified in the budget process and approved by the House and Senate Appropriations

Committees.

Section 319 prohibits the use of funds for GSA Telecommunication Centers.

Section 320 prohibits the use of funds to make improvements to

Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House without Committee approval.

Section 321 continues a provision which permits the Forest Service to use the roads and trails fund for backlog maintenance and

priority forest health treatments.

Section 322 limits 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.

156

Section 323 continues a provision carried last year regulating the

export of Western red cedar from National forest system lands in

Alaska.

Section 324 permits the Forest Service in consultation with the

Department of Labor to modify concession contracts for certain

campgrounds.

Section 325 prohibits the Forest Service from using revenue from

the recreation fee demonstration program to supplant existing concessions.

Section 326 gives preference to dislocated workers for certain restoration contracts in the Great Sequoia National Monument and

the Sequoia National Forest.

Section 327 encourages expeditious completion of Forest Service

land management plans.

Section 328 clarifies the requirement for mutually significant

benefits when the Forest Service conducts cooperative agreements.

Section 329 includes a four year pilot program to allow the Forest Service to dispose of certain excess structures and reinvest the

proceeds for maintenance and rehabilitation.

Section 330 extends a previous provision for an additional two

years allowing the Forest Service at the Land Between the Lakes

National Recreation Area to continue to use certain procurement

and contracting authorities previously enjoyed by the Tennessee

Valley Authority when it managed this area.

Section 331 extends for four years the cooperative agreements

authority originally established in Section 323 of the fiscal year

1999 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. This authority, also enjoyed by the Bureau of Land Management, allows

the Forest Service to enter into cooperative agreements with willing Federal, tribal, State and local governments, private and nonprofit entities and landowners to implement watershed restoration

and enhancement agreements that allow work to be accomplished

both on and near NFS 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:

RESCISSION RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

Department and activity Amounts

recommended for

rescission

Department of the Interior: Land and Water Conservation Fund

(contract authority) ............................................................................ $30,000,000

TRANSFER 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

transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill.

The table shows the appropriations affected by such transfers.

157

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 Energy, Clean Coal Technology.$50,000,000 Department of Energy, Energy Resource,

Elk Hills School Lands Fund.

$50,000,000

CHANGES IN APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW

Pursuant to clause 3, rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the following Statements are submitted describing the

effect of provisions in the accompanying bill which directly or indirectly change the application of existing law. In most instances

these provisions have been included in prior appropriations Acts.

The bill provides that certain appropriations items remain available until expended or extends the availability of funds beyond the

fiscal year where programs or projects are continuing in nature

under the provisions of authorizing legislation but for which that

legislation does not specifically authorize such extended availability. Most of these items have been carried in previous appropriations Acts. This authority tends to result in savings by preventing the practice of committing funds at the end of the fiscal

year.

The bill includes, in certain instances, limitations on 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.

The Committee has included limitations for official entertainment or reception and representation expenses for selected agencies in the bill.

Language is included in the various parts of the bill to continue

ongoing activities of those Federal agencies, which require annual

authorization or additional legislation which to date, has not been

enacted.

Language is included under Bureau of Land Management, Management of lands and resources, permitting the use of receipts from

the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965; providing funds to

the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation under certain conditions; permitting the use of fees from communication site rentals;

limiting the use of funds for destroying wild horses and burros; and

permitting the collection of fees for processing mining applications

and for certain public land uses, and permitting the use of these

fees for program operations.

Language is included under Bureau of Land Management,

Wildland fire management, to permit the use of funds from other

accounts for firefighting; to permit the use of funds for lodging and

subsistence of firefighters; to permit the acceptance and use of

funds for firefighting; to permit the use of grants contracts and cooperative agreements for hazardous fuels reduction, including costsharing and local assistance; and to permit reimbursement to the

Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service for consultation activities under the Endangered Species Act.

Language is included under Bureau of Land Management, Central hazardous materials fund, providing that sums received from

158

a party for remedial actions shall be credited to the account, and

defining non-monetary payments.

Language is included under Bureau of Land Management, Payments in lieu of taxes, to exclude any payment that is less than

$100.

Language is included under Bureau of Land Management, Forest

ecosystems health and recovery fund permitting the use of salvage

timber receipts.

Language is included under Bureau of Land Management, Service charges, deposits, and forfeitures, to allow use of funds on any

damaged public lands.

Language is included under Bureau of Land Management, Administrative provisions, permitting the payment of rewards for information on violations of law on Bureau lands; and providing for

cost-sharing arrangements for printing services.

Language is included under Bureau of Land Management, Administrative provisions, permitting the use of fees to offset the

costs of the mining law administration program.

Language is included under United States Fish and Wildlife

Service, Resource management, 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. Language also is included, providing for the Natural Communities Conservation Planning program and for a Youth Conservation Corps; limiting funding for certain Endangered Species Act listing programs; permitting payment

for information or rewards in the law enforcement program; and

earmarking funds for contaminant analysis.

Language is included under United States Fish and Wildlife

Service, land acquisition, prohibiting the use of project funds for

overhead expenses.

Language is included under United States Fish and Wildlife

Service, Multinational species conservation fund, exempting these

programs from certain sanctions on a permanent basis.

Language is included under United States Fish and Wildlife

Service, State wildlife grants, specifying the distribution formula

and planning and cost-sharing requirements and requiring that

funds unobligated after two years be reappropriated.

