67–352 

112TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 112–151 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND 

RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATION BILL, 2012 

JULY 19, 2011.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SIMPSON, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 2584] 

The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in 

explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for the 

Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, 

and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 

2012. The bill provides regular annual appropriations for the Department of the Interior (except the Bureau of Reclamation and the 

Central Utah Project), the Environmental Protection Agency, and 

for other related agencies, including the Forest Service, the Indian 

Health Service, the Smithsonian Institution, and the National 

Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities. 

CONTENTS 

Page number 

Bill Report 

Title I—Department of the Interior: 

Bureau of Land Management ............................................................ 2 17 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service ........................................... 8 23 

National Park Service ......................................................................... 13 29 

United States Geological Survey ....................................................... 16 36 

Bureau of Ocean Energy, Management, Regulation and Enforcement (former Minerals Management Service) .............................. 19 38 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement ................. 21 40 

Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Indian Education ............. 23 41 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

Page number 

Bill Report 

Office of the Secretary ........................................................................ 31 44 

Insular Affairs ..................................................................................... 33 46 

Office of the Solicitor .......................................................................... 36 48 

Office of Inspector General ................................................................. 36 48 

Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians ......................... 36 49 

Department-wide Programs: 

Wildland Fire Management, Interior Department ........................... 38 49 

FLAME Wildfire Suppression Reserve Fund, Interior Department 42 52 

Central Hazardous Materials Fund .................................................. 43 52 

Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration ................. 43 52 

Working Capital Fund ........................................................................ 43 53 

General Provisions, Department of the Interior ............................... 45 54 

Title II—Environmental Protection Agency: 

Science and Technology ...................................................................... 59 57 

Environmental Programs and Management ..................................... 60 61 

Office of Inspector General ................................................................. 61 73 

Buildings and Facilities ...................................................................... 61 74 

Hazardous Substance Superfund ....................................................... 61 74 

Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program ................................. 62 76 

Inland Oil Spill Program .................................................................... 63 77 

State and Tribal Assistance Grants .................................................. 63 78 

Administrative Provisions .................................................................. 67 82 

Title III—Related Agencies: 

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture .............................. 70 82 

Forest Service, Wildland Fire Management ..................................... 74 95 

FLAME Wildfire Suppression Reserve Fund, Forest Service ......... 77 96 

Indian Health Service, DHHS ........................................................... 83 97 

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences ..................... 91 99 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ......................... 91 100 

Other Related Agencies: 

Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental 

Quality .............................................................................................. 93 101 

Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board ........................... 93 102 

Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation ................................... 94 102 

Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts 

Development .................................................................................... 95 102 

Smithsonian Institution ..................................................................... 95 102 

National Gallery of Art ....................................................................... 97 105 

John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts ............................ 99 106 

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars ........................ 99 106 

National Endowment for the Arts ..................................................... 100 107 

National Endowment for the Humanities ......................................... 100 110 

Commission of Fine Arts .................................................................... 102 111 

National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs ...................................... --- 111 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ....................................... 102 111 

National Capital Planning Commission ............................................ 102 112 

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum .................................... 103 112 

Presidio Trust ...................................................................................... 103 113 

Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission ................................. 103 113 

Title IV—General Provisions .................................................................... 104 114 

Title V—Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011 ............................... 138 118 

Title VI—Additional General Provisions .................................................. 140 118 

INTRODUCTION

The fiscal year 2012 bill has been developed following careful 

consideration of the facts and details available to the Committee. 

The Committee recommends $27,465,000,000 to fund the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, the 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

U.S. Forest Service, the Indian Health Service, the Smithsonian Institution, and 18 other related agencies. This amount reflects a $2,094,000,000 reduction in spending 

from the fiscal year 2011 Continuing Resolution and a 

$3,824,290,000 reduction from the budget request. Overall spending is reduced by seven percent from fiscal year 2011 and 12 percent below the budget request. As a result, overall funding in this 

bill is essentially on par with levels established in fiscal year 2009. 

The amounts in the accompanying bill are reflected by title in 

the table below. In addition, a detailed table providing the recommended amounts for each agency/bureau, account, or program 

funded through this bill is included at the end of this report. 

BUDGET AUTHORITY RECOMMENDED IN BILL BY TITLE 

Activity Budget estimates, 

fiscal year 2012 

Committee bill, 

fiscal year 2012 

Committee bill 

compared with 

budget estimates 

Title I, Department of the Interior: 

New budget authority ...................................................... $11,054,410,000 $9,854,748,000 ¥$1,199,662,000 

Title II, Environmental Protection Agency: 

New budget authority ...................................................... 8,973,000,000 7,149,202,000 ¥1,823,798,000 

Title III, Related Agencies: 

New budget authority ...................................................... 11,258,880,000 10,458,050,000 ¥800,830,000 

Title IV, General Provisions: 

New budget authority ...................................................... 0 0 0 

Grand total, New budget authority ......................... 31,343,710,000 27,519,420,000 ¥3,824,290,000 

BILL SUMMARY

FOCUSING ON PROVEN, CORE PROGRAMS

The fiscal challenges facing our country today are evident in 

record Federal budget deficits and our staggering national debt. 

These and other challenges which threaten our national economy 

and the economic stability of all Americans are rooted in unprecedented levels of Federal spending that has occurred in recent years. 

At a time when the Federal government borrows over 40 cents 

for each dollar that it spends, Congress must take immediate action to put our nation’s fiscal house in order by reducing Federal 

spending, balancing the budget, and creating jobs to put our economy on a sustainable, healthy course for the future. 

While reductions in discretionary spending will not completely 

erase the deficit or fully address our country’s economic challenges, 

the Committee has an obligation to reverse this unsustainable pattern of spending growth and put our nation on a path toward fiscal 

health. The fiscal year 2012 Interior, Environment, and Related 

Agencies appropriations bill is a step forward in that direction. 

The subcommittee has made difficult choices in fashioning its 

budget recommendations. While the bill makes significant reductions in spending across the multiple agencies and programs under 

the subcommittee’s jurisdiction, it provides sufficient funding enabling each to focus on their core missions. Members of Congress 

had considerable input in the contents of this measure. In total, 

235 Members submitted over 1,700 programmatic requests relating 

to funding levels for multiple agencies and programs. 

The Committee believes that too often a commitment to an issue 

is measured by the amount of money spent rather than how the 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

money is spent. History has shown that bigger budgets don’t necessarily produce better results. Each agency under the jurisdiction 

of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies bill is strongly 

encouraged to carefully evaluate how it conducts its work during 

these constrained fiscal times and focus on proven, cost-effective 

programs and on better management of resources. 

OVERSIGHT

The Appropriations Committee’s first and foremost priority is 

oversight. The subcommittee takes seriously its oversight responsibility and has conducted 22 budget hearings (including five hearings involving the public and American Indians) to carefully review 

the programs and budgets under its jurisdiction. Over the course 

of these hearings, subcommittee Members engaged in a rigorous 

process to determine the best use of funds to meet the substantial 

needs and priorities outlined in this report. The subcommittee held 

the following oversight hearings over a three-month period: 

Major Management Challenges at the Department of the Interior—March 1, 2011 

Major Management Challenges at the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA)—March 2, 2011 

EPA FY12 budget oversight hearing—March 3, 2011 

Department of the Interior FY12 budget oversight hearing— 

March 8, 2011 

National Park Service FY12 budget oversight hearing—March 9, 

2011 

Bureau of Land Management FY12 budget oversight hearing— 

March 10, 2011 

Office of Surface Mining FY12 budget oversight hearing—March 

10, 2011 

Major Management Challenges at the U.S. Forest Service— 

March 10, 2011 

U.S. Forest Service FY12 budget oversight hearing—March 11, 

2011 

Fish and Wildlife Service FY12 budget oversight hearing—March 

16, 2011 

U.S. Geological Survey FY12 budget oversight hearing—March 

17, 2011 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) and Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) 

FY12 budget oversight hearing—March 17, 2011 

Bureau of Indian Affairs FY12 budget oversight hearing—March 

30, 2011 

Indian Health Service FY12 budget oversight hearing—March 

31, 2011 

Public Witnesses—April 14, 2011 

Public Witnesses—April 15, 2011 

Native American Public Witnesses—May 3, 2011 (morning) 

Native American Public Witnesses—May 3, 2011 (afternoon) 

Native American Public Witnesses—May 4, 2011 

National Endowment for the Arts FY12 budget oversight hearing—May 11, 2011 

National Endowment for the Humanities FY12 budget oversight 

hearing—May 11, 2011 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

Smithsonian Institution FY12 budget oversight hearing—May 

12, 2011 

In total, 136 individuals representing the General Accountability 

Office (GAO), the Executive Branch, the U.S. Congress, state and 

local government, the public and American Indians testified before 

the Subcommittee. The perspectives shared on a wide-range of 

issues were essential to the Subcommittee as it conducted an extensive and thorough review of the budget request. 

Testimony provided by the GAO and the Inspector General (IG) 

of three Federal government agencies in separate oversight hearings revealed major management weaknesses at the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of the Interior (DoI), and 

the Forest Service. The Committee believes this oversight will lead 

to higher levels of accountability and improved management efficiencies that will ultimately benefit the taxpaying public. The Committee directs each of these agencies to report to the Committee no 

later than 60 days following enactment of this Act on steps taken 

to implement reforms outlined by the GAO and the IG. 

In addition to those who testified personally, over 150 individuals 

and organizations have provided written testimony for the permanent hearing record. These hearings are contained in eight published volumes totaling nearly 10,000 pages which are publicly 

available online. 

Inherent in the Committee’s oversight function is the responsibility to determine not only appropriate funding levels for this year 

but also what levels of funding remain from past years. In furtherance of its oversight responsibility, the Committee requested that 

major agencies funded in the bill provide information on the status 

of balances of appropriations, including amounts that are: (1) unobligated and uncommitted; (2) committed to contracts, grants or 

other planned obligations; and (3) obligated but unexpended. 

During the development of the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution, it became evident that many of the agencies under the subcommittee’s jurisdiction were unable to provide this data relating 

to both discretionary and mandatory accounts on a timely basis. 

The Committee experienced delays in receiving this information 

and found that the agency reports did not provide a comprehensive 

picture of the status of balances. Of particular concern, the Committee found that the agencies could not report on the age of balances by year of appropriation. As a result, it is not possible to tell 

whether the balances derive from uncommitted or unobligated balances in the immediately prior fiscal year or from appropriations 

acts enacted two, three or more years earlier. 

The source year of carryover is important. If balances have languished on the books for multiple fiscal years it is a symptom, at 

best, of administrative inefficiency. Of more concern, it may suggest that the Committee was asked to provide appropriations in excess of the amount required to accomplish program purposes. Given 

the obvious importance of the source year of balances to budget administration, the Committee is puzzled that agencies have not configured internal accounting systems to capture and routinely report 

this information. 

The Committee was pleased to learn that the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) and the Forest Service plan to track the 

source year of no year carryover balances beginning in fiscal year 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

2012. To ensure that other major agencies follow this lead, the 

Committee has included bill language that will compel the Department of the Interior and the Indian Health Service to prospectively 

adopt source year accounting for the status of funds for both commitments and obligations. Bill language contained in Title IV requires that the Department of the Interior, EPA, Forest Service, 

and the Indian Health Service begin reporting to the Committee on 

a quarterly basis on the status of balances, including the source 

year of balances. It is the Committee’s intention that the agency reports show the status of balances at the appropriation account 

level, as well as at budget activity or other lower levels where such 

levels are reflected in the Committee’s report accompanying an appropriation act. 

REGULATION IN THE ABSENCE OF LEGISLATION

Many policy-related issues associated with the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies bill arise each year that have farreaching impacts on the management of our public lands and natural resources as well as on the health of our national economy. 

Administration policies directly influence budgetary priorities and 

therefore impact the Committee’s ability to determine annual appropriations. The so-called ‘‘Wild Lands’’ initiative established 

through a Department of the Interior secretarial order and the 

EPA’s efforts to regulate greenhouse gases are illustrative of the 

challenges facing the Committee each year. In both cases, the Department of the Interior and the EPA took action in the absence 

of legislation and without clear congressional direction. 

Members of Congress, particularly those from western states, expressed a variety of legitimate concerns about the Wild Lands initiative, which many believed would establish de facto wilderness 

without the benefit of public comment or congressional oversight. 

Chief among those concerns was that the Department had overstepped its own authority, that the initiative would make it harder 

to make sound land management decisions, and that it would result in increased litigation. In light of these and other concerns, 

Congress included a funding prohibition in the fiscal year 2011 

Continuing Resolution to prevent the implementation of the Wild 

Lands initiative. 

The Committee commends the Secretary of the Interior for his 

decision to comply with this congressional direction and his announcement that the Department would be working with all stakeholders in the future to develop a set of recommendations to Congress on how to manage lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Similarly, the EPA’s unrestrained effort to regulate greenhouse 

gases, and the pursuit of an overly aggressive regulatory agenda, 

are demonstrative of an agency that has lost its bearing. The impact of this agenda on our national economy—from the tremendous 

burdens it places on small businesses and large industries, to the 

impacts felt in small towns and rural communities across America, 

to lost jobs and lost economic production—is staggering. 

