```

[House Report 107-103]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

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

                              R E P O R T

                             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
        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.
    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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Committee bill
                     Activity                       Budget estimates,     Committee bill,       compared with
                                                     fiscal year 2002     fiscal year 2002     budget estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I, Department of the Interior: New Budget         $9,167,124,000       $9,420,563,000        +$253,439,000
 (obligational) authority........................
Title II, related agencies: New Budget                   8,905,511,000        9,443,292,000         +537,781,000
 (obligational) authority........................
                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------
      Grand total, New Budget (obligational)            18,072,635,000       18,863,855,000         +791,220,000
       authority.................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Fiscal year--
                        Item                         -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                             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
    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 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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       FY 2001 enacted                      FY 2002 Pres. budget
                                                           ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Interior                                                                         2002
             Subcategory/appropriation account               bill title    Interior                                                       Recommendation
                                                             I & title    bill title    Total**      Non-LWCF       LWCF        Total
                                                                 II       VIII-LWCF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Federal, State and Other LWCF Programs:
Federal Land Acquisition:
    BLM Federal...........................................      $31,032      $16,233      $47,265  ...........      $47,686      $47,686        $47,686
    FWS Federal...........................................       62,662       58,526      121,188  ...........      104,401      104,401        104,401
    NPS Federal...........................................       69,886       54,954      124,840  ...........      107,036      107,036        107,036
    FS Federal............................................      101,980       48,892      150,872  ...........      130,877      130,877        130,877
                                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Federal Land Acquisition..................      265,560      178,605      444,165  ...........      390,000      390,000        390,000
                                                           =============================================================================================
    Stateside Grants (Recreation and Wildlife)............       40,411       49,890       90,301  ...........      450,000      450,000  ..............
        NPS Stateside*....................................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........        154,000
        FWS State Wildlife Grants.........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........        100,000
        Tribal Grants.....................................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........          5,000
    FWS Incentive Grant Programs..........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........       60,000       60,000         60,000
                                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, State and Other Grants....................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........        319,000
                                                           =============================================================================================
      Total LWCF..........................................      305,971      228,495      534,466  ...........      900,000      900,000        709,000
                                                           =============================================================================================
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        107,000
    FWS North American Wetlands Conservation..............       19,956       19,956       39,912       14,912  ...........       14,912         45,000
    FWS Neotropical Migratory Birds.......................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........          5,000
    USGS State Planning Partnerships......................        4,989       19,956       24,945  ...........  ...........  ...........         25,000
    FS, Forest Legacy.....................................       29,934       29,934       59,868       30,079  ...........       30,079         60,000
    FS, Stewardship Incentives Program....................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........          8,000
    FS, NFS Planning, Inventory, Monitoring...............  ...........       19,956       19,956  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..............
                                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................................       81,745      217,520      299,265       99,685  ...........       99,685        250,000
                                                           =============================================================================================
Urban and Historic Preservation Programs:
    NPS Historic Preservation Fund***.....................       79,172       14,967       94,139       67,055  ...........       67,055         77,000
    NPS Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Grants........        9,978       19,956       29,934  ...........  ...........  ...........         30,000
    FS Urban and Community Forestry.......................       31,651        3,991       35,642       31,804  ...........       31,804         36,000
    BLM Youth Conservation Corps..........................      [1,000]  ...........      [1,000]        1,000  ...........        1,000          1,000
    FWS Youth Conservation Corps..........................      [1,000]  ...........      [1,000]        2,000  ...........        2,000          2,000
    NPS Youth Conservation Corps..........................      [2,000]  ...........      [2,000]        2,000  ...........        2,000          2,000
    FS Youth Conservation Corps...........................      [2,000]  ...........      [2,000]        2,000  ...........        2,000          2,000
                                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................................      126,801       38,914      165,715      105,859  ...........      105,859        150,000
                                                           =============================================================================================
BLM Payments in Lieu of Taxes.............................      149,670       49,890       49,890  ...........  ...........  ...........         50,000
FWS National Wildlife Refuge Fund.........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........          5,000
                                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................................    [149,670]       49,890       49,890  ...........  ...........  ...........         55,000
                                                           =============================================================================================
Federal Infrastructure Improvement Programs:
    BLM--Management of Lands & Resources..................  ...........       24,945       24,945       25,000  ...........       25,000         28,000
    FWS--Resource Management..............................  ...........       24,945       24,945       25,000  ...........       25,000         28,000
    NPS--Construction.....................................  ...........       49,890       49,890       50,000  ...........       50,000         50,000
    FS--Capital Improvement and Maintenance...............  ...........       49,890       49,890       50,497  ...........       50,497         50,000
                                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................................  ...........      149,670      149,670      150,497  ...........      150,497        156,000
                                                           =============================================================================================
      FS Total............................................      165,565      152,663      318,228      114,380      130,877      245,257        286,877
      DOI Total...........................................      348,952      531,826      880,778      241,661      769,123    1,010,784      1,033,123
                                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Grand Total.........................................     $514,517     $684,489   $1,199,066     $356,041     $900,000   $1,256,041     $1,320,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*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.