Language is included under United States Fish and Wildlife

Service, Administrative provisions, providing for repair of damage

to public roads; options for the purchase of land not to exceed $1;

installation of certain recreation facilities; the maintenance and improvement of aquaria and other facilities; the acceptance of donated

aircraft; cost-shared arrangements for printing services. Language

also is included to limit the use of funds for establishing new refuges.

Language is included under National Park Service, Operation of

the National park system to allow road maintenance service to

trucking permittees on a reimbursable basis. This provision has

been included in annual appropriations Acts since 1954. Language

also is included providing for a Youth Conservation Corps program;

providing for the use of funds in support of Everglades land acquisition; permitting reimbursement to the Park Police for special

events under limited circumstances; and limiting the use of funds

for a new associated director position for partnerships.

159

Language is included under National Park Service, U.S. Park Police contributions for annuity benefits, making pension benefits a

mandatory appropriations.

Language is included under National Park Service, Land and

water conservation fund, rescinding $30 million in contract authority.

Language is included under National Park Service, Land acquisition and State assistance, to permit the use of funds to assist the

State of Florida with Everglades restoration; making the use of

funds for Everglades contingent on certain conditions; and limiting

the use of funds to establish a contingency fund for State grants.

Language is included under National Park Service, Administrative provisions, requiring the inclusion of 18 U.S.C. 1913 in the text

of grant and contract documents; preventing the implementation of

an agreement for the redevelopment of the southern end of Ellis Island; limiting the use of funds for the United Nation’s Biodiversity

Convention; permitting the use of funds for workplace safety needs;

and permitting the conveyance of a leasehold interest in Cuyahoga

National Park, OH.

Language is included under U.S. Geological Survey, Surveys, investigations and research, providing for two-year availability of

funds for biological research and for the operations of cooperative

research units; prohibiting the conduct of new surveys on private

property without permission; and requiring cost sharing for cooperative topographic mapping and water resource data collection activities.

Language is included under U.S. Geological Survey, Administrative provisions, permitting contracting for certain mapping and surveys; permitting construction of facilities; permitting acquisition of

land for certain uses; allowing payment of expenses for the National Committee on Geology; permitting payments to interstate

compact negotiators; and permitting the use of certain contracts,

grants, and cooperative agreements.

Language is included under Minerals Management Service, Royalty and offshore minerals management, permitting the use of excess receipts from Outer Continental Shelf leasing activities; providing for reasonable expenses related to volunteer beach and marine clean-up activities; providing for refunds for overpayments on

Indian allottee leases; providing for collecting royalties and late

payment interest on amounts received in settlements associated

with Federal and Indian leases; and permitting the use of revenues

from a royalty-in-kind program.

Language is included under Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Regulation and Technology, permitting the

use of moneys collected pursuant to assessment of civil penalties to

reclaim lands affected by coal mining after August 3, 1977; permitting payment to State and tribal personnel for travel and per diem

expenses for training.

Language is included under Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Abandoned mine reclamation fund, limiting

the amounts in the account for acid mine drainage activities and

for emergency reclamation projects; allowing the use of debt recovery to pay for debt collection; and earmarking funds for acid mine

drainage remediation in Pennsylvania.

160

Language is included under Bureau of Indian Affairs, Operation

of Indian programs, limiting funds for contract support costs and

for administrative cost grants for schools; permitting the use of

tribal priority allocations for general assistance payments to individuals, for contract support costs, and for repair and replacement

of schools; allowing reprogramming of Self-Governance funds, allowing changes to certain eligibility criteria by tribal governments,

allowing the transfer of certain forestry funds, providing for an Indian self-determination fund.

Language is included under Bureau of Indian Affairs, Construction, providing that 6 percent of Federal Highway Trust Fund contract authority may be used for management costs; providing for

the transfer of Navajo irrigation project funds to the Bureau of Reclamation; providing Safety of Dams funds on a non-reimbursable

basis; requiring the use of administrative and cost accounting principles for certain school construction projects and exempting such

projects from certain requirements; requiring conformance with

building codes and health and safety standards; specifying the procedure for dispute resolution; and permitting the use of certain

overpayments for school construction.

Language is included under the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Construction, allowing the Bureau to use certain settlement funds for

school construction needs.

Language is included under Bureau of Indian Affairs, Administrative provisions, prohibiting funding of Alaska schools; limiting

schools and the expansion of grade levels in individual schools; to

limit the use of funds for contracts, grants and cooperative agreements; and requiring an evaluation of certain Bureau schools.

Language is included under Departmental Offices, Insular Affairs, Assistance to Territories, requiring audits of the financial

transactions of the Territorial governments by the General Accounting Office; providing grant funding under certain terms of the

Agreement of the Special Representatives on Future United States

Financial Assistance for the Northern Mariana Islands; providing

a payment to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for Virgin Islands obligations; providing a grant to the Close-Up foundation; and allowing appropriations for disaster assistance to be used

as non-Federal matching funds for hazard mitigation grants; providing for payments to the Prior Service Benefits Trust Fund and

limiting administrative expenses; providing for capital infrastructure in various territories; and providing for compensation for

American Samoa high court justices.

Language is included under Departmental Offices, Departmental

management, salaries and expenses, permitting payments to

former Bureau of Mines workers.

Language is included under Departmental Offices, Office of Special Trustee for American Indians, specifying that the statute of

limitations shall not commence on any claim resulting from trust

funds losses; exempting quarterly statements for accounts less than

$1; and requiring annual statements and records maintenance.