Particularly concerning is the lack of credible cost-benefit analyses suggesting tangible benefits derived from the extraordinary 

cost of implementing these regulations. The Committee intends to 

carefully examine agencies’ methodologies for conducting cost-benVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:11 Jul 20, 2011 Jkt 067352 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR151.XXX HR151

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

efit analyses to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being used as efficiently as possible. 

The Committee believes these and other regulatory efforts are an 

impediment to long-term economic growth. Members of both parties 

have expressed grave concern that the overzealous regulatory actions of the EPA over the last two years have vastly exceeded the 

authority it has been provided. An expression of this frustration 

was evident earlier this year during consideration of H.R. 1 when, 

during floor consideration of that measure, 21 amendments were 

adopted either restricting EPA funding or reining in its out-of-control regulatory agenda. 

Congress has given agencies specific authority in regulating activities of industry and individuals, and the responsibility to determine whether or not to expand that authority—whether it regards 

regulation of greenhouse gases, coal mining, pond water, farm dust, 

or other sectors of the economy—rests solely with Congress and not 

the EPA. 

Our country has made great strides in cleaning up pollution in 

the air, water, and soil over the past four decades. However, the 

Committee is alarmed by the efforts of the EPA to drastically expand its regulatory authority beyond what Congress intended by 

implementing regulations that will result in marginal health or environmental benefit at great cost to our economy. The Committee 

is concerned about the economic uncertainty created by the proliferation of new regulations proposed by the agency, many of 

which are not finalized for a number of years. 

In light of ongoing concerns expressed by a bipartisan cross section of Members, the Committee has included as General Provisions a number of EPA funding prohibitions including a one-year 

prohibition on the use of funds for the implementation of greenhouse gas regulations, as well as a prohibition on the use of funds 

to change the definition of waters of the United States, in Title IV 

of this bill. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FUNDING

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does have an important role to play in protecting public and environmental health. 

Under statutory authority, the EPA implements programs to monitor and regulate air and water quality, drinking water, hazardous 

waste, research, pesticides, radiation, toxic substances, enforcement 

and compliance assurance, pollution prevention, oil spills, Superfund, Brownfields, and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank 

program. In addition, EPA provides Federal assistance for wastewater treatment, sewer overflow control, drinking water facilities, 

and other water infrastructure projects to help States, Tribes, and 

communities meet Federal mandates. 

While the Committee recognizes the importance of the Clean 

Water and Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, these accounts received $6 billion in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 and a 130 percent increase in funding in 

fiscal year 2010. Under the current allocation, these funds must inevitably shrink. The Committee believes that funding these accounts through regular appropriations is unsustainable, and the 

Committee encourages the appropriate authorizing committees to 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

examine funding mechanisms for the SRFs that are sustainable in 

the long-term. 

The Committee notes that the EPA’s overall budget has grown 

significantly in recent years. In calendar year 2009, the agency received over $25 billion in combined stimulus funding and regular 

appropriations, a staggering sum nearly equivalent to the subcommittee’s entire allocation this year. Based on this recent history, it should come as no surprise that the agency faces significant 

spending cuts under the subcommittee’s current funding allocation. 

Funding for the EPA was reduced by $1.6 billion, or 16 percent, 

from the fiscal year 2010 enacted level in the fiscal year 2011 Continuing Resolution. An additional reduction of $1.5 billion, or 18 

percent, from the fiscal year 2011 enacted level is proposed in this 

bill putting overall funding for the EPA well below fiscal year 2006 

enacted levels. 

COSTS OF LITIGATION AND LACK OF TRANSPARENCY

The Committee is concerned that many of the legitimate goals of 

the Forest Service, the BLM, and other agencies under the Committee’s jurisdiction are undermined by litigation filed in an effort 

to shift land management decisions from the agencies tasked by 

Congress with those responsibilities to the courts, regardless of 

merit. It is apparent that many activist groups are using the Federal court system to stop any activity of which they disapprove. The 

outcome of such lawsuits becomes less important, really, than tying 

up a specific issue in the courts as long as possible. 

Not only does the rising cost of litigation seem to indicate that 

the very existence of some organizations is predicated on their ability to file lawsuits challenging public policy and existing primarily 

to prevent worthy projects from moving forward, but it also undermines the work of this Committee. 

As litigation costs siphon funding away from critical priority programs, agencies are forced to divert budgets intended for effective 

land management away from carrying out activities associated with 

their congressionally-directed missions. The Committee is alarmed 

that some state and field offices currently spend more than half of 

their current budget on responding to litigation. The Committee is 

also deeply concerned that these costs, which are paralyzing many 

national forests and field offices, are not accounted for by the agencies. It becomes impossible for this Committee to write an accurate 

or responsible budget when the costs of litigation are neither accounted for nor available. 

The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) authorizes a court, 

under certain circumstances, to award reasonable attorneys fees 

and expenses to a party who prevails against the United States in 

a civil action. A provision within EAJA (28 U.S.C.ss 2412(d)(4)) directs an agency to pay an EAJA award out of its annual budget 

with the obligation resting on the agency to make and account for 

these payments. 

The Committee has learned that neither the Department of Justice nor the Department of the Interior, EPA, or the Forest Service 

comprehensively track EAJA fee payments, identify the funds used 

to pay EAJA fees, nor routinely make this information publicly 

available. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Department of 

the Interior, the EPA, and the Forest Service to provide to the 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations and make publicly available, no later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, 

and with each agency’s annual budget submission thereafter, the 

following information: detailed reports on the amount of program 

funds used; the names of the fee recipients; the names of the Federal judges; the disposition of the applications (including any appeals of action taken on the applications); and the hourly rates of 

attorneys and expert witnesses stated in the applications that was 

awarded, for all EAJA fee payments awarded as a result of litigation against any of the Department of Interior bureaus, the EPA, 

or the Forest Service, or their respective employees. The report 

shall also include the information listed above for litigation relating 

to the Endangered Species Act and the amounts, outside of EAJA 

awards, paid in settlement for all litigation, regardless of the statute litigated. 

The Committee is also deeply concerned that Federal courts are 

exceeding their constitutional authority and sequestering agency 

resources contrary to Congressional direction. In recent years, 

members of the judicial branch have compelled the Fish and Wildlife Service to list, or consider listing, as endangered or threatened 

species particular species even though focusing on these particular 

species is contrary to the priorities established by the agency and 

affirmed by Congress via appropriations. Finite appropriated funds 

have been redirected and reallocated to satisfy these judicial edicts. 

This judicial redirection of monies provided to the Service by Congress is contrary to the established separation of powers principle 

and in derogation of the constitutional power of the purse vested 

in Congress. The Committee urges the Service, and the Department, to be diligent in objecting to judicial overreach and orders regarding the Endangered Species Act that effectively sequester 

agency resources. 

EXPIRED AUTHORIZATIONS

No less than 56 agencies and/or programs under the purview of 

the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee remain unauthorized or have an expired congressional authorization 

of appropriations (see ‘‘Appropriations Not Authorized by Law’’ at 

the back of the report). Together these unauthorized agencies and 

programs comprise $7,248,023,000, or 26 percent, of this fiscal year 

2012 appropriation bill. Continual appropriation for unauthorized 

programs circumvents the rigorous process of legislative review and 

revision. 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is a prime example of an authorization long since expired that is overdue for additional Congressional review. No less than 2,018 species have been added to 

the threatened and endangered lists over the lifetime of the Act, 

of which only 21 have been recovered. Any other program with 

such a poor success rate would have long since been terminated. 

Originally enacted in a successful effort to save the nation’s iconic 

bald eagle from extinction, the Act has become so highly contentious, political, and litigious that it has become a policy failure. 

Wolves are a case in point. Wolf populations in the Northern 

Rocky Mountains (NRM) and the Western Great Lakes (WGL) are 

recovered and should be delisted, in part because States have 

sound management plans in place, according to the scientific agenVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:11 Jul 20, 2011 Jkt 067352 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR151.XXX HR151

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

cy tasked by Congress with making those determinations. Nevertheless, third parties that should have been partnering with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the States to conserve wolves 

instead sued the Service over its decision to delist wolves in the 

NRM, which put the decision into the hands of the courts until an 

Act of Congress (P.L. 112–10) settled the matter permanently. Now 

that the Service has proposed to delist wolves in the WGL region, 

the matter would likely be headed to court but for a provision in 

this Bill exempting any future WGL wolf delisting determination 

from judicial review. Similar language has been included with regard to the State of Wyoming so that, should the Service propose 

to delist wolves after approving a State management plan, the provision included in P.L. 112–10 would be extended to the entire 

NRM population. If in the future the Service determines that 

wolves elsewhere in the nation should be delisted, such as in the 

desert southwest or elsewhere in the west where wolves have naturally expanded beyond the Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population Segment boundary, this Committee will consider similar 

bill language until such time as Congress has conducted a thorough 

review and reauthorization of the ESA. 

Given an over-reliance by some agencies under the Committee’s 

jurisdiction to extend authorizations on an annual basis, the Committee reserves the option to limit future funding for unauthorized 

programs or to discontinue funding altogether. In this fiscal year 

2012 appropriation bill, the Committee has exercised that option by 

decreasing funding for Endangered Species Act implementation; reducing funding for the State and tribal wildlife grants program; 

and terminating the neotropical migratory bird conservation fund 

program, the EPA Alaska Native Villages grant program, EPA’s 

U.S.-Mexico border grant program, and EPA’s environmental education program. The Committee urges all entities with an interest 

in these and other unauthorized agencies and/or programs to take 

any and all necessary steps to work with the appropriate authorizing committees in a timely fashion to secure essential congressional authorization. 

CONGRESSIONALLY CHARTERED ORGANIZATIONS

The Committee notes the presence of no less than eight congressionally chartered organizations funded by appropriations and private funds in the fiscal year 2012 bill. Congressionally chartered 

entities serve many diverse purposes and benefit from broad bipartisan support. An underlying question is whether these entities are 

areas that should be left to the private sector or whether they are 

examples of public private partnerships that enable the government to cost-share with the private sector. Beneath this question 

is the fundamental issue, ‘‘What ought government do?’’ The same 

question also applies to prospective museums and presidential memorials authorized by Congress to be built on or near the National 

Mall. The costs associated with constructing these museums and 

memorials place enormous additional pressure on already tight 

budgets to operate, maintain, and renovate existing assets and facilities. 

The Presidio Trust is an illustration of a congressionally chartered organization that has, as a result of direction provided by 

Congress, successfully moved toward self-sustainability. Funding 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

contained in this year’s bill fulfills the commitment made by Congress to support the transition of the Presidio Army Base to a 

mixed-use, financially independent facility. Successful collaboration 

between the private and public sectors has saved taxpayers over $1 

billion in capital costs and over $45 million in annual operating 

costs associated with the Presidio while also significantly reducing 

the Federal government’s role in managing this national historic 

landmark. 

The Committee also observes that presidential memorials located 

at Mount Vernon and Monticello are operated through private, 

non-profit organizations and receive no ongoing Federal, state, or 

local funding. As the Committee seeks to identify future efficiencies 

throughout government, it is worth examining whether the Presidio Trust or these presidential memorials provide models for future self-sustainability for any of the congressionally charted organizations contained in this bill. Accordingly, the Committee directs 

the General Accountability Office (GAO) to initiate, not later than 

60 days after enactment of this Act, a study of present and prospective funding models to determine the feasibility of congressionally 

chartered organizations achieving self-sustainability. 

ECONOMIES OF SCALE

After several years of rapid and unsustainable increases, spending for non-defense discretionary programs is being reduced to address soaring deficits and staggering levels of debt. The Committee 

maintains that these spending reductions present a real opportunity for agencies to plan for and execute restructuring and 

downsizing to achieve economies of scale. Agencies that fail to 

adapt to this new budgetary environment may see their programs 

terminated in the future. 

To this end, the Committee has taken several actions in this bill 

to encourage, assist, and in some cases direct agency and program 

change. For example, the Committee has directed the Fish and 

Wildlife Service to take steps to consolidate its new and overlapping landscape conservation initiative with its ongoing and successful joint ventures program. Also, the Committee has directed the 

Department of the Interior to improve coordination and consolidate 

redundant functions within staffing of the Department’s Office of 

Wildland Fire Coordination. Such efforts will achieve efficiencies, 

eliminate a duplication of effort, and provide more funding on the 

ground where it is needed most. Moving forward, the Committee 

will look favorably upon agencies and programs that initiate similar efforts. 

The Committee maintains that agencies need to step up their efforts to consolidate regional offices across agencies. For example, 

three or more agencies in this bill have regional offices located in 

Albuquerque, Anchorage, Atlanta, Billings, Denver, Phoenix, Portland, and Sacramento. Agencies located in these cities should be colocated, and other agencies located in cities nearby should consider 

relocating to these and other more centralized locations. Similarly, 

field offices with two or fewer staff should be closed or co-located 

with field offices of other agencies—particularly when their functions are similar. The Committee has provided $2,500,000 for the 

Department of the Interior’s effort to identify operating efficiencies 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 

and achieve savings across bureaus through consolidation of services, facilities, and infrastructure. 