       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 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 Committee 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.

                        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 no-year funds do not lose their program identities when 
carried over to subsequent years and a reprogramming is 
required if such carry-over 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-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

    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:

    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 one-time 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 $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 one-time 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.
    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 cost-savings 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.
    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.

                              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
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:

    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 
estimated 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-a-horse 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 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:

    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:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Recommended      Target Level
                        Joint Venture                            Fiscal year      fiscal year      fiscal year
                                                                     2001             2002             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 
protection program should be funded at $1,000,000 in fiscal 
year 2002.
    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 provisions 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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Budget      Committee
                 Project                             Description             request  recommendation  Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anahuac NWR, TX.........................  Bridge Rehabilitation/                 330          330             0
                                           Replacement--Phase II (c).
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/          2,556        2,556             0
                                           Administration Building.
Bridge Safety Inspection................  ................................       545          545             0
Chincoteague NWR, VA....................  Herbert H. Bateman Educ. and         2,900        2,900             0
                                           Administrative Center--Phase
                                           III (c).
Condor Facilities, CA & ID..............  Recovery facility construction           0        1,750         1,750
                                           and renovation.
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                  0          100           100
                                           facilities.
Hagerman NWR, TX........................  Bridge Rehabilitation--Phase II      1,800        1,800             0
                                           (c).
Humboldt Bay NWR, CA....................  Seismic Safety Rehabilitation--        190          190             0
                                           Phase I (p/d).
Iron River NFH, WI......................  Replace Domes at Schacte Creek         740          740             0
                                           with Building.
John Heinz NWR, PA......................  Complete/equipment furnish               0          600           600
                                           admin. wing.
Jordan River NFH, MI....................  Replace Great Lakes Fish               200          200             0
                                           Stocking Vessel.
Klamath Basin Complex, OR...............  Water Supply and Management--        1,700        1,700             0
                                           Phase III.
Leavenworth NFH, WA.....................  Seismic Safety Rehabilitation--        170          170             0
                                           Phase I (p/d).
Midway Atoll NWR........................  Hangar roof replacement.........         0          650           650
National Black-Footed Ferret Cons. Ctr,   New Endangered Species Facility--    2,260        2,260             0
 CO.                                       Phase III (c).
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              2,600        2,300          -300
                                           Administrative Facility--Phase
                                           I (p/d/ic).
Quinault NFH, WA........................  Replace Quarters................       290          290             0
Red Rock Lakes NWR, MT..................  Seismic Safety Rehabilitation--        135          135             0
                                           Phase I (p/d).
San Pablo Bay NWR, CA...................  Renovate Office--Phase II (c)...     2,500        2,500             0
Six NFHs in New England.................  Water Treatment Improvements--       2,630        2,630             0
                                           Phase III (c).
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
    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 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 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 at-risk species.

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 
endangered 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.
    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.

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.

                         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.

                         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:

    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.
    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 establishment 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.
    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 non-Federal 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 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 
presented, outside of the Administration's budget proposal and 
five-year 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 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.
    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 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:

    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
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:

    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:
          
        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
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.
    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 
repairs 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 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
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 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:

    The Committee recommends $900,489,000 for surveys, 
investigations, 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 continue 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 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.

                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:

    The Committee recommends $149,867,000 for royalty and 
offshore 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:

    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:

    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:

    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, including 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:

    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

    The Committee recommends $4,986,000 for the Indian 
guaranteed 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:

    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 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.

                      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:

    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:

    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 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

    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.
    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 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.