Language is included under Departmental Offices, Indian land

consolidation, permitting transfers of funds for administration and

permitting cooperative agreements with tribes to acquire fractional

interest.

161

Language is included under Departmental Offices, Administrative provisions, prohibiting the use of working capital or consolidated working funds to augment certain offices and allowing the

acquisition of aircraft through various means and the sale of existing aircraft with proceeds used to offset the purchase price of replacement aircraft.

Language is included under General provisions, Department of

the Interior, to allow transfer of funds in certain emergency situations and requiring replacement with a supplemental appropriation

request; and designating certain transferred funds as ‘‘emergency

requirements’’ under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit

Control Act of 1985.

Language is included under General provisions, Department of

the Interior, to permit the Department to consolidate services and

receive reimbursement for said services. Language also is included

providing for uniform allowances.

Language is included under General provisions, Department of

the Interior, to allow for obligations in connection with contracts

issued for services or rentals for periods not in excess of 12 months

beginning at any time during the fiscal year.

Language is included under General provisions, Department of

the Interior, restricting various oil and gas preleasing, leasing, exploration and drilling activities within the Outer Continental Shelf

in the Georges Bank-North Atlantic planning area, Mid-Atlantic

and South Atlantic planning area, Eastern Gulf of Mexico planning

area, North Aleutian Basin planning area, Northern, Southern and

Central California planning areas, and Washington/Oregon planning area.

Language is included under General provisions, Department of

the Interior, limiting the investment of Federal funds by Indian

tribes.

Language is included under General provisions, Department of

the Interior, to limit the use of funds for contract support costs;

and to prohibit fee exemptions for non-local traffic through National Parks.

Language is included under General provisions, Department of

the Interior, requiring lease and grazing permit renewals by the

Bureau of Land Management under certain conditions; providing

for administrative law judges to handle Indian issues; permitting

the redistribution of certain Indian funds with limitation; limiting

the establishment of a Kankakee National Wildlife Refuge; directing allocation of funds for Bureau of Indian Affairs funded post-secondary schools; limiting the use of the Huron Cemetery to religious

and cultural activities; prohibiting the use of funds for studies to

drain Lake Powell; permitting the conveyance of the Twin Cities

Research Center; extending for one year the transportation fee retention provision of the National Parks Omnibus Management Act

of 1998; authorizing a cooperative agreement with the Golden Gate

National Parks Association; permitting the Bureau of Land Management to retain funds from the sale of seeds and seedlings; permitting a tribal school construction demonstration program; and

permitting the sale of equipment and interests at the White River

Oil Shale Mine in Utah.

162

Language is included under Forest Service, State and private forestry, requiring House and Senate Appropriations Committee approval before releasing forest legacy project funds.

Language is included under Forest Service, National forest system, allowing 50 percent of the fees collected under the Land and

Water Conservation Fund Act to remain available until expended;

and requiring the fiscal year 2002 budget justification to display

unobligated balances available at the start of fiscal year 2001.

Language is included under Forest Service, Wildland fire management, allowing the use of funds to repay advances from other

accounts and requiring 50 percent of any unobligated balances remaining at the end of fiscal year 2000, excepting hazardous fuels

funding, to be transferred to the Knutson-Vandenberg fund as repayment for past advances; and permitting the use of funds for the

Joint Fire Science program.

Language is included under Forest Service, Capital improvement

and maintenance, allowing funds to be used for road decommissioning; requiring that no road decommissioning be funded until

notice and an opportunity for public comment has been provided;

and merging unobligated balances from the Federal infrastructure

improvement account for deferred maintenance into the capital improvement and maintenance account.

Language is included under Forest Service, Range betterment

fund, providing that 6 percent of the funds may be used for administrative expenses.

Language is included under Forest Service, Administrative provisions, providing that proceeds from the sale of aircraft may be used

to purchase replacement aircraft; limiting the availability of funds

to change the boundaries of or abolish any region or to move or

close any regional office; allowing funds to be used through the

Agency for International Development and the Foreign Agricultural

Service for work in foreign countries, and to support other forestry

activities outside of the United States.

Language is included under Forest Service, Administrative provisions, prohibiting the following without advance approval: (1) the

transfer of funds under the Department of Agriculture transfer authority; (2) reprogramming of funds; and (3) transfer of funds in excess of the level transferred during fiscal year 2000 to the working

capital fund of the Department of Agriculture.

Language is included under Forest Service, Administrative provisions, permitting the transfer of any funds available to the Secretary of Agriculture for wildland fire emergencies.

Language is included under Forest Service, Administrative provisions, providing for a Youth Conservation Corps program; allowing

funds to be used for representation expenses by the Chief; providing for matching funds and administrative expenses for the National Forest Foundation and also matching funds for the National

Fish and Wildlife Foundation; providing funds for sustainable rural

development; permitting the transfer of certain funds to the State

of Washington fish and wildlife department for planned projects;

providing that funds shall be available for payment to counties

within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area; providing

authority to the Pinchot Institute for activities at Grey Towers National Historic Landmark; allowing payments to Del Norte County,

CA; limiting employee details; permitting limited reimbursements

163

to the Office of General Counsel in USDA; and restricting the use

of administrative funds and requiring displays of such funds in

budget justifications, including limitations on trust funds; allowing

the use of fundings for law enforcement emergencies.

Language is included under Department of Energy, Fossil energy, limiting the field testing of nuclear explosives for the recovery

of oil and gas and providing for activities at the Albany Research

Center, OR.