The Committee believes that the Service First authority, first 

provided in fiscal year 2000, has resulted in creative ways for Federal agencies to work collaboratively, achieve more effective and efficient operations, and improve customer service. The Committee 

has reviewed testimony from Federal agencies and others about the 

potential for Service First to be expanded to generate even greater 

benefits. The Committee requests a joint report from the Department and the Forest Service on the Service First initiative, including recommendations to improve its effectiveness, estimated performance metrics and cost savings to date, and examples of successful use within 180 days of enactment of this Act. 

Further, the Committee directs Interior bureaus, along with the 

EPA, Forest Service, and Indian Health Service, to provide with 

their annual budget submissions a list of field offices and their estimated FTE and budgets for the prior, current, and upcoming fiscal 

years. In an effort to achieve greater efficiencies and maintain 

funding for core programs, the Committee also directs the Department of the Interior, the EPA, Forest Service and Indian Health 

Service to submit not later than 120 days after enactment of this 

Act, a joint proposal to consolidate field offices or close offices with 

minimal staffing. 

AMERICAN INDIAN PROGRAMS

There is no more complicated and less well-understood relationship than that between American Indians and the United States 

government. After nearly two centuries of conflicting policies toward American Indians, in 1970 President Nixon called for self-determination of American Indians without the threat of termination 

of the trust relationship over Indian lands. Since that date, self-determination has been the basis of Federal Indian policy as more 

operational aspects of Federal programs are transferred to tribal 

management. 

Under numerous treaties between Tribes and the Federal government, the United States has responsibilities to American Indians including a wide range of services delivered in concert with the 

enhancement of Indian self-determination. There are over 20 Federal departments and agencies that collectively provide a full range 

of Federal programs to American Indians similar to those provided 

to the general public, including healthcare, social services, transportation and other infrastructure, education, public safety and justice, and natural resources management. Two departments and six 

agencies are represented in this bill, comprising about 45 percent 

of the total government-wide funding for American Indian and 

Alaska Native programs. 

The Department of the Interior’s Indian Affairs bureaus and the 

Department of Health and Human Services’ Indian Health Service 

are the two primary sources of funding in this bill for Indian Country. Together these agencies deliver services to approximately 1.9 

million American Indians and Alaska Natives who are members or 

descendents of 565 Federally recognized Tribes in the 48 contiguous United States and Alaska. 

Notwithstanding the services provided in this bill and Federal 

government-wide, communities in Indian Country continue to face 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
13 

a number of serious challenges, including health care, housing, 

crime, and education. Many American Indians today live in abject 

poverty; violence on Indian reservations is higher than the national 

average; and incidents of alcoholism, diabetes, infant mortality, 

substance abuse, and suicide in Indian Country are far in excess 

of the rest of America. 

This year as in the previous year, the Committee held budget 

oversight hearings on the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian 

Health Service, in addition to three public witness hearings solely 

devoted to American Indian issues. No less than 110 tribal leaders 

and American Indian advocates testified in 2010 and 2011 combined. Among the recurring themes this Committee heard were: (1) 

the lack of coordination among the various agencies for infrastructure development; (2) the gaps in health care services and providers in Indian Country; (3) the shortfalls in law enforcement personnel; (4) the education challenges for underfunded and/or remote 

schools; and (5) the need to fully fund contract support costs. 

In light of these challenges, the Committee has prioritized funding for programs that enable the Federal government to further 

meet its trust responsibilities to American Indians. At a time of 

record budget deficits, the Committee recognizes that increasing 

funding to fully meet all obligations is not feasible, but this bill 

makes calculated and significant steps toward meeting trust responsibilities by: increasing the budgets of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service by a combined $328,000,000; increasing funding for contract support costs by a combined 

$184,508,000; fully funding inflationary costs; increasing tribal law 

enforcement funding; increasing education funding; partially restoring by $50,000,000 the proposed elimination of replacement 

school construction; increasing healthcare facilities construction by 

$46,568,000; and fully funding the staffing costs of newly constructed health facilities. 

While the Committee’s recommendation and the President’s 

budget include funds for these services, responsibility and oversight 

for many of the projects and programs are dispersed over several 

agencies. Some are contained within this Act, while others are not. 

For example, no less than three agencies may be involved in constructing a home on a reservation: the Indian Health Service, the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs. Tribes may also seek funds from the Department 

of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency for infrastructure support of those homes. The result is a fragmented 

and confusing approach to addressing basic infrastructure and the 

health and education needs of American Indian communities. 

On November 5, 2009, the President signed a memorandum directing all Federal agencies to provide a plan on how each agency 

is implementing Executive Order 13175, which requires Federal 

agencies to engage in regular and meaningful consultation with 

Tribes. The Committee supports this effort, but views it only as an 

initial step. Beyond consultation, there must be more effective implementation of the Federal laws and programs created to honor 

this Nation’s trust responsibility to American Indians—including 

meeting government-wide mandates under the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEA, P.L. 93–638, as 

amended). 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
14 

The Committee directs the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Attorney General, the 

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the 

Chief of the Forest Service to provide this Committee within 120 

days of enactment of this Act a joint report on: (1) how these agencies can use the consultation process to streamline and coordinate 

grant programs and funding opportunities for American Indian programs under their jurisdiction; and (2) opportunities for each agency and bureau to enter into new compacts with Tribes, as per 

ISDEA. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND PROGRAMS

The Committee recommends $65,833,000 for Land and Water 

Conservation Fund (LWCF) programs, $234,701,000 below fiscal 

year 2011 enacted levels and $834,167,000 below the 2012 budget 

request. No funding is provided for new acquisitions other than for 

small Federal inholdings. The four Federal land acquisition programs and the three primary State grant programs are funded at 

minimal levels to continue to oversee projects that were funded in 

previous years. 

The Committee recognizes the value that these programs have 

had over the life of the LWCF, and the cuts proposed in this bill 

are less about the merits of these programs and more about the 

larger issue of deficit spending and addressing more pressing priorities in this bill. 

Still, the Committee had several concerns with the President’s 

fiscal year 2012 request. First, such a rapid funding increase for 

LWCF is unrealistic and potentially wasteful in any budget climate. The Committee has seen enough evidence to suggest that the 

Administration put forth a request for more projects than it could 

responsibly manage in one fiscal year. 

Second, the Committee is skeptical of the Administration’s argument that more Federal land acquisition will result in reduced land 

management costs as inholdings are consolidated. That the four 

land acquisition agencies have different definitions of inholdings, 

and that projects requested for fiscal year 2012 include 

edgeholdings and tracts that aren’t bordered at all by other Federal 

lands, is particularly disconcerting. 

Moreover, the Committee notes that maintenance backlogs at the 

four major land management agencies are going up, not down, despite relatively flat annual maintenance funding, fiscal year 2009 

stimulus funding, and continued land acquisitions. Compounding 

the issue is the fact that the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, and in particular the Fish and Wildlife Service 

have all seen multi-million dollar budget increases in recent years 

for inventory and monitoring of an ever increasing land base. 

Finally, the Administration’s LWCF programs aren’t as well coordinated with each other and with other programs as they should 

be. The Subcommittee held its first ever bipartisan, bicameral 

staff-level briefing with all four land acquisition agencies in order 

to determine what a coordinated and strategic fully-funded LWCF 

initiative looks like. The Committee applauds the Administration 

for its preparation and participation, however, more needs to be 

done. This Committee is looking for a clear and cohesive argument 

by the Administration as to: what absolutely has to be acquired in 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
15 

a given fiscal year; why Federal acquisition is a more appropriate 

strategy than working in partnership with other governments, land 

alliances, and private citizen-stewards to conserve the land, using 

other existing Federal programs; and how the selection of acquisition projects are based at least in part upon existing landscape 

level conservation strategies. 

CLIMATE CHANGE

This Committee remains skeptical of the Administration’s efforts 

to re-package existing programs and to fund new ones in the name 

of climate change. That the climate is changing is not in dispute. 

However, recent rapid increases in funding and the number of new 

and seemingly duplicative programs are potentially wasteful. From 

2008 to 2011, bill-wide climate change funding grew from $192 million to $371 million—a staggering 93 percent increase. In spite of 

concerns expressed repeatedly by the Committee, there is still no 

clear indication of how these funds are coordinated. 

There must be a significant improvement in the level of coordination and communication of climate change activities, budgets, and 

accomplishments across the Federal agencies funded in this bill 

and across the entire Federal government if there is to be further 

investment by this Committee. To that end, this bill continues a 

general provision from last year requiring a report to Congress on 

Federal climate change expenditures, with a modification requiring 

clearer linkages of expenditures to specific strategic plan actions. 

This Administration has annually submitted to this Committee a 

cross-cut table of programs labeled as climate change and funded 

in this bill. The table contains both ongoing programs and new program initiatives. The Committee recommends $287,554,000 for 

these so-called climate change programs, $83,426,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $142,064,000 below the budget request. This includes $64,920,000 for land management and wildlife 

adaptation efforts at the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs. The bill also provides $153,739,000 for science, technology 

and climate change programs at the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and $68,895,000 for global change science and development at the U.S. Geological Survey, Forest Service, and Smithsonian Institution. 

This Committee has long operated on the premise that proven 

programs ought to be rewarded instead of cut to make room for 

new and often duplicative initiatives. To that end, new initiatives 

are cut more deeply than ongoing, proven programs in this bill. 

More detailed agency-specific discussions are contained in their relative sections of this report. 

REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES

The following are the procedures governing reprogramming actions for programs and activities funded in the Department of the 

Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. 

Definitions.—‘‘Reprogramming,’’ as defined in these procedures, 

includes the reallocation of funds from one budget activity, budget 

line-item or program area, to another within any appropriation 

funded in this Act. In cases where either the House or Senate Committee report displays an allocation of an appropriation below those 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
16 

levels, that more detailed level shall be the basis for reprogramming. 

For construction, land acquisition, and forest legacy accounts, a 

reprogramming constitutes the reallocation of funds, including unobligated balances, from one construction, land acquisition, or forest legacy project to another such project. 

A reprogramming shall also consist of any significant departure 

from the program described in the agency’s budget justifications. 

This includes proposed reorganizations, especially those of significant national or regional importance, even without a change in 

funding. Any change to the organization table presented in the 

budget justification shall be subject to this requirement. 

General Guidelines for Reprogramming.— (a) A reprogramming should be made only when an unforeseen 

situation arises, and then only if postponement of the project or the 

activity until the next appropriation year would result in actual 

loss or damage. 

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

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

deferred project or activity through the regular appropriations process. 

(c) Except under the most urgent situations, reprogramming 

should not be employed to initiate new programs or increase allocations specifically denied or limited by Congress, or to decrease allocations specifically increased by the Congress. 

(d) Reprogramming proposals submitted to the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations for approval shall be considered approved 30 calendar days after receipt if the Committees have posed 

no objection. However, agencies will be expected to extend the approval deadline if specifically requested by either Committee. 

Criteria and Exceptions.—A reprogramming must be submitted 

to the Committees in writing prior to implementation if it exceeds 

$1,000,000 annually or results in an increase or decrease of more 

than 10 percent annually in affected programs, with the following 

exceptions: 

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

Indian Affairs, there is no restriction on reprogrammings among 

these programs. However, the Bureau shall report on all 

reprogrammings made during a given fiscal year no later than 60 

days after the end of the fiscal year. 

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

and Tribal Assistance Grants account, the Committee does not require reprogramming requests associated with States and Tribes 

Partnership Grants. 

Assessments.—‘‘Assessment’’ as defined in these procedures shall 

refer to any charges, reserves, or holdbacks applied to a budget activity or budget line item for costs associated with general agency 

administrative costs, overhead costs, working capital expenses, or 

contingencies. 

(a) No assessment shall be levied against any program, budget 

activity, sub-activity, budget line item, or project funded by the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act unless such assessment and the basis therefore are presented to the 

Committees on Appropriations in the budget justifications and are 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
17 

subsequently approved by the Committees. The explanation for any 

assessment in the budget justification shall show the amount of the 

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

(b) Proposed changes to estimated assessments, as such estimates were presented in annual budget justifications, shall be submitted through the reprogramming process and shall be subject to 

the same dollar and reporting criteria as any other reprogramming. 

(c) The Committees direct that each agency or bureau which utilizes assessments shall submit an annual report to the Committees 

which provides details on the use of all funds assessed from any 

other budget activity, line item, sub-activity, or project. 

(d) In no case shall contingency funds or assessments be used to 

finance projects and activities disapproved or limited by Congress, 

or to finance programs or activities that could be foreseen and included in the normal budget review process. 

(e) New programs requested in the budget should not be initiated 

before enactment of the bill without notification to, and the approval of, the Committees on Appropriations. This restriction applies to all such actions regardless of whether a formal reprogramming of funds is required to begin the program. 

Quarterly Reports.—All reprogrammings between budget activities, budget line-items, program areas, or the more detailed activity 

levels shown in the Statement of the Managers, including those 

below the monetary thresholds established above, shall be reported 

to the Committees within 60 days of the end of each quarter and 

shall include cumulative totals for each budget activity, budget line 

item, or construction, land acquisition, or forest legacy project. 

Land Acquisitions, Easements, and Forest Legacy.—Lands shall 

not be acquired for more than the approved appraised value (as addressed in section 301(3) of Public Law 91–646), unless such acquisitions are submitted to the Committees on Appropriations for approval in compliance with these procedures. 