    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 cost-shares to their programs. The Committee 
encourages the Forest Service to increase its FIA effort in 
those States which help cost-share 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:

    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 
long-horned 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, cost-share 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 
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 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 non-Federal 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 
programs, $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]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        2001     Budget      Committee
               Program                 enacted   request  recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic Recovery Base Program......  ........    $6,999       $3,600
    TN Overhill regional economic     ........  ........          200
     develop........................
    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
    NE & Midwest allocation.........  ........     2,500        2,500
    Four Corners Sustainable          ........       500          750
     Forestry.......................
    Hawaii forestry initiative......  ........       100          100
    NY City watershed rural           ........       150          300
     development....................
    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.             1,078     6,300        1,500
       Conserv. & Recy..............
                                     ===================================
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        ........         0        2,000
     grants, CA NV..................
    Cradle of forestry conserv. ed,   ........  ........          250
     NC.............................
    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 campgrounds, 58 major visitor 
centers, and about one-half of the Nation's ski-lift capacity. 
Wilderness areas cover 35 million acres, nearly two-thirds of 
the wilderness in the contiguous 48 States. The Forest Service 
also has major habitat management responsibilities for more 
than 3,000 species of wildlife and fish, and 10,000 plant 
species and provides important habitat and open space for over 
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:

    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 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 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.
    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 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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Recommended compared to:
                   Program                        2001         2002        Committee   -------------------------
                                                enacted      request    recommendation    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 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 KV-fund 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 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 
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Recommended
                       Project/Activity                           2001       2002       Committee    compared to
                                                                enacted    request   Recommendation    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
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
          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 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
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.

    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 
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 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 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:

    The Committee recommends $579,000,000 for fossil energy 
research 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 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.

                 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:

    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:

    The Committee recommends $940,805,000 for energy 
conservation, 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/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 cost-sharing 
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 
research 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.

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 million-barrel 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 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

    The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 
budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table:

    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, 
including $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 support 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:

    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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Committee
              Project                 Budget request     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 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.

    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.

                         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:

    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.

                              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.

                        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:

    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.
    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:

    The Committee recommends $98,234,000 for grants and 
administration, 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:

    The Committee recommends $104,882,000 for grants and 
administration 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:

    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.

               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.

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.
    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 third-party 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 
government-wide 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.
    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.

                                 APPROPRIATION TRANSFERS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Account to which transfer is to
   Account from which transfer is to be made        Amount                   be made                  Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Energy, Clean Coal Technology...     $50,000,000  Department of Energy, Energy         $50,000,000
                                                                 Resource, Elk Hills School
                                                                 Lands Fund.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 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 cost-sharing 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 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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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 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 non-Indians 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 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.
    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 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 self-determination 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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Appropriations
                                          Last year of                             in last year   Appropriations
                                         authorization     Authorization level          of         in this bill
                                                                                   authorization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Endowment for the Arts........          1993   ``Such sums as may be          $174,460        $105,234
                                                         necessary''.
National Endowment for the Humanities..          1993   ``Such sums as may be          $177,413        $120,504
                                                         necessary''.
Office of Navajo & Hopi Indian                   2000   $30,000.................         $8,000         $15,148
 Relocation.
        Bureau of Land Management
Management of Lands and Resources:
    Mining claim fee in lieu of annual           2001   NA......................        $34,328         $32,298
     maintenance.
        U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Resources Management:
    Endangered Species Act Amendments            1992   $41,500.................        $35,721        $123,164
     of 1988.
    Marine Mammal Protection Act                 1999   $10,296.................         $2,008          $2,446
     Amendments of 1994.
        Bureau of Indian Affairs
Operation of Indian Programs:
    Resource Management (Endangered              1992   $41,500.................         $1,660          $3,476
     Species Act).
        Department of Energy
Energy Information Administration......          1992   NA......................        $76,300         $78,499
Office of Fossil Energy:
    Coal...............................          1997   ``Such sums as may be          $149,629         $80,677
                                                         necessary''.
    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.--[The 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.
    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 [2001] 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, [2002] 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 
[2001] 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) [no 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; [and]
          (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 [.]; 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 
[commence 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, [2005] 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 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

                          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

                          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
                          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

                          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
                                    
                                    

                            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 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.

                                  

```