Language is included under the Department of Energy, Energy

conservation, providing allocations of grants for weatherization and

State energy conservation; requiring a cost share for weatherization grants; and providing for cost share exemptions under limited

circumstances.

Language is included under Department of Energy, Naval Petroleum and oil shale reserves permitting the use of unobligated balances.

Language is included under Administrative provisions, Department of Energy, providing for vehicle and guard services and uniform allowances; limiting programs of price supports and loan

guarantees to what is provided in appropriations Acts; providing

for the transfer of funds to other agencies of the Government; providing for retention of revenues by the Secretary of Energy on certain projects; requiring certain contracts be submitted to Congress

prior to implementation; prohibiting issuance of procurement documents without appropriations; and permitting the use of contributions and fees for cooperative projects.

Language is included under Indian Health Service, Indian health

services, providing that certain contracts and grants may be performed in two fiscal years; exempting certain tribal funding from

fiscal year constraints; limiting funds for catastrophic care, loan repayment and certain contracts; capping contract support cost

spending and limiting the payment of direct contract support costs;

and providing for use of collections under Title IV of the Indian

Health Care Improvement Act.

Language is included under Indian Health Service, Indian health

facilities, providing that funds may be used to purchase land, modular buildings and trailers; and providing for certain purchases

from other agencies and for a demolition fund.

Language is included under Indian Health Service, Administrative provisions, providing for payments for telephone service in private residences in the field, purchase of reprints, and purchase and

erection of portable buildings; and allowing deobligation and reobligation of funds applied to self-governance funding agreements.

Language is included under Indian Health Service, Administrative provisions, providing that health care may be extended to nonIndians at Indian Health Service facilities; and providing for expenditure of funds transferred to IHS from the Department of

Housing and Urban Development.

Language is included under Indian Health Service, Administrative provisions, to prevent the Indian Health Service from billing

Indians in order to collect from third-party payers until Congress

has agreed to implement a specific policy.

Language is included under Indian Health Service, Administrative provisions, allowing payment of expenses for meeting attendance; specifying that certain funds shall not be subject to certain

164

travel limitations; prohibiting the expenditure of funds to implement new eligibility regulations; providing that funds be apportioned only in the appropriation structure in this Act; prohibiting

changing the appropriations structure without approval of the Appropriations Committees; and permitting the sale of goods and

services for fees and for the use of those fees.

Language is included under Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation, salaries and expenses, defining eligible relocatees; prohibiting movement of any single Navajo or Navajo family unless a new

or replacement home is available; limiting relocatees to one new or

replacement home; and 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.

Language is included under Smithsonian Institution, salaries

and expenses, to allow for advance payments to independent contractors performing research services or participating in official

Smithsonian presentations; providing that funds may be used to

support American overseas research centers; and permitting the

use of certain funds for the Victor Building.

Language is included under Smithsonian Institution, repair, restoration and alteration of facilities, permitting the Smithsonian Institution to select contractors for certain purposes on the basis of

contractor qualifications as well as price; and permitting the merger of funds previously appropriated for zoo construction.

Language is included under Smithsonian Institution, Administrative provisions, precluding any changes to the Smithsonian Science

Program without prior approval of the Board of Regents; limiting

the design or expansion of current space or facilities without prior

approval of the Committee; and limiting reprogramming of funds

and the use of funds for the Holt House.

Language is included under National Gallery of Art, Salaries and

expenses, allowing payment in advance for membership in library,

museum, and art associations or societies; providing uniform allowances and for restoration and repair of works of art by contract

without advertising; and providing no-year availability of funds for

special exhibitions.

Language is included under National Gallery of Art, Repair, restoration and renovation of buildings, permitting the Gallery to perform work by contract or otherwise and to select contractors for

certain purposes on the basis of contractor qualifications as well as

price.

Language is included under National Endowment for the Arts,

Grants and administration, permitting the merger and use of previously appropriated funds from the matching grants account.

Language is included under National Foundation for the Humanities, Matching grants, allowing obligation of current and prior year

funds of gifts, bequests, and devises of money for which equal

amounts have not previously been appropriated.

Language is included under National Foundation on the Arts and

the Humanities, Administrative provisions, limiting the use of

funds for reception expenses and permitting the use of non appropriated funds for such expenses.

165

Language is included under Commission of Fine Arts, Salaries

and expenses, permitting the charging and use of fees for its publications.

Language is included under Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to restrict hiring anyone at Executive Level V or higher.

Language is included under National Capital Planning Commission, salaries and expenses, to provide for a pay level at the rate

of Executive Level IV for all appointed members.

Language is included under Holocaust Memorial Council, providing no year funding availability for repair and rehabilitation

and museums exhibitions.

Language is included under Title III—General provisions prohibiting the use of funds to distribute literature either to promote or

oppose legislative proposals on which Congressional action is incomplete.

Language is included under Title III—General provisions, prohibiting the use of funds to provide personal cooks, chauffeurs or other

personal servants to any office or employee; limiting use of consulting services; and specifying that funds are for one year unless

provided otherwise.

Language is included under Title III—General provisions, prohibiting assessments against programs funded in this bill.

Language is included under Title III—General provisions, prohibiting the sale of giant sequoia trees in a manner different from

2001.

Language is included under Title III—General provisions, prohibiting the use of funds by the National Park Service to enter into

a concession contract requiring the removal of the underground

lunchroom at Carlsbad Caverns NP.