Land Exchanges.—Land exchanges, wherein the estimated value of the Federal lands to be exchanged is greater than $1,000,000, 

shall not be consummated until the Committees have had a 30-day 

period in which to examine the proposed exchange. In addition, the 

Committee shall be provided advance notification of exchanges valued between $500,000 and $1,000,000. 

Budget Structure.—The budget activity or line item structure for 

any agency appropriation account shall not be altered without advance approval of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

Report Language.—Any limitation or directive contained in either the House or Senate report which is not contradicted by the 

other report nor specifically denied in the conference report shall 

be considered as having been approved by both Houses of Congress. 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

The Bureau of Land Management (Bureau) 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 245 million acres 

of the Nation’s public lands and for management of 700 million adVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:11 Jul 20, 2011 Jkt 067352 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR151.XXX HR151

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
18 

ditional acres of Federally-owned subsurface mineral rights. In addition, the Bureau has trust responsibilities on 56 million acres of 

Indian trust lands for mineral operations and cadastral surveys. 

Surface lands under direct Bureau management make up about 13 

percent of the total land surface of the United States and more 

than 40 percent of all land managed by the Federal government, 

making the Bureau the nation’s largest single land manager. The 

Bureau is the second largest provider of public outdoor recreation 

in the Western United States. 

The amounts recommended by the Committee for each Bureau of 

Land Management appropriation account, compared with the budget estimates by activity, are shown in the table at the end of this 

report. 

MANAGEMENT OF LANDS AND RESOURCES

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $961,779,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 933,779,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 918,227,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥43,552,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥15,552,000 

The Committee recommends $918,227,000 for management of lands and resources, $43,552,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $15,552,000 below the budget request. 

As mentioned in the introduction to this report, the Committee 

lauds the Department of the Interior for its significant changes to 

the Wild Lands policy and notes that the Bureau of Land Management has, to date, been in compliance with the fiscal year 2011 

continuing resolution prohibiting funds for the use of Secretarial 

Order 3310. While the Department is now rightly requesting the 

input of Members of Congress, Senators and the public, the Committee is concerned about the internal direction given to the Bureau of Land Management regarding the inventory of lands managed by the Bureau. As the Department has stated, inventories of 

Bureau lands are required under the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and the Committee agrees with 

this reading of the Act. The Committee points out that inventories 

should, however, cover all land uses and multiple uses, not just 

lands with wilderness character. The values to be assessed include 

wildlife and fish habitat, non-motorized and motorized recreation, 

hunting, fishing, grazing, conventional and renewable energy development, mining, wilderness character, forest management and aesthetics. All of these values are important and one value does not 

supersede another. The Committee also directs the Bureau to use 

the definition of wilderness as defined in the 1964 Wilderness Act 

and as directed by Section 603 of FLPMA. The Committee will continue to conduct oversight on this issue and the inventory of Bureau lands. 

Land Resources.—The Committee recommends $246,615,000 for 

land resources, $18,608,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted 

level and $4,695,000 below the budget request. The Committee recommends soil, water and air management at the requested level of 

$46,303,000. 

The Committee recommends $87,532,000 for the range manage- ment program, $10,617,000 above fiscal year 2011 enacted levels 

and $15,929,000 above the budget request. The program has been 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
19 

significantly underfunded in the past while its costs, mostly due to 

litigation, continue to rise. The Committee has increased funding 

to address numerous challenges including completion of grazing 

permit renewals, hiring of seasonal employees to ensure timely 

turn-out of livestock, annual and trend monitoring of grazing allotments, and improving the quality of Bureau work on environmental and other documents related to livestock grazing. The Committee includes bill language in Title I General Provisions requiring litigants of the Bureau to first exhaust administrative review 

before filing in Federal court unless there’s an untimely response 

from the Bureau. Title I General Provisions also include language 

that exempts trailing of livestock across public lands from the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The Committee also includes bill language addressing a number of grazing issues in the 

Title IV General Provisions including: (1) The Rescissions Act (Sec. 

415 Extension of Grazing Permits) affecting both the Forest Service 

and Bureau is reauthorized for 5 years and modified to allow for 

the transfer of permits as requested by the Department. Permits 

must be managed based on existing mandatory terms. (2) Language maintaining current management of bighorn sheep related to 

domestic sheep for both the Forest Service and the Bureau until associated research can be completed. The Committee intends for 

these provisions to be temporary until the authorizing committees 

of the applicable statutes can address these problems. The Committee recommends $63,986,000 for wild horse and 

burro management, $11,767,000 below fiscal year 2011 enacted levels and $11,022,000 below the budget request. The recommendation 

is equal to fiscal year 2010 enacted levels. The Committee is deeply 

troubled by the Bureau’s announcement that it will reduce gathers 

needed to remove 2,400 excess wild horses and burros from rangelands that are overpopulated. The Committee appropriated the fiscal year 2011 level of $75,753,000 only because the Bureau requested an increase for the urgent removal of excess wild horses 

from the range. Because the Bureau has announced it will reduce 

gathers, the Committee has reduced funding for this program. The 

Committee is very concerned that the Bureau continues to change 

its course on this matter and especially that the Bureau is now 

abandoning the goal of bringing wild horse and burro populations 

down to the Appropriate Management Levels (AML) as required by 

the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burro Act of 1971. The Committee believes it’s critical to balance the use of public rangelands 

for all wildlife and other multiple uses. The Committee is also 

deeply concerned about the rising costs associated with the wild 

horse and burro program and, despite the claims of the Bureau, 

does not believe that the latest course change will reduce costs. The 

Committee retains language prohibiting any funds from being used 

for the slaughter of wild horses and burros in Administrative Provisions and allows the Bureau to enter into long-term contracts for 

holding wild horses in the Title I General Provisions. 

Wildlife and Fisheries.—The Committee recommends $50,784,000 

for wildlife and fisheries, $245,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $457,000 above the budget request. The Committee’s recommendation includes the $2,000,000 increase for sage 

grouse habitat monitoring in the request. The Committee encourages the Bureau to use this and additional funding under the ManVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:11 Jul 20, 2011 Jkt 067352 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR151.XXX HR151

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
20 

agement of Land and Resources activity to update and amend resource management plans as necessary to prevent the listing of the 

sage grouse. The Committee also directs the Bureau to work with 

the Fish and Wildlife Service on these plans. 

Threatened and Endangered Species.—The Committee recommends $21,668,000 for threatened and endangered species as requested, $491,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. The 

Committee encourages the Bureau to continue its efforts toward recovery of listed plant and animal species and to take conservation 

action on Bureau-managed lands and waters for at-risk species and 

ecosystems so the need for listing is prevented. 

The Committee commends the Bureau’s actions to date to conserve and increase populations of sage grouse. Numerous states 

have also taken action to conserve the sage grouse. The Committee 

notes that of the resource management plans with sage grouse 

habitat, 89 of 93 have measures to protect the specie. To prevent 

listing, the Committee urges the Bureau to continue working with 

the Fish and Wildlife Service on plan amendments that provide 

regulatory measures to conserve the sage grouse. The Committee 

believes any plan amendments made to mitigate impacts on sage 

grouse must be science-based, allow for adaptive management and 

flexibility based on site specific information. Mitigation measures 

should be realistic and supported by science. 

Recreation Management.—The Committee recommends 

$67,574,000 for recreation management, $1,243,000 below the fiscal 

year 2011 enacted level and $9,183,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee recognizes the importance of recreation on Bureau 

lands and maintains fiscal year 2011 enacted levels for recreation 

resource management as funding from this sub-activity contributes 

to the greatest amount of visitors on Bureau lands. The Committee 

is not opposed to the Secretary’s America’s Great Outdoors Initiative, but the current budget situation does not provide for the requested increases. 

Energy and Minerals.—The Committee recommends 

$111,786,000 for energy and minerals and rejects the budget request proposal to impose new inspection fees on onshore oil and gas 

producers. 

The Committee is concerned by rising energy prices and believes 

domestic energy production must increase while also being mindful 

of the environment and other competing land uses. To aid in this 

effort, the Committee has recommended a $4,452,000 increase to 

oil and gas management and has funded renewable energy at 

$19,735,000 as requested. 

The Bureau manages 700 million acres of mineral estate, a large 

portion of the potential production in the United States, and will 

contribute $4.3 billion to the Treasury in onshore oil and gas royalties for fiscal year 2012. Currently, however, only four percent of 

the Bureau’s mineral estate is leased for energy development. The 

Committee is concerned that the production of oil and gas on Federal lands has been hurt by the perception of tremendous regulatory uncertainty in operating on Federal lands. The Committee 

would remind the Bureau that when investment capital moves to 

non-federal lands that the result is a reduction in revenue over 

time to Federal and state treasuries. The Committee urges the Bureau to consider these factors in advance of future policy changes. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
21 

The Committee is concerned about current and past collection 

and tracking of oil and gas production. According to the Government Accountability Office, Federal mineral management agencies 

rely on antiquated and faulty methods to track oil and gas production. The Committee encourages the Department to consider integrating systems that would allow for remote monitoring and third 

party verification of Bureau production reporting mechanisms. The 

Committee believes this approach is necessary to determine if better measurement technology can potentially reduce the size and 

scope of under-reported royalty payments to the Federal government. 

Mining Law Administration.—The Committee recommends 

$39,696,000 for mining law administration as requested, 

$3,000,000 above the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. There is growing awareness in Congress about the need for a coherent minerals 

policy to ensure availability of minerals essential to the manufacturing supply chain. Currently, less than half of the mineral needs 

of U.S. manufacturing are met from domestically mined resources. 

To ensure access to the minerals that are vital to our national and 

economic security, we must address the role that delays in permitting of mining activities, including the Department’s overly cumbersome Federal Register clearance process, plays in hindering the 

ability to develop domestic sources. The fiscal year 2012 request 

takes an important first step to address permitting delays by providing an additional $1,250,000 to supplement agency resources for 

the processing of mining plans of operations and notices. Additional 

resources are justified by the fact that the number of mining claims 

filed over the past decade has increased by nearly 250 percent 

while the number of full time equivalent employees assigned to the 

program fell from 397 to 296. 

The Committee includes language in Title IV General Provisions 

on association placer claims that changes claim maintenance fees 

for placer claims including two or more people, to the same fees required for individual placer claims. The Committee also includes 

bill language in the Title IV General Provisions prohibiting the 

withdrawal of certain lands in Arizona from entry under the General Mining Law. 

Challenge Cost Share.—The Committee recommends terminating 

the challenge cost share program due to poor management and the 

lack of necessity for the program. 

National Landscape Conservation System.—The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the National Landscape Conservation 

System base program, $11,870,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $19,345,000 below the budget request. The Committee notes that additional funding for the NLCS is provided in 

other activities, such as wilderness, transportation, and the Oregon 

and California Grant Lands account. The Committee retains language prohibiting mineral leasing within national monuments in 

the Title IV General Provisions. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
22 

CONSTRUCTION

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $4,617,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 3,576,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 3,576,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥1,041,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $3,576,000 for construction as requested, $1,041,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. 

LAND ACQUISITION

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $21,956,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 50,000,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 4,880,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥17,076,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥45,120,000 

The Committee recommends $4,880,000 for land acquisition, 

$17,076,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and 

$45,120,000 below the budget request. The amounts recommended 

by the Committee compared with the budget estimates by activity 

are shown in the table at the end of this report. 

The Committee has included language in the front of the report 

regarding Land and Water Conservation Fund programs. 

OREGON AND CALIFORNIA GRANT LANDS

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $111,334,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 112,043,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 112,043,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... +709,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $112,043,000 for the Oregon and California grant lands as requested, $709,000 above the fiscal year 

2011 enacted level. The Committee is supportive of the Secretary’s 

Western Oregon strategy pilot projects, but is concerned that these 

projects may not result in realistic long-term solutions to the management of O&C Lands. The Committee believes a comprehensive 

review and change of current policies, including Survey and Manage, is necessary to meet the goals of the O&C Lands Act of 1937. 

The Committee notes that the law directs that these lands be managed ‘‘for permanent forest production . . . with the principal of 

sustained yield for the purpose of providing a permanent source of 

timber supply, protecting watersheds, regulating stream flow, and 

contributing to the economic stability of local communities and industries, and providing recreational facilities’’ (43 USC Sec. 1181a). 

RANGE IMPROVEMENTS

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $10,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 10,000,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 10,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... 0 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends an indefinite appropriation of not 

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


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
23 

Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act lands grazing receipts. Receipts 

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

water development, fish and wildlife habitat improvement, and 

planning and design of these projects. 

SERVICE CHARGES, DEPOSITS, AND FORFEITURES

The Committee recommends an indefinite appropriation estimated to be $32,125,000 for service charges, deposits, and forfeitures as requested. The service charges, deposits, and forfeitures appropriation is offset with fees collected under specified sections of 

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and other 

Acts to pay for reasonable administrative and other costs in connection with rights-of-way applications from the private sector, 

miscellaneous cost-recoverable realty cases, timber contract expenses, repair of damaged lands, the adopt-a-horse program, and 

the provision of copies of official public land documents. 