Language is included under Title III—General provisions, limiting use of funds relating to a bridge between New Jersey and

Ellis Island.

Language is included under Title III—General provisions, continuing a limitation on accepting and processing applications for

patents and on the patenting of Federal lands; permitting processing of grandfathered applications; and permitting third-party

contractors to process grandfathered applications.

Language is included under Title III—General provisions, limiting the use of funds for contract support costs on Indian contracts.

Language is included under Title III—General provisions, to permit limiting competition under the Jobs in the Woods program; extending the recreational fee demonstration program for 4 additional years, allowing certain Forest Service special use permit fees

to be included in the program beginning in fiscal year 2003, raising

the limit on the number of fee sites each agency may use, and requiring Committee approval prior to using recreational fees for constructing certain permanent buildings; exempting on a permanent

basis, the Presidio Trust from certain taxes and special assessments; limiting funds for posting clothing optional signs at Cape

Canaveral NS; making reforms in the National Endowment for the

Arts, including funding distribution reforms; permitting the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities to collect, invest

and use private donations; permitting the use of Forest land management plans pending completion of required revisions; limiting

166

funds for improvements to Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the

White House without Committee approval; limiting the use of

funds for any government-wide administrative functions and for

GSA telecommunications centers; limiting the use of telephone answering machines; limiting the sale for export of Western redcedar

in Alaska; placing a moratorium on new and expanded Indian selfdetermination contracts and compacts.

Language is included under Title III—General Provisions, permitting the Forest Service in consultation with the Department of

Labor to modify concession contracts for certain campgrounds; prohibiting the Forest Service from using revenue from the recreation

fee demonstration program to supplant existing concessions; giving

preference to dislocated workers for certain restoration contracts in

the Giant Sequoia National Monument and the Sequoia National

Forest; and encouraging the Forest Service to update National Forest System land management plans as expeditiously as practicable.

Language is included under Title III—General Provisions, clarifying the requirement for mutually significant benefits when the

Forest Service conducts cooperative agreements; authorizing a four

year pilot program to allow the Forest Service to dispose of certain

excess structures and reinvest the proceeds for maintenance and

rehabilitation; extending a previous provision for an additional two

years allowing the Forest Service at the Land Between the Lakes

National Recreation Area to continue to use certain procurement

and contracting authorities previously enjoyed by the Tennessee

Valley Authority when it managed this area; and extending for four

years the cooperative agreements authority originally established

in Section 323 of the fiscal year 1999 Interior and Related Agencies

Appropriations Act. This authority, also enjoyed by the Bureau of

Land Management, allows the Forest Service to enter into cooperative agreements with willing Federal, tribal, State and local governments, private and nonprofit entities and landowners to implement watershed restoration and enhancement agreements that

allow work to be accomplished both on and near NFS lands.

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:

[In thousands of dollars]

Last year of

authorization

Authorization level

Appropriations

in last year of

authorization

Appropriations

in this bill

National Endowment for the Arts .................................................. 1993 ‘‘Such sums

as may

be necessary’’.

$174,460 $105,234

National Endowment for the Humanities ...................................... 1993 ‘‘Such sums

as may

be necessary’’.

$177,413 $120,504

Office of Navajo & Hopi Indian Relocation ................................... 2000 $30,000 ..... $8,000 $15,148

Bureau of Land Management

Management of Lands and Resources:

Mining claim fee in lieu of annual maintenance ................ 2001 NA .............. $34,328 $32,298

167

[In thousands of dollars]

Last year of

authorization

Authorization level

Appropriations

in last year of

authorization

Appropriations

in this bill

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Resources Management:

Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1988 ................... 1992 $41,500 ..... $35,721 $123,164

Marine Mammal Protection Act Amendments of 1994 ........ 1999 $10,296 ..... $2,008 $2,446

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Operation of Indian Programs:

Resource Management (Endangered Species Act) ............... 1992 $41,500 ..... $1,660 $3,476

Department of Energy

Energy Information Administration ................................................ 1992 NA .............. $76,300 $78,499

Office of Fossil Energy:

Coal ....................................................................................... 1997 ‘‘Such sums

as may

be necessary’’.

$149,629 $80,677

Enhanced Oil Recovery .......................................................... 1997 NA .............. $45,937 $45,299

Natural Gas ........................................................................... 1997 NA .............. $23,614 $40,250

Fuel Cells .............................................................................. 1997 NA .............. $50,117 $48,124

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy:

Transportation R&D ............................................................... 1994 $160,000 ... $176,000 $250,715

Buildings, Industry ................................................................ 1994 $275,000 ... $255,700 $296,462

The Committee notes that authorizing legislation for many of

these programs is in various stages of the legislative process and

these authorizations are expected 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.

COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XIII—CLAUSE 3

In compliance with clause 3 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 28f(a) of title 30 U.S.C. is amended as follows:

(a) CLAIM MAINTENANCE FEE.—øThe holder of each unpatented

mining claim, mill or tunnel site, located pursuant to the Mining

Laws of the United States, whether located before or after the enactment of this Act, shall pay the Secretary of the Interior, on or

before September 1, of each year for years 1999 through 2001, a

claim fee of $100 per claim site.¿ 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 enactment of this Act, shall pay to the Secretary of the Interior, on or before September 1, 2002, a claim maintenance fee of $100 per claim

or site.

168

Section 28g of title 30 U.S.C. is amended as follows:

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 ø2001¿ 2002, 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.