MISCELLANEOUS TRUST FUNDS

The Committee recommends an indefinite appropriation estimated to be $19,700,000 as requested and $4,500,000 above fiscal 

year 2011 enacted levels, for miscellaneous trust funds. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 provides for the receipt and expenditure of moneys received as donations or gifts (section 307). Funds in this trust fund are derived from the administrative and survey costs paid by applicants for conveyance of omitted lands (lands fraudulently or erroneously omitted from original 

cadastral surveys), from advances for other types of surveys requested by individuals, and from contributions made by users of 

Federal rangelands. Amounts received from the sale of Alaska town 

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

sites. Revenue from unsurveyed lands, and surveys of omitted 

lands, administrative costs of conveyance, and gifts and donations 

must be appropriated before it can be used. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommendation includes the administrative provisions as requested and retains the provision prohibiting the use 

of appropriated funds for the destruction of healthy, unadopted, 

wild horses in the care of the Bureau or its contractors. 

UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (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. 

Currently, the Service accomplishes its mission by managing 

more than 150 million acres of land and ocean, 553 units in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, 81 Ecological Services Field Stations, 71 National Fish Hatcheries, 1 historical National Fish 

Hatchery, and numerous waterfowl production areas in 206 counties. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
24 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $1,244,861,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 1,271,867,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 1,099,055,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥145,806,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥172,812,000 

The Committee recommends $1,099,055,000 for resource manage- ment, $145,806,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and 

$172,812,000 below the request. The amounts recommended by the 

Committee compared with the budget estimates by activity are 

shown in the table at the end of this report. 

Ecological Services.—The Committee recommends $228,974,000 

for ecological services, $72,312,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $85,943,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee recommends that the Service take into account 

economic impacts while conducting all Section 7 consultations pursuant to the Santa Ana Sucker Critical Habitat designation. These 

economic impacts to be considered by the Service should include 

the costs of local water supply development and imported water 

costs, infrastructure needs, water conservation efforts, and efforts 

to increase employment in the region affected by the Santa Ana 

Sucker Critical Habitat designation. 

The Committee supports the requested funding for aplomado falcon and California condor recovery. The Service is encouraged to 

continue to support these ongoing, successful recovery efforts. 

The Committee directs the Service to continue to address white 

nose syndrome in bats, and to continue the wolf monitoring and 

depredation programs. 

The Committee supports the Service’s ongoing efforts towards 

sage grouse conservation and in particular the joint efforts by the 

Departments of Agriculture and Interior to work with private landowners. 

The Partners for Fish and Wildlife program’s climate change initiative is funded at $4,000,000 which is $2,000,000 below the fiscal 

year 2010 enacted level. 

National Wildlife Refuge System.—The Committee recommends 

$455,297,000 for the National Wildlife Refuge System, $36,762,000 

below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $47,578,000 below the 

budget request. 

The proposal to transfer land protection planning to the land acquisition account is not accepted. 

The climate change inventory and monitoring program is funded 

at $12,000,000 which is equal to the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. 

The Committee encourages the Service to consider transferring 

nationwide management of the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program from ecological services to refuges, which has been shown to 

be particularly effective in the Great Lakes/Midwest and mountainprairie regions. 

The Committee is concerned about recent operational considerations by the Service that may limit recreational opportunities on 

public waterways, such as a proposed Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan for Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge which would significantly curtail recreational activities, and particular restrictions on 

overnight houseboat accommodations at concessionaire-operated 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
25 

marinas. In keeping with Executive Order 12866, the Committee 

directs the Service to carefully consider the impact to concessionaires of such operational changes. 

The Committee understands that any transfer of lands currently 

withdrawn by the Bureau of Reclamation surrounding the 

Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge must first undergo an open 

public process; and further, the Committee believes that the highest priority in transferring acres should be given to the Bureau of 

Land Management in recognition of its current management responsibilities on these acres. 

Migratory Birds, Law Enforcement, and International Conservation.—The Committee recommends $122,048,000 for migratory birds, law enforcement, and international conservation, $6,176,000 

below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $8,000,000 below the 

budget request. The Committee has included language below directing the Service to combine landscape conservation cooperatives, 

bird joint ventures, and national fish habitat partnerships. 

Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation.—The Committee 

recommends $128,343,000 for fisheries and aquatic resource conservation, $10,596,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and 

$7,669,000 below the budget request. The Committee has restored the proposed $3,388,000 shortfall in 

the budget for mitigation hatchery operations and critical supplies, 

with the understanding that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will 

reimburse the Service an amount of $3,800,000 during fiscal year 

2012, subject to appropriations. The Committee directs the Service 

to continue to seek reimbursement from the remaining agencies for 

mitigation hatchery operations, and to redirect any additional reimbursed funding to deferred maintenance. 

The increase proposed for the fish passage program is funded at $500,000 instead of $1,000,000. The National Fish Habitat Action 

Plan program’s climate change initiative is funded at $2,000,000, 

which is equal to the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The Committee 

has included language below directing the Service to combine landscape conservation cooperatives, bird joint ventures, and national 

fish habitat partnerships. 

The Committee is concerned about the continued rapid spread of 

invasive zebra and quagga mussels in the West. The Committee 

understands that prevention measures are lacking at many Federally-managed water bodies, despite Federal coordination and planning efforts through the aquatic nuisance species task force. The 

Committee has added to the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget 

$1,000,000 to implement the highest priority prevention measures 

called for in the February 2010 Quagga-Zebra Mussel Action Plan 

for Western U.S. Waters, specifically the implementation of mandatory inspection, decontamination, and law enforcement programs at 

all high-risk Federally-managed water bodies. 

Cooperative Landscape Conservation and Adaptive Science.—The 

Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the cooperative landscape 

conservation and adaptive science initiative, $10,970,000 below the 

fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $17,483,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee recognizes a limited Federal role in sciencebased, landscape-level conservation of our nation’s natural resources, including fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. The conVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:11 Jul 20, 2011 Jkt 067352 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR151.XXX HR151

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
26 

cept is not new; in fact it has been underway for some time in 

other agencies such as the Forest Service and the National Park 

Service, and in other Fish and Wildlife Service programs such as 

bird joint ventures and the National Fish Habitat Action Plan. 

How these and other efforts fit together is of grave concern to the 

Committee. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service continues to struggle in developing 

this initiative. Fundamental, unanswered questions pertaining 

mostly to roles and responsibilities of partners and existing programs have been asked by too many for too long. Furthermore, 

Service partners are overwhelmed by the increasing volume of 

Service partnership efforts at a time when State, local, tribal, and 

non-profit organization budgets are flat or decreasing. 

Despite the Committee’s concerns about how the Service has 

been implementing this initiative, the Service has made a strong 

case to this Committee as to why the initiative is necessary. The 

Service’s current business model, containing an abundance of authorizations and programs, is not working as well as it could. Programs are stove piped. Habitats are being lost. The health of most 

species for which the Service has a trust responsibility is either unknown or poor. 

In this budget climate more than ever, new initiatives such as 

this must either be achieving economies of scale, or must be offset, 

or both. By proposing to cut the budget for climate change planning 

and adaptive science capacity, this Committee is directing the Service to: (1) more fully develop the initiative in a limited number of 

areas; and (2) combine the initiative with bird joint ventures and 

national fish habitat partnerships. The Committee urges the Service to take into account these directives as it develops and submits 

its fiscal year 2013 budget request. 

Bill Language.—The Committee has included bill language prohibiting the use of funds for certain Endangered Species Act activities. The bill also provides limited no-year funding for certain law 

enforcement and environmental contaminants activities. 

CONSTRUCTION

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $20,804,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 23,088,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 11,804,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥9,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥11,284,000 

The Committee recommends $11,804,000 for construction, 

$9,000,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and 

$11,284,000 below the request. The amounts recommended by the 

Committee compared with the budget estimates by activity are 

shown in the table at the end of this report. 

The Committee expects the Service to allocate funding to projects 

in the order of priority presented in the fiscal year 2012 budget request. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
27 

LAND ACQUISITION

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $54,890,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 140,000,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 15,047,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥39,843,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥124,953,000 

The Committee recommends $15,047,000 for land acquisition, $39,843,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and 

$124,953,000 below the budget request. The amounts recommended 

by the Committee compared with the budget estimates by activity 

are shown in the table at the end of this report. 

The Committee has included language in the front of the report 

regarding Land and Water Conservation Fund programs. 

COOPERATIVE ENDANGERED SPECIES CONSERVATION FUND

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, 2011 .............................................................. $59,880,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 100,000,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 2,854,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥57,026,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥97,146,000 

The Committee recommends $2,854,000 for the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund, $57,026,000 below the fiscal 

year 2011 enacted level and $97,146,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee recommendation continues funding for administration of ongoing projects funded in prior years. The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the budget estimates 

by activity are shown in the table at the end of this report. 

The Committee has included language in the front of the report 

regarding Land and Water Conservation Fund programs. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE FUND

This program makes payments in lieu of taxes based on their fair 

market value to counties in which Service lands are located. Payments to counties are estimated to be $16,869,000 in fiscal year 

2012, with $13,980,000 derived from this appropriation and 

$2,889,000 from the net refuge receipts estimated to be collected in 

fiscal year 2011. 

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $14,471,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 0 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 13,980,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥491,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ +13,980,000 

The Committee recommends $13,980,000 for the National Wildlife Refuge Fund, $491,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level 

and $13,980,000 above the request. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
28 

NORTH AMERICAN WETLANDS CONSERVATION FUND

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

Wetlands Conservation Fund, leverages partner contributions for 

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

Canadian provinces, 25 Mexican states, the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In addition to this appropriation, the Service receives funding from fines for violations of 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; interest earned on tax 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 and Gulf of 

Mexico, the Commonwealth of 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, 2011 .............................................................. $37,425,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 50,000,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 20,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥17,425,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥30,000,000 

The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the North American 

Wetlands Conservation Fund, $17,425,000 below the fiscal year 

2011 enacted level and $30,000,000 below the request. 

NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION

The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 2000 authorized, through fiscal year 2010, grants for the conservation of 

neotropical migratory birds in the United States, Latin America 

and the Caribbean, with 75 percent of the amounts available to be 

expended on projects outside the U.S. There is a three to one 

matching requirement under this program. 

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $3,992,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 5,000,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 0 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥3,992,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥5,000,000 

The Committee recommends $0 for the neotropical migratory 

bird conservation program, $3,992,000 below the fiscal year 2011 

enacted level and $5,000,000 below the budget request. The Committee recommends that this program not be funded in fiscal year 

2012 because its authorization of appropriations has expired. 

MULTINATIONAL SPECIES CONSERVATION FUND

The Multinational Species Conservation Fund provides technical 

support and cost-sharing grant assistance to countries to strengthen anti-poaching activities, build community support for conservation near the species’ habitats, conduct surveys, monitoring, applied research, and provide infrastructure and field equipment necessary to conserve habitats. These funds help to leverage work with 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
29 

partners and other collaborators to conserve and protect African 

and Asian elephants, rhinoceroses, tigers, great apes and marine 

turtles and their habitats. 

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $9,980,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 9,750,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 7,875,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥2,105,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥1,875,000 

The Committee recommends $7,875,000 for the Multinational 

Species Conservation Fund, $2,105,000 below the fiscal year 2011 

enacted level and $1,875,000 below the budget request. 

STATE AND TRIBAL WILDLIFE GRANTS

The state and tribal wildlife grants program provides funds for 

States to implement their comprehensive wildlife conservation 

plans for species of greatest conservation need. States are required 

to provide a 50 percent cost share for grants that implement State 

Wildlife Action Plans. 

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $61,876,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 95,000,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 22,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥39,876,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥73,000,000 

The Committee recommends $22,000,000 for state and tribal 

wildlife grants, $39,876,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted 

level and $73,000,000 below the request. Within the amount provided, $2,000,000 is for competitively awarded grants to Indian 

Tribes. 

The Committee encourages the Service and the program partners 

to complete the Wildlife TRACS database so that the program can 

better demonstrate its ability to prevent at-risk species from having to be listed under the Endangered Species Act. 

Bill Language.—The Committee has included bill language that 

requires a 50 percent match of all grant funding. Not included is 

language carried in prior years which allowed unobligated funding 

to be re-apportioned. 

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. Established in 1916, the National 

Park Service has stewardship responsibilities for the protection and 

preservation of the heritage resources of the national park system. 

The system, consisting of 394 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 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
30 

Service provides support to tribal, local, and State governments to 

preserve culturally significant, ecologically important, and public 

recreational lands. 

The National Park Service will be 100 years old in 2016, and the 

Service has embarked on an historic ten-year effort to enhance the 

national parks leading up to this historic celebration. The Committee continues to support this effort and the $2,479,430,000 recommended will help the Service prepare for a second century of 

conservation, environmental stewardship and recreation benefiting 

millions of visitors from throughout the world. In spite of extraordinary fiscal challenges, the Committee has provided funding sufficient to manage NPS units nationwide without disruptions to operations or staffing. 

Table of Allocations by Activity.—The amounts recommended by 

the Committee compared with the budget estimates by activity are 

shown in the table at the end of this report. 

OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $2,250,050,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 2,296,877,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 2,240,152,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥9,898,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥56,725,000 

The Committee recommends $2,240,152,000 for Operation of the National Park Service (NPS), $9,898,000 below the fiscal year 2011 

enacted level and $56,725,000 below the budget request. This account funds the day-to-day operations of individual park units as 

well as regional and headquarters support operations of the NPS. 

The Committee recommends the following changes to the request: 

Resource Stewardship.—The Committee recommends 

$336,742,000 for Resource Stewardship, $6,898,000 below the fiscal 

year 2011 enacted level and $19,534,000 below the budget request. 

Reductions below the fiscal year 2011 level are to climate changerelated activities. The Committee has noted throughout this report 

the critical need for a significant improvement in the level of coordination and communication of climate change activities, budgets, and accomplishments across the bureaus within the Department of the Interior. 

Visitor Services.—The Committee recommends $240,817,000 for 

Visitor Services, $1,000,000 above the fiscal year 2011 enacted 

level and $10,482,000 below the budget request. 

Park Protection.—The Committee recommends $362,143,000 for 

Park Protection, equal to the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and 

$2,752,000 below the budget request. 

Facility Operations and Maintenance.—The Committee recommends $691,020,000 for Facility Operations and Maintenance, 

$4,000,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and 

$15,518,000 below the budget request. 

Park Support.—The Committee recommends $442,967,000 for 

Park Support, equal to the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and 

$5,712,000 below the budget request. 

External Administrative Costs.—The Committee recommends 

$166,463,000 for External Administrative Costs, equal to the fiscal 

year 2011 enacted level and $2,727,000 below the budget request. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
31 

Additional Guidance.—The following additional direction and 

guidance is provided with respect to funding provided within this 

account: 

Civil War Sesquicentennial.—The Civil War Battlefields, sites 

and Monuments provide vital historic and educational opportunities for the millions of Americans that visit each year. The calendar 

years 2011 through 2015 mark the sesquicentennial of the Civil 

War beginning with the election of Abraham Lincoln and concluding with the end of the Civil War. The 150th anniversary presents a significant opportunity for Americans to recall and reflect 

upon the Civil War and its legacy in a spirit of reconciliation and 

reflection, through exploration, interpretation, and discussion. To 

ensure a suitable national observance of the Sesquicentennial that 

is comprehensive, the Committee directs the Director to encourage 

discussion of the historic, social, legal, racial, cultural and political 

forces that caused the American Civil War and influenced its 

course and outcomes at events organized and supported by the 

Park Service. Realizing the importance of the 150th Anniversary of 

the Civil War, the Committee has provided an increase for Visitors 

Services in the National Park Service to be used at the discretion 

of the Director for Sesquicentennial related programs and events. 

Technical Assistance.—The Committee understands and supports 

the need for the technical expertise of the National Park Service 

in park management, resource preservation, public recreation, 

tourism, and education in other countries, especially but not limited to developing nations where the concept of national parks is 

still being established. The Committee is also aware that many 

highly experienced Park Service retirees are organizing to volunteer technical assistance to national parks in other countries. The 

Committee encourages the Park Service to support this effort from 

available funds. 

Historic Leases.—The Committee believes that historic leases 

provide an opportunity to attract private capital and expertise to 

the challenges of preserving park resources. Under the terms of a 

historic lease, the lessee agrees to invest in the rehabilitation and 

maintenance of the leased structure in exchange for the right to 

use the structure. A historic lease shifts the burden of maintenance 

to the lessee for the duration of the lease term. Historic leases not 

only generate revenue, they play a role in rehabilitating, restoring, 

and maintaining park resources with private funds, saving taxpayer dollars. The Committee encourages the Park Service to pursue the use of cost-effective, innovative solutions like historic leases 

when practical and when the arrangement comports with a park 

unit’s enabling legislation. These solutions can help mitigate a 

growing backlog of historic structures in need of preservation. Further, the Committee directs the Park Service to provide an inventory of current historic leases, the benefits derived from such 

leases, and any challenges posed by existing partnerships. 

Flight 93 Memorial.—Since the terrorist attacks of September 

11, 2001, over 1.2 million people have visited the temporary Flight 

93 National Memorial in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. The memorial 

honors the 40 men and women who died saving the White House 

or U.S. Capitol from a potentially catastrophic terrorist attack. 

Phase 1A and 1C of the permanent memorial is scheduled for comVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:11 Jul 20, 2011 Jkt 067352 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR151.XXX HR151

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
32 

pletion by September 2011. The Committee remains firmly committed to the timely completion of this project. 

In addition, since 2005, the National Park Service has recorded 

over 1,500 hours of audio interviews involving over 600 individuals 

including family members of the passengers and crew, eyewitnesses, first responders, and others. The Committee strongly encourages the Park Service to devote the resources necessary to 

properly archive, maintain, and preserve these invaluable collections. 

U.S. Capitol Concerts.—The Committee continues to support 

funding for the National Capitol Area Performing Arts Program 

and directs the Park Service to maintain funding for the summer 

concert series staged on the U.S. Capitol grounds at the fiscal year 

2010 enacted level. 

National Mall Restoration Public-Private Partnership.—The National Mall is the most visited national park in the nation with 25 

million annual visitors. The Committee strongly supports the public-private partnership involved in efforts to restore the National 

Mall. Former First Lady Laura Bush is serving as the honorary 

chair of the national campaign to raise $350 million in non-Federal 

funding working closely with private, philanthropic, and non-profit 

partners. These non-Federal funding sources will complement the 

$60 million in Federal dollars provided thus far for restoration 

projects including the reconstruction of the Jefferson Memorial seawall, the revitalization of the Lincoln Memorial landscape and reflecting pool, and other improvements. 

Cuyahoga Valley National Park.—The Committee is aware that 

staff at the Cuyahoga Valley National Park are working with the 

surrounding communities to support a well-maintained local road 

system. The Committee encourages the Park Service to continue 

this collaborative effort to support local road systems and establish 

maintenance priorities. 

Sequoia National Park.—The Committee is troubled that the National Park Service and the Department of the Interior have not 

heeded clear direction provided in the conference report for the fiscal year 2010 Interior and Environment Appropriations Act relating to the negotiation of renewal terms for a special use permit for 

an electrical generation station with features that lie within the 

boundaries of Sequoia National Park. Based on this earlier guidance, the Committee directs the Department to promptly resume 

negotiations utilizing a third-party, independent mediator, giving 

full consideration to utilizing Federal formulas valuing the use of 

Federal land applied to hydroelectric generation stations, such as 

those utilized by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and 

others, and report to the Committee on progress within 90 days of 

enactment of this Act. 

Everglades Restoration.—The Committee notes the substantial 

progress toward restoration of the Everglades ecosystem over the 

last two years and continues to fully support this important national program. Funding is provided at the request level for the 

multi-year effort to preserve one of the great ecological treasures 

of the United States. 

Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area and Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River, Appalachian National Scenic Trail.—The committee is concerned about delays in 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
33 

completing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) announced 

by the National Park Service and the Department of the Interior 

regarding improvement of electric transmission lines partially lying 

within the boundaries of the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area. The timely completion of the EIS is of great importance 

to the reliability of the regional grid and is critical to the supply 

of electricity to 58 million consumers in 13 states and Washington, 

D.C. The Committee directs the National Park Service and the Department to adhere to its previously announced schedule and publish a final Record of Decision (ROD) in October of 2012 and report 

to the Committee on progress relating to the EIS within 90 days 

of the enactment of this Act. 

Bill Language.—The Committee has included bill language in 

Title I General Provisions authorizing modifications to the 

Tamiami Trail as described in, and in accordance with, the preferred alternative identified in the final environmental impact 

statement noticed in the Federal Register on December 14, 2010, 

(75 Fed. Reg. 77896), relating to restoration efforts of the Everglades ecosystem. 

The Committee has included bill language in Title I General Provisions addressing jurisdictional questions involving the National 

Park Service and the Coast Guard relating to boater safety checks 

on the Yukon River within the Yukon-Charley National Preserve. 

The Committee has also included bill language in Title IV General Provisions amending current law to authorize the use of competitive grant funds for interpretive displays and exhibits at the 

Education Center at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. The Education Center is being built with non-Federal funds. 

NATIONAL RECREATION AND PRESERVATION

The National Recreation and Preservation account provides for 

outdoor recreation planning, preservation of cultural and national 

heritage resources, technical assistance to Federal, State and local 

agencies, and administration of Historic Preservation Fund grants. 

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $57,870,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 51,567,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 49,363,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥8,507,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥2,204,000 

The Committee recommends $49,363,000 for National Recreation 

and Preservation, $8,507,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted 

level and $2,204,000 below the budget request. The Committee recommends the following changes to the request. 

Natural Programs.—The Committee recommends $11,172,000 for 

Natural Programs, equal to the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and 

$2,204,000 below the budget request. 

Heritage Partnership Program.—The Committee recommends 

$8,993,000 for the Heritage Partnership Program (HPP) as requested, $8,408,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. These 

funds support grants to local non-profit groups in support of historical and cultural recognition, preservation and tourism activities. 

Congress has in recent years expanded from 27 to 49 the number 

of authorized heritage partnerships, creating additional pressure 

on available grant funding. The Committee notes that State and 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
34 

local managers of National Heritage Areas continue to rely heavily 

on Federal funding. The Committee has in the recent past provided 

direction for the development of self-sufficiency plans for heritage 

areas which have yet to be realized. 

Funding for the Heritage Partnership Program was sustained in 

fiscal year 2011 at the fiscal year 2010 enacted level, in part to provide participating heritage areas additional time to develop plans 

for long-term sustainability. The Committee fully expects HPP 

funding to be under even greater pressure in future years. Accordingly, the Committee directs that participating heritage areas move 

expeditiously to develop plans for long-term self-sustainability. 

Native American Graves Protection Grants.—The Committee provides funding for the Native American Graves Protection Grant 

program at the budget request level of $1,750,000. 

Japanese American Confinement Site Grants.—The Committee 

maintains its support for the Japanese American Confinement Site 

Grants program at the budget request level of $3,000,000. This program leverages proportional funding through partnerships with 

local preservation groups to preserve Japanese American World 

War II confinement sites. 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND

The Historic Preservation Fund supports the State historic preservation offices to perform a variety of functions. These include 

State management and administration of existing grant obligations; review and advice on Federal projects and actions; determinations and nominations to the National Register; Tax Act certifications; and technical preservation services. The States also review properties to develop data for planning use. Funding in this 

account also supports direct grants to qualifying organizations for 

individual preservation projects and for activities in support of heritage tourism and local historic preservation. 

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $54,391,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 61,000,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 49,500,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥4,891,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥11,500,000 

The Committee recommends $49,500,000 for historic preservation programs, $4,891,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level 

and 11,500,000 below the budget request. The Committee recommends the following changes to the request: 

State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices.—The Committee 

supports the longstanding efforts of State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices to identify and protect irreplaceable historic and 

archaeological resources. Notwithstanding its strong support of this 

work, the Committee notes that the budget for State and Tribal 

Historic Preservation Offices has grown by more than 16 percent 

since 2008. The request, if enacted, would represent a 25 percent 

increase in funding since 2008. While the demand for funding to 

address the needs of this program is great, this pattern of growth 

simply cannot be sustained. 

The Committee recommends $42,500,000 for State Historic Preservation Offices, $3,907,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted 

level and $7,500,000 below the budget request. The Committee recVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:11 Jul 20, 2011 Jkt 067352 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR151.XXX HR151

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
35 

ommends $7,000,000 for Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, 

$984,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $4,000,000 

below the budget request. This level for State and Tribal Historic 

Preservation Offices is equal to funding provided in fiscal year 

2009. 

CONSTRUCTION

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $184,646,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 152,121,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 152,121,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥32,525,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $152,121,000 for construction, 

$32,525,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and equal to 

the budget request. These amounts fund major repairs and construction of National Park Service assets. 

The following additional direction and guidance is provided with 

respect to funding provided under this account: 

Special Resource Studies.—Special Resource Studies are directed 

by Congress to gather information about candidate areas to determine if they meet established criteria for significance, suitability, 

and feasibility as potential additions to the national park system. 

The Committee notes that the NPS completed 12 studies in calendar year 2010 and is scheduled to complete between 12 and 16 

studies this calendar year. The Committee directs the NPS to complete previously authorized studies before initiating any new studies. The Committee also directs the Park Service to provide, not 

later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, a timeline for the 

completion of previously authorized studies. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

RESCISSION

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. ¥$30,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... ¥30,000,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... ¥30,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... 0 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends the rescission of $30,000,000 in the 

annual contract authority provided by 16 U.S.C. 460l–10a. This authority has not been used in years, and there are no plans to use 

it in fiscal year 2012. The Committee does not agree with the Administration’s proposal to permanently cancel the authority. 

LAND ACQUISITION AND STATE ASSISTANCE

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $94,810,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 360,000,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 18,294,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥76,516,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥341,706,000 

The Committee recommends $18,294,000 for land acquisition and 

state assistance, $76,516,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted 

level and $341,706,000 below the budget request. The amounts recVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:11 Jul 20, 2011 Jkt 067352 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR151.XXX HR151

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
36 

ommended by the Committee compared with the budget estimates 

by activity are shown in the table at the end of this report. 

The Committee has included language in the front of the report 

regarding Land and Water Conservation Fund programs. 

UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) was established by 

an Act of Congress on March 3, 1879, to provide a permanent Federal agency to conduct up-to-date 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 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 State 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. 

SURVEYS, INVESTIGATIONS, AND RESEARCH

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $1,083,672,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 1,018,037,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 1,053,552,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥30,120,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ +35,515,000 

The Committee recommends $1,053,552,000 for surveys, investigations, and research, $30,120,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $35,515,000 above the budget request. The amounts 

recommended by the Committee compared with the budget estimates by activity are shown in the table at the end of this report. 

Prior year appropriations have been recalculated to reflect the 

Committee-approved budget realignment for fiscal year 2012. 

Ecosystems.—The Committee recommends $150,120,000 for ecosystems programs, $10,717,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted 

level and $16,303,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee supports the President’s budget proposal to conduct an in-depth analysis of the extent and sources of endocrinedisrupting chemicals impacting fish and wildlife in the Chesapeake 

basin. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
37 

Climate Variability.—The Committee recommends $40,628,000 

for climate variability, $23,706,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $32,291,000 below the budget request. Changes 

from the request include the following: a decrease of $9,086,000 

from research and development; a decrease (elimination) of 

$14,345,000 from carbon sequestration; and a decrease (elimination) of $8,860,000 from science support for Department of the 

Interior bureaus. The Committee expects the Survey to utilize 

funding throughout its entire budget to provide science support to 

other Interior bureaus. 

Land Use Change.—The Committee recommends $85,303,000 for 

land use change, an increase of $11,496,000 above the fiscal year 

2011 enacted level and an increase of $51,817,000 above the budget 

request. 

The increase above the budget request is for land remote sensing, 

which is not funded in a separate account as was proposed by the 

Administration. The Committee supports the continuation of the 

LandSat program beyond LandSat 8 and urges the Administration 

to submit a fiscal year 2013 budget proposal that does not offset 

increases for LandSat with decreases elsewhere in the Survey’s 

budget. 

Energy, Minerals, and Environmental Health.—The Committee 

recommends $99,912,000 for energy, minerals, and environmental 

health, equal to the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and an increase 

of $11,394,000 above the budget request. The recommended level 

restores proposed cuts to mineral resources, energy resources, contaminant biology, and toxic substances hydrology. 

Natural Hazards.—The Committee recommends $135,965,000 for 

natural hazards, equal to the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and 

$2,096,000 above the budget request. The recommended level restores proposed cuts to earthquake, volcano, and landslide hazards. 

Water Resources.—The Committee recommends $217,503,000 for 

water resources, $5,080,000 above the fiscal year 2011 enacted 

level and $17,903,000 above the budget request. 

The recommended level restores proposed cuts to nationally important water programs. The national streamflow information program and the cooperative water program are increased above the 

fiscal year 2011 enacted level by $2,900,000 and $2,090,000, respectively. 

The Committee encourages the Survey to include with its fiscal 

year 2013 budget request a proposal to establish a national groundwater monitoring network as authorized by the Secure Water Act. 

Bill Language.—The bill provides two-year funding authority. 

The cooperative water program is funded in the bill at $65,561,000. 

Provisos include a funding limitation on surveys on private property and a cost-share requirement on topographic mapping and 

water resources activities carried on in cooperation with States and 

municipalities. 

NATIONAL LAND IMAGING

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $0 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 99,817,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 0 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... 0 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥99,817,000 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
38 

The Committee recommendation rejects the Administration’s proposal to establish a new National Land Imaging account for 

LandSat and related activities. Instead these activities continued to 

be funded under Surveys, Investigations, and Research. 

BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT, REGULATION AND

ENFORCEMENT

The Minerals Management Service (MMS) was created in 1982 

and was renamed the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) by Secretarial Order 3302, 

issued June 18, 2010. 

The BOEMRE is responsible for managing development of the 

nation’s offshore energy resources in an environmentally and economically responsible way. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) develops and implements plans for leasing conventional and renewable energy resources on the outer continental 

shelf (OCS) and is responsible for overseeing offshore energy operations and ensuring compliance with environmental and safety 

laws and regulations. 

The BOEMRE is still in the process of reorganizing into three 

functions of the former Minerals Management Service: development of offshore mineral resources, environmental safety and enforcement, and receipt collections. The first phase of the reorganization moved the royalty collection activities to the new Office of 

Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) within the Office of the Secretary. Recommendations for ONRR are located under the Office of 

the Secretary in this report. The remaining functions will be divided into two independent organizations, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) in fiscal year 2012. 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the table at the end of 

this report. 

OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT (FORMERLY ROYALTY AND OFFSHORE

MINERALS MANAGEMENT)

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $238,999,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 121,265,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 138,605,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥100,394,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ +17,340,000 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $138,605,000 for 

ocean energy management, $100,394,000 below the fiscal year 2011 

enacted level and $17,340,000 above the request. The large change 

in funding from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2012 is due to the 

shift of $109,364,000 for royalty management to the Office of the 

Secretary under the newly created Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR). The Committee also rejects the budget proposal request to increase offshore inspection fees by $55,000,000. The recommendation also continues language in Title I General Provisions 

from the fiscal year 2011 enacted bill allowing the reorganization 

of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, and successor bureaus only in conformance with Committee reprogramming guidelines. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
39 

The Committee continues to strongly encourage the Bureau to 

issue offshore permits in a manner that is both consistent with the 

need to ensure safety and environmental protections and provides 

certainty and consistency for industry. A productive domestic oil 

and gas industry remains an important part of efforts to ensure 

our nation’s energy independence, but without certainty that permits will be issued in a timely and consistent manner, domestic 

producers will continue to leave the Gulf for foreign waters, reducing our ability to achieve long-term energy independence. The Committee remains concerned that delays in issuing permits and lack 

of clarity on what is required for a permit have resulted in large 

losses for the businesses that contract and service rigs and unnecessary job losses for Americans in a difficult economy. 

In light of these concerns, the Committee significantly increased 

funding in the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolutions to hire additional inspectors, enhance safety, and move forward with permitting after the moratorium was lifted. The Committee understands 

that it takes time and resources to properly address the problems 

that led to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and that it was necessary for the Bureau to review and revise its safety and environmental standards in the reorganization process. 

Noting that the Administration committed to moving forward 

with issuing new permits once reforms and needed funding were in 

place, the Committee is carefully monitoring the Bureau’s efforts to 

provide the certainty needed to support efficient and environmentally responsible domestic energy production. During budget 

hearings on the Bureau, the Committee made clear that it believed 

additional funds were necessary, but that the Committee would not 

authorize a blank check. The Committee will strongly consider 

whether the additional funding provided to the Bureau has been 

used to issue permits in a timely fashion and provide industry with 

needed certainty when appropriating funding next year. 

The Committee is concerned about the lack of transparency and 

public comprehension regarding the Bureau’s oil and gas permitting data, particularly on its public website. The Committee directs 

the agency to work with the Committee on a system that allows 

the public and the Committee to better understand the performance metrics associated with offshore oil and gas permitting and to 

more fully justify the funds provided by this Act. 

The Committee is concerned with the Bureau’s stated intentions 

for the expansion of regulatory authority over non-lease holders 

under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). The authority and need for this action has not been explained or justified 

to the Committee, nor how this diversion of limited resources 

would impact the Bureau’s current mission and objectives identified in the fiscal year 2012 request. The agency is directed to use 

all the resources provided toward the regulatory efforts presented 

in the fiscal year 2012 request and that no funds be expended for 

other purposes until the agency has fully explained its authority, 

intentions and objectives to the Committee and the public. 

The Committee notes that the Report to the President by the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling (the report) included among its recommendations to 

work with our Gulf neighbors toward agreeing on ‘‘a common, rigorous set of standards, a system for regulatory oversight, and the 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
40 

same operator adherence to the effective safety culture called for 

in th[e] report, along with protocols to cooperate on containment 

and response strategies and preparedness in case of a spill.’’ The 

Committee directs the Secretary of the Interior to report to the 

Committee on actions that are planned or have been taken to implement this recommendation. 

Finally, the Committee will remain involved with the Administration, other Committees of Congress, the GAO, Inspector General, and other interested groups and industry in the oversight of 

BOEMRE and its response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. 

The Committee has included bill language in Title IV General 

Provisions that clarifies existing law related to Clean Air Act permits for the outer continental shelf and sets a timeline for the approval of exploration drilling permits. 

OIL SPILL RESEARCH

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $11,744,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 14,923,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 14,923,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... +3,179,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $14,923,000 for oil spill research as 

requested, $3,179,000 above fiscal year 2011 enacted levels. This 

funding is 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 believes the requested increase in this 

program is warranted given the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 

2010. 

OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

(OSM), through its regulation and technology account, regulates 

surface coal mining operations to ensure that the environment is 

reclaimed once mining is completed. The OSM accomplishes this 

mission by providing grants to those States that maintain their 

own regulatory and reclamation programs and by conducting oversight of State programs. Further, the OSM administers the regulatory programs in the States that do not have their own programs 

and on Federal and tribal lands. Through its Abandoned Mine 

Land (AML) reclamation program, the OSM provides funding for 

environmental restoration at abandoned coal mines based on fees 

collected from current coal production operations. In their un-reclaimed condition these abandoned sites endanger public health 

and safety, and prevent the beneficial use of land and water resources. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act amendments of 2006 dramatically changed the manner in which AML 

funds are distributed. 

The amounts recommended by the Committee for each Office of 

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement appropriation account, compared with the budget estimates by activity, are shown 

in the table at the end of this report. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
41 

REGULATION AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $127,026,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 118,469,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 123,050,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥3,976,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ +4,581,000 

The Committee recommends $123,050,000 for regulation and 

technology, $3,976,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and 

$4,581,000 above the budget request. The Committee funds regulatory grants at $68,700,000, equal to the fiscal year 2011 enacted 

level and $8,377,000 above the President’s request. The Committee 

strongly urges OSM to discontinue efforts to push States to raise 

fees on industry as the bill provides the funds necessary for States 

to run their regulatory programs. Further, providing Federal regulatory grants to primacy States results in the highest benefit and 

the lowest cost to taxpayers. If a State were to relinquish primacy, 

OSM would have to hire and train sufficient numbers and types of 

Federal employees, and the cost to implement the program would 

be significantly higher. 

The Committee also rejects the proposal to increase inspections 

and enhanced Federal oversight of State regulatory programs. Delegation of the authority to the States is the cornerstone of the surface mining regulatory program. The Committee believes the President’s proposal to increase Federal inspections would not only be 

a redundant activity, but also duplicative and wasteful spending. 

The State regulatory programs do not need enhanced Federal oversight to ensure continued implementation of a protective regulatory 

framework. Accordingly, the Committee has not provided the 

$3,932,000 and 25 FTE increase requested for those activities within the Regulation and Technology account, and funding for State 

and Program Evaluation is maintained at the fiscal year 2010 enacted level of $8,630,000. 

ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION FUND

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $35,517,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 27,443,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 27,443,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥8,074,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $27,443,000 for the Abandoned 

Mine Reclamation Fund as requested, $8,074,000 below the fiscal 

year 2011 enacted level. 

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION

The Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Indian Education 

(Bureau) was founded in 1824 to establish a government-to-government relationship and trust responsibility that results from treaties with Native groups. The Bureau delivers services to over 1.7 

million American Indians and Alaska Natives. In addition, the Bureau provides education programs to American Indians through the 

operation of 169 schools and 14 dormitories. The Bureau administers more than 56 million acres of land held in trust status. Over 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
42 

10 million of these acres belong to individuals and 46 million acres 

are held in trust for Tribes. 

OPERATION OF INDIAN PROGRAMS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $2,329,846,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 2,359,692,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 2,333,690,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... +3,844,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥26,002,000 

The Committee recommends $2,333,690,000 for the Operation of Indian Programs, $3,844,000 above the fiscal year 2011 enacted 

level and $26,002,000 below the request. The recommended total 

funding level for the Bureaus of Indian Affairs and Indian Education is $28,998,000 above the budget request. The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the budget estimates 

by activity are shown in the table at the end of this report. 

Tribal Government.—The Committee recommends $518,660,000 

for Tribal Government, $9,071,000 above the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $21,567,000 above the budget request. Contract support costs are fully funded at $228,000,000. Two recent court cases found that the Bureau was legally obligated to pay 

the full amount of all contract support costs that it had contractually agreed with Indian Tribes to pay, and limitations on the 

overall contract support cost appropriation does not overcome the 

Bureau’s obligation to pay said costs. The Committee believes that 

the Bureau should pay all contract support costs for which it has 

contractually agreed and directs the Bureau to include the full cost 

of the contract support obligations in its fiscal year 2013 budget 

submission. 

Trust—Natural Resources Management.—The Committee recommends $157,361,000 for natural resources management, 

$1,279,000 above the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $4,891,000 

below the budget request. Cooperative landscape conservation is 

funded at $419,000. 

The Committee encourages the Bureau, in consultation with 

Tribes, to evaluate the needs of its hatchery program to ensure 

that funding is fairly allocated nationwide. 

Education.—The Committee recommends $769,485,000 for education, $16,787,000 above the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and 

$26,069,000 below the request. 

This Committee recognizes that tribal education departments 

and agencies are uniquely situated at the local level to implement 

innovative education programs to improve Native American education. The Committee provides $2,000,000 to build capacity of tribal education agencies (TEAs) and for a pilot project to increase the 

role of tribal education departments in Native American education. 