Section 551(c) of the Land Between the Lakes Protection Act of

1998 (16 U.S.C. 460 lll 61) is amended by striking ‘‘2002’’ and inserting ‘‘2004’’ as follows:

(c) TRANSITION.—Until September 30, ø2002¿ 2004, the Secretary

of Agriculture may expend amounts appropriated or otherwise

made available to carry out this title in a manner consistent with

the authorities exercised by the Tennessee Valley Authority, before

the transfer of the Recreation Area to the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary, regarding procurement of property, services,

supplies, and equipment.

Section 323 of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, as included in Public Law 105–277,

Div. A, section 101(e), is amended by inserting ‘‘and fiscal year

2002 through the end of fiscal year 2005,’’ before ‘‘to the extent

funds are otherwise available’’ as follows:

SEC. 323. (a) WATERSHED RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT

AGREEMENTS.—For fiscal year 1999, 2000 and 2001 and fiscal years

2002 through 2005, to the extent funds are otherwise available, appropriations for the Forest Service may be used by the Secretary

of Agriculture for the purpose of entering into cooperative agreements with willing Federal, tribal, State and local governments,

private and nonprofit entities and landowners for the protection,

restoration and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat, and other

resources on public or private land, the reduction of risk from natural disaster where public safety is threatened, or a combination

thereof or both that benefit these resources within the watershed.

Section 5961 (b) of Title 16 United States Code is amended as

follows:

(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, with respect to

a service contract for the provision solely of transportation services

at Zion National Park, the Secretary may obligate the expenditure

of fees received in fiscal year ø2001¿ 2002 under section 5981 of

this title before the fees are received.

Section 315 of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 is amended as follows:

SEC. 315. RECREATIONAL FEE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.—(a)

The Secretary of the Interior (acting through the Bureau of Land

Management, the National Park Service and the United States

Fish and Wildlife Service) and the Secretary of Agriculture (acting

through the Forest Service) shall each implement a fee program to

demonstrate the feasibility of user-generated cost recovery for the

operation and maintenance of recreation areas or sites and habitat

enhancement projects on Federal lands.

(b) In carrying out the pilot program established pursuant to this

section, the appropriate Secretary shall select from areas under the

jurisdiction of each of the four agencies referred to in subsection (a)

169

øno fewer than 10, but as many as 100,¿ areas, sites or projects

for fee demonstration. For each such demonstration, the Secretary,

notwithstanding any other provisions of law— (1) * * *

(2) shall establish fees under this section based upon a variety of cost recovery and fair market valuation methods to provide a broad basis for feasibility testing, including the provision of discounted or free admission or use as the Secretary considers appropriate;

* * * * * * *

(4) may encourage private investment and partnerships to

enhance the delivery of quality customer services, and resource

enhancement, and provide appropriate recognition to such

partners or investors; øand¿

(5) may assess a fine of not more than $100 for any violation

of the authority to collect fees for admission to the area or for

the use of outdoor recreation sites, facilities, visitor centers,

equipment, and services ø.¿; and

(6) in fiscal year 2003 and thereafter may retain, for distribution and use as provided in subsection (c), fees imposed by the

Forest Service for the issuance of recreation special use authorizations not exceeding one year under any provision of law.

(c)(1) * * *

(2)(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(D) None of the funds collected under this section may be used to

plan, design, or construct a visitor center of any other permanent

structure without prior approval of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate if the estimated total cost of the structure exceeds $500,000.

* * * * * * *

(d)(1) Amounts collected under this section shall not be taken

into account for the purposes of the Act of May 23, 1908 and the

Act of March 1, 1911 (16 U.S.C. 500), the Act of March 4, 1913 (16

U.S.C. 501), the Act of July 22, 1937 (7 U.S.C. 1012), the Act of

August 8, 1937 and the Act of May 24, 1939 (43 U.S.C. 1181f et

seq.), the Act of June 14, 1926 (43 U.S.C. 869–4), chapter 69 of title

31, United States Code, section 401 of the Act of June 15, 1935 (16

U.S.C. 715s), the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965

(16 U.S.C. 460l), the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Public Law 106–393; 16 U.S.C. 500 note),

and any other provision of law relating to revenue allocation.

* * * * * * *

(f) The authority to collect fees under this section shall øcommence on October 1, 1995, and end on September 30, 2002¿ end on

September 30, 2006. Funds in accounts established shall remain

available through September 30, ø2005¿ 2009.

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

170

table contains five-year projections associated with the budget authority provided in the accompanying bill:

[In millions]

Budget authority ................................................................................ 19,000

Outlays:

Fiscal year 2002 .......................................................................... 11,728

Fiscal year 2003 .......................................................................... 4,715

Fiscal year 2004 .......................................................................... 1,586

Fiscal year 2005 .......................................................................... 645

Fiscal year 2006 and future years ............................................. 272

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 ........................................................................ 2,517

Fiscal year 2002 outlays resulting therefrom .................................. 1,422

171

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House

of Representatives, the results of each rollcall vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the names of those

voting for and those voting against, are printed below:

ROLLCALL NO. 1

Date: June 13, 2001.

Measure: Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY

2002.

Motion by: Mr. Dicks.

Description of Motion: To increase funding for the Challenge

America Arts Fund, the National Endowment for the Humanities

and the Institute of Museum and Library Services and to defer

$25,000,000 in clean coal technology funding as an offset for the

proposed increases.

Results: Rejected 27 yeas to 37 nays.

Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay

Mr. Boyd Mr. Aderholt

Mr. Clyburn Mr. Bonilla

Mr. Cramer Mr. Callahan

Ms. DeLauro Mr. Cunningham

Mr. Dicks Mr. DeLay

Mr. Edwards Mr. Doolittle

Mr. Farr Mrs. Emerson

Mr. Fattah Mr. Frelinghuysen

Mr. Hinchey Mr. Goode

Mr. Hoyer Ms. Granger

Mr. Jackson Mr. Hobson

Ms. Kaptur Mr. Istook

Mr. Kennedy Mr. Kingston

Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Knollenberg

Mrs. Meek Mr. Kolbe

Mr. Mollohan Mr. LaHood

Mr. Moran Mr. Latham

Mr. Obey Mr. Lewis

Mr. Olver Mr. Miller

Mr. Pastor Mr. Murtha

Ms. Pelosi Mr. Nethercutt

Mr. Price Mrs. Northup

Mr. Rothman Mr. Peterson

Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Regula

Mr. Sabo Mr. Rogers

Mr. Serrano Mr. Sherwood

Mr. Visclosky Mr. Skeen

Mr. Sununu

Mr. Sweeney

Mr. Taylor

Mr. Tiahrt

Mr. Vitter

Mr. Walsh

Mr. Wamp

Mr. Wicker

Mr. Wolf

Mr. Young

172

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House

of Representatives, the results of each rollcall vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the names of those

voting for and those voting against, are printed below:

ROLLCALL NO. 2

Date: June 13, 2001.

Measure: Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY

2002.

Motion by: Mr. Moran.

Description of Motion: To include report language requiring consistent policies in the Federal land management agencies on bear

feeding.

Results: Rejected 25 yeas to 38 nays.

Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay

Mr. Aderholt Mr. Bonilla

Mr. Clyburn Mr. Boyd

Mr. Dicks Mr. Callahan

Mr. Farr Mr. Cramer

Mr. Fattah Mr. Cunningham

Mr. Frelinghuysen Ms. DeLauro

Mr. Hinchey Mr. DeLay

Mr. Hobson Mr. Doolittle

Mr. Hoyer Mr. Edwards

Ms. Kaptur Mrs. Emerson

Mr. Kennedy Mr. Goode

Ms. Kilpatrick Ms. Granger

Mr. Kolbe Mr. Istook

Mrs. Meek Mr. Kingston

Mr. Moran Mr. Knollenberg

Mr. Olver Mr. LaHood

Mr. Pastor Mr. Latham

Ms. Pelosi Mr. Lewis

Mr. Price Mr. Miller

Mr. Rothman Mr. Mollohan

Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Murtha

Mr. Sabo Mr. Nethercutt

Mr. Serrano Mrs. Northup

Mr. Visclosky Mr. Obey

Mr. Wolf Mr. Peterson

Mr. Regula

Mr. Rogers

Mr. Sherwood

Mr. Skeen

Mr. Sununu

Mr. Sweeney

Mr. Taylor

Mr. Tiahrt

Mr. Vitter

Mr. Walsh

Mr. Wamp

Mr. Wicker

Mr. Young

173

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House

of Representatives, the results of each rollcall vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the names of those

voting for and those voting against, are printed below:

ROLLCALL NO. 3

Date: June 13, 2001.

Measure: Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY

2002.

Motion by: Mr. Hinchey.

Description of Motion: To provide a contingent emergency appropriation of $200,000,000 for fossil energy and energy conservation

research.

Results: Rejected 27 yeas to 33 nays.

Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay

Mr. Boyd Mr. Aderholt

Mr. Clyburn Mr. Bonilla

Mr. Cramer Mr. Callahan

Ms. DeLauro Mr. Cunningham

Mr. Dicks Mrs. Emerson

Mr. Edwards Mr. Frelinghuysen

Mr. Farr Mr. Goode

Mr. Fattah Ms. Granger

Mr. Hinchey Mr. Hobson

Mr. Jackson Mr. Kingston

Ms. Kaptur Mr. Knollenberg

Mr. Kennedy Mr. Kolbe

Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. LaHood

Mrs. Lowey Mr. Latham

Mrs. Meek Mr. Lewis

Mr. Mollohan Mr. Miller

Mr. Moran Mr. Nethercutt

Mr. Murtha Mrs. Northup

Mr. Obey Mr. Peterson

Mr. Olver Mr. Regula

Mr. Pastor Mr. Rogers

Ms. Pelosi Mr. Sherwood

Mr. Price Mr. Skeen

Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Sununu

Mr. Sabo Mr. Sweeney

Mr. Serrano Mr. Taylor

Mr. Visclosky Mr. Tiahrt

Mr. Vitter

Mr. Walsh

Mr. Wamp

Mr. Wicker

Mr. Wolf

Mr. Young

174

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House

of Representatives, the results of each rollcall vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the names of those

voting for and those voting against, are printed below:

ROLLCALL NO. 4

Date: June 13, 2001.

Measure: Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY

2002.

Motion by: Mr. Obey.

Description of Motion: To limit the use of funds for activities related to oil and gas exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.

Results: Rejected 21 yeas to 38 nays.

Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay

Mr. Clyburn Mr. Aderholt

Ms. DeLauro Mr. Bonilla

Mr. Dicks Mr. Boyd

Mr. Farr Mr. Callahan

Mr. Fattah Mr. Cramer

Mr. Hinchey Mr. Cunningham

Mr. Jackson Mr. Doolittle

Ms. Kaptur Mr. Edwards

Mr. Kennedy Mrs. Emerson

Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Frelinghuysen

Mrs. Lowey Mr. Goode

Mrs. Meek Ms. Granger

Mr. Mollohan Mr. Hobson

Mr. Murtha Mr. Istook

Mr. Obey Mr. Kingston

Mr. Olver Mr. Knollenberg

Ms. Pelosi Mr. Kolbe

Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. LaHood

Mr. Sabo Mr. Latham

Mr. Serrano Mr. Lewis

Mr. Visclosky Mr. Miller Mr. Nethercutt

Mrs. Northup

Mr. Peterson

Mr. Regula

Mr. Rogers

Mr. Sherwood

Mr. Skeen

Mr. Sununu

Mr. Sweeney

Mr. Taylor

Mr. Tiahrt

Mr. Vitter

Mr. Walsh

Mr. Wamp

Mr. Wicker

Mr. Wolf

Mr. Young

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

(197)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

In submitting these views, the Minority at the outset wishes to

express its appreciation for the cooperative and bi-partisan manner

in which the Interior Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002 has

been handled by the Chairman and the Majority. The Minority has

been consulted throughout the process and believes that its views

are reflected in many aspects of the bill. While we do not agree

with every recommendation and continue to work for improvements

in several areas, in its entirety we believe this Interior bill is one

which Members from both parties can support.

The Minority is particularly pleased to join with the Majority in

support of the sections of this bill which fully fund the new Conservation Trust Fund created last year by the Congress (title VIII

of the Fiscal Year 2001 Interior Appropriations Act). This new

funding structure was created as our commitment to significant increases for preservation of this country’s natural and cultural resources. It expands programs which support critical land acquisition where lands are threatened by development, accelerates efforts

to deal with maintenance needs of our parks, refuges and forests,

enhances efforts to protect wildlife, and expands federal support for

other conservation and preservation needs. By providing the full

$1,320 million authorized this year for conservation programs in

the Interior bill, the Congress maintains its commitment to the $12

billion in funding anticipated over the first six years of this initiative. This is roughly twice the amount which would likely have

been provided under previous financing structures. We support the

Committee’s decision to maintain funding for the original programs

under the conservation program while at the same time providing

increases for Administration initiatives including an increase of

$60 million for Land and Water Conservation State Grants and $60

million for two new private landowner incentive programs.

The Minority is also very supportive of the levels in the bill for

the weatherization and State energy assistance grants programs.

The $311 million recommended, a $120 million increase over 2001,

will lead to significant savings in energy as additional homes,

schools and hospitals are insulated. This program is critical to

lower income families who often live in poorly insulated houses and

who have seen the cost of heating double in the last year.

The bill wisely restores many of the cuts proposed by the Bush

Administration in a number of critical areas. This includes the decision to restore approximately $300 million to the Energy Conservation and Fossil Energy research accounts at the Department

of Energy. These programs support research which can significantly ameliorate the energy crisis identified in President Bush’s

National Energy Policy. In his recent report to Congress on energy,

Vice President Cheney has identified America’s ‘‘unrivaled technology’’ and its ‘‘human creativity’’ as critical tools to deal with a

198

long term energy crisis which has already affected every American

and which seems almost certain to get worse. But, unfortunately,

the Vice President’s rhetoric on energy does not seem matched by

the President’s budget, a fiscal proposal which significantly reduces

our commitment to energy research. While the Minority supports

the efforts of the Majority to at least restore energy programs to

last year’s level, we do not believe that getting back to last year’s

funding levels is satisfactory. During Committee consideration of

the bill we unsuccessfully offered an amendment to add an additional $200 million for research in four critical areas. These included more efficient vehicles and buildings, plentiful and affordable electricity, less reliance on foreign oil, and technology to ameliorate the effects of global warming. As the bill proceeds through

the legislative process, the Minority will continue to look for opportunities to expand energy research.

While we have in these views attempted to indicate the many

areas in which we are supportive of the bill, we must, however, express our consternation regarding the continuing efforts of the Majority to hold down funding for America’s cultural agencies—the

National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the

Humanities and the Office of Museum Services. These agencies,

which finance the country’s small but critical efforts in support of

cultural education and preservation, were cut by more than 40 percent in 1995 and for the most part have yet to recover. The NEA

is funded in this bill at a level of $105 million, $65 million below

the 1995 level and in real dollars a reduction of almost half. The

appropriations for the National Endowment for the Humanities

and the Office of Museum Services are similarly inadequate in this

bill. The continuing policy of punishing these agencies because of

historical management and policy disputes ignores the successful

efforts of both the NEA and the NEH to address concerns raised

six years ago by the Majority. Reforms include a significant broadening of grant support to more States and communities, an expanded and more publicly responsive advisory council, and controls

to limit funding for controversial programs. We in the Minority believe it is time to recognize the success of these reform efforts and

the quality of the programs being supported by providing increased

funding. Unfortunately our efforts to add $25 million in Committee

to the budgets for these agencies was not successful. The Minority

will continue to look for sources of funding for our cultural agencies

as the bill moves to the House floor.

There are other areas beyond energy research and the cultural

agencies where the Minority would support additional funds. In

particular Indian health and education are high priority areas

which need increased resources. But, as stated at the beginning of

these views, we believe this legislation in balance is a good bill produced through an open and bi-partisan process. We believe it deserves an ‘‘aye’’ vote at final passage.

DAVID OBEY.

NORMAN DICKS.

Æ