In the pilot, TEAs should directly administer some ESEA programs 

and enter into collaborative agreements with States to work closely 

with school districts located on Indian reservations or former Indian reservations. The Committee expects the BIA to collaborate 

with the Department of Education on this effort. 

The Committee directs the Bureau, in coordination with the Department of Education, and in consultation with the Tribes, to upVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:11 Jul 20, 2011 Jkt 067352 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR151.XXX HR151

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
43 

date its count of students eligible for the Johnson-O’Malley Program funding and to report the results to this Committee within 

180 days of enactment of this Act. In addition, the Committee directs the Bureau to reestablish the full-time permanent JohnsonO’Malley coordinator position that was terminated in 2005. 

Public Safety and Justice.—The Committee recommends 

$342,709,000 for public safety and justice, $8,619,000 above the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $12,000,000 below the request. 

To address the needs of American Indian youth in custody at 

tribal detention centers operated or administered by the BIA, the 

Committee directs the BIA to consider educational and health-related services to juveniles in custody as allowable costs for detention/corrections program funding. 

CONSTRUCTION

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $209,580,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 104,992,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 154,992,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥54,588,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ +50,000,000 

The Committee recommends $154,992,000 for construction, 

$54,588,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and 

$50,000,000 above the request. The amounts recommended by the 

Committee compared with the budget estimates by activity are 

shown in the table at the end of this report. 

Education.—The Committee recommends $102,104,000 for education construction, $38,405,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted 

level and $50,000,000 above the budget request. The increased 

funding is for replacement school construction, which should complete the remaining projects on the 2004 priority list. The Committee urges the Bureau to move with all deliberate speed to publish a new replacement school construction priority list, and to request funding to implement projects on the list in fiscal year 2013. 

The Committee understands the Bureau has been working with 

the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe on the needs of the Bug O Nay Ge 

Shig School and encourages the BIA to continue these efforts to ensure all health and safety concerns are addressed. The Committee 

directs the Bureau to report quarterly on progress to address these 

concerns. 

Public Safety and Justice.—The Committee recommends 

$11,329,000 for public safety and justice construction as requested, 

$6,535,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. 

The Committee supports recent efforts by the Bureau and Department of Justice to improve coordination related to the constructing, staffing, and maintenance of tribal detention centers. 

The Committee encourages the Bureau and the Department of Justice to work together and in consultation with the Tribes through 

the Bureau’s Tribal Interior Budget Council to develop methodologies for constructing tribal detention centers, including regional detention centers, based on need and best use of resources. The Department of the Interior is strongly encouraged to update the Committee at least quarterly on achievements and actions taken. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
44 

The Committee commends the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the 

Fort Hall Indian Reservation for their initiative in addressing their 

law enforcement needs by constructing a justice center to house 

their adult and juvenile detention and rehabilitation center, tribal 

courts, and police department. The Committee also commends the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs in its efforts to assist the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes in ensuring that the Center continues to operate effectively. Knowing that work must be done in consultation with 

Tribes, the Committee continues to encourage the Bureau to consider establishing regional detention centers at new or existing facilities, such as the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes’ Justice Center, as it 

works to combat the crime problem in Indian Country. 

INDIAN LAND AND WATER CLAIM SETTLEMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS

PAYMENTS TO INDIANS

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $46,387,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 32,855,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 32,855,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥13,532,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $32,855,000 for Indian land and 

water claim settlements and miscellaneous payments to Indians as 

requested, $13,532,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. 

INDIAN GUARANTEED LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $8,199,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 3,114,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 8,114,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥85,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ +5,000,000 

The Committee recommends $8,114,000 for the Indian guaranteed loan program account, $85,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $5,000,000 above the budget request. The increase 

is for the guaranteed and insured loan subsidy. 

DEPARTMENTAL OFFICES

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

The Office of the Secretary supports a wide-range of Departmental business, policy, and oversight functions. In September 

2010, Secretarial Order 3306 established the Office of Natural Resources Revenue as part of the reorganization of the former Minerals Management Service (MMS). This revenue collection and 

compliance function is now managed within the Office of the Secretary. 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $118,598,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 283,670,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 250,151,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... +131,553,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥33,519,000 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
45 

The Committee recommends $250,151,000 for salaries and expenses for the Office of the Secretary, $131,553,000 above the fiscal 

year 2011 enacted level and $33,519,000 below the budget request. 

The detailed allocation of funding by program is included in the 

table at the end of this report. 

The Committee includes the proposed restructuring of Departmental Offices, reflecting the incorporation of the Office of Natural 

Resources Revenue (ONRR) and alignment of the budget with the 

Department’s organization. Although the overall budget for Departmental Offices reflects an increase over the fiscal year 2011 level, 

this is due to the move of the ONRR from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. 

The Committee includes the realignment of budget activities and 

subactivities and creation of two new budget activities—Leadership 

and Administration and Management Services. This will bring the 

funding allocations and reporting in line with the current organization of the Department, improve transparency and accountability, 

and clearly separate the policy and oversight functions from the 

operational functions. The Committee directs the Department to 

continue providing the Committee with the level of budget detail 

that has historically been provided (at the office level). 

Leadership and Administration.—The Committee recommends 

$119,032,000 for Leadership and Administration, $10,386,000 

below the budget request. The reduction below the request is to 

Central Services. 

Management Services.—The Committee recommends $21,755,000 

for Management Services, $12,888,000 below the request. The reduction below the request is to the Office of Valuation Services. 

Office of Natural Resources Revenue.—The realignment of the Office of Natural Resources Revenue into the Office of the Secretary 

and separation from the mineral leasing functions ought to improve 

transparency in the collection and distribution of $9 billion annually in mineral production revenues. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) testified before this Committee in March about 

the importance of these activities in generating revenues that are 

shared between Federal, State and tribal governments. In February 2011, the GAO designated Interior’s management of oil and 

gas resources as a government-wide high risk and discussed the 

challenges related to the collection of oil and gas revenue. The 

Committee is aware of efforts underway to address these challenges and advance a set of reforms including those recommended 

by the GAO. 

With this in mind and the funding allocated to the function in 

fiscal year 2011, the Committee maintains funding for ONRR at 

the fiscal year 2011 enacted level of $109,364,000, which is 

$10,245,000 below the budget request. The Committee remains focused on working with the Department to ensure the success of 

this function and directs the Department to provide a report on the 

Office of Natural Resources Revenue within 120 days of enactment 

on the organization, funding, staffing and status of reforms. 

The Committee supports the increased transparency provided 

with the alignment of functions consistent with the organization of 

Departmental Offices and lauds the Department’s efforts in IT 

transformation, reducing travel spending, and other steps to reduce 

spending. These actions resulted in savings of $62 million in fiscal 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
46 

year 2011 and are expected to generate additional cost savings and 

cost avoidance in future years. The Committee urges the Department to consider other restructuring to achieve improved effectiveness and efficiency in the delivery of programs and services. The 

Committee directs that the Department report back to the Committee on progress made on these efforts within 180 days of enactment. 

Additional Guidance.—National Monument Designations.—The 

Department is directed to work collaboratively with interested parties, including the Congress, States, local communities, tribal governments and others prior to planning, implementing, or making 

national monument designations. 

Geospatial Information Systems.—Commercial off-the-shelf software now provides the tools, capabilities, and capacity to implement Department-wide enterprise geospatial information systems 

(GIS) at low cost that do not require development or maintenance 

of expensive customized software and which benefit a broad base 

of internal and external users. The potential cost savings and improvements to efficiency and mission performance are significant. 

The Committee recommends that the Department of the Interior 

give priority to fully competitive implementation of COTS-based department-wide enterprise GIS in fiscal year 2012, using the full 

range of scientific and demographic data already available within 

the Department. 

Direct Hire Authority.—The Committee commends the National 

Park Service for its ongoing efforts to improve its business practices through programs such as the Business Plan Initiative (BPI), 

a program that offers financial management internships to graduate students enrolled in top Business Schools, Policy Schools, and 

Environmental Management Schools. Programs such as BPI allow 

bureaus to recruit young professionals with private-sector financial 

management training into Federal service, where an aging workforce and a tightening budget climate make such skills increasingly 

critical. To encourage NPS and DOI use of programs such as BPI, 

the Committee has included a Title I General Provision that will 

enable the Secretary to hire these students into financial management positions across the Department upon completing their undergraduate or graduate studies. 

Bill Language.—The Committee has continued to include bill 

language that deducts two percent of State royalties to help cover 

Federal administrative costs. As requested, the language has been 

moved from Administrative Provisions under the Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement to the Office of 

the Secretary. 

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 (AS), U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and also the 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
47 

three freely associated States: the Federated States of Micronesia 

(FSM), the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) and the Republic of Palau. The permanent and trust fund payments to the territories and the compact nations provide substantial financial resources to these governments. During fiscal year 2004 new financial arrangements for the Compacts of Free Association with the 

FSM and the RMI were implemented; these also included mandatory payments for certain activities previously provided in discretionary appropriations as well as Compact impact payments of 

$30,000,000 per year split among Guam, CNMI, AS, and Hawaii. 

During fiscal year 2012 permanent funding of $377,133,000 will be 

made available to these governments in addition to the discretionary funding discussed below. 

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $84,182,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 84,117,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 82,558,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥1,624,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥1,559,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee for the Office of 

Insular Affairs appropriations accounts compared with the budget 

estimates by activity are shown in the table at the end of this report. The Committee recommends $82,558,000 for assistance to territories, $1,624,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and 

$1,559,000 below the budget request. 

Territorial Assistance.—The Committee recommends $32,086,000 

for territorial assistance, $1,669,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $1,559,000 below the budget request. Within the 

amount provided, the Committee maintains the fiscal year 2011 

funding level for the Office of Insular Affairs, the Brown tree 

snake, coral reef initiative, water and wastewater projects, and empowering insular communities. The Committee also supports the 

OIA’s partnership with the Close Up Foundation which allows students and educators from Guam, American Samoa, the CNMI, the 

FSM, the RMI, the Republic of Palau, and the United States Virgin 

Islands to participate in civic education programs. 

American Samoa.—The Committee recommends $22,752,000 for 

American Samoa operations as requested, which is $45,000 above 

the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. 

Northern Mariana Islands/Covenant Grants.—The Committee 

recommends $27,720,000 for CNMI covenant grants as requested, 

equal to the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. 

COMPACT OF FREE ASSOCIATION

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $17,307,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 3,054,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 3,307,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥14,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ +253,000 

The Committee recommends $3,307,000 for the Compact of Free 

Association, $14,000,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level, 

and $253,000 above the request. The Committee expects the Compact will be renegotiated and therefore the discretionary stopgap 

funding provided in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 will not be necessary in 2012. Further, the Committee finds insufficient justificaVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:11 Jul 20, 2011 Jkt 067352 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR151.XXX HR151

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
48 

tion to reduce funding for the Enewetak program and maintains 

funding at the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS, INSULAR AFFAIRS

The Committee recommendation continues bill language, as requested, allowing the Interior Department to transfer certain funds 

designated for Guam to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, when 

requested by the Governor of Guam, as a subsidy for direct or 

guaranteed rural development loans to Guam for construction and 

repair projects. During the next ten years, the military will be moving major facilities and personnel to Guam which will result in tremendous impacts on the island’s infrastructure. This language, 

which does not supplant any existing USDA authority, will help 

the government of Guam respond to this unprecedented change. 

Bill language has not been included to provide the Secretary with 

authority to redistribute capital improvement funds in 2012. The 

Committee is similarly focused on the slow spending rates in the 

territories and urges all territories to increase expenditure of previously awarded funds. The Committee intends to revisit the issue 

in fiscal year 2013 if expenditure rates have not substantially increased. 

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $64,946,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 68,476,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 64,946,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... 0 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥3,530,000 

The Committee recommends $64,946,000 for salaries and expenses of the Office of the Solicitor, equal to the fiscal year 2011 

enacted level and $3,530,000 below the budget request. The detailed allocation of funding by program is included in the table at 

the end of this report. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $48,493,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 49,471,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 48,493,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... 0 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥978,000 

The Committee recommends $48,493,000 for salaries and expenses of the Office of Inspector General, equal to the fiscal year 

2011 enacted level and $978,000 below the budget request. The detailed allocation of funding by program is included in the table at 

the end of this report. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
49 

OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TRUSTEE FOR AMERICAN INDIANS

FEDERAL TRUST PROGRAMS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

The Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians was established by the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform 

Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–412). The Department of the Interior 

is responsible for managing 55 million surface acres and 57 million 

acres of subsurface minerals estates for almost 381,000 Individual 

Indian Money (IIM) accounts and about 2,800 tribal accounts (over 

250 Tribes). On these lands, the Department of the Interior manages over 100,000 leases for individual Indians and Tribes. The Department received approximately $299,000,000 in fiscal year 2010 

from leases, permits, sale revenues, and investment income for Individual Indian Money accounts, and approximately $532,000,000 

for Tribal accounts. 

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $160,768,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 152,319,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 152,319,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥8,359,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $152,319,000 for Federal Trust programs as requested, $8,359,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted 

level. 

The Committee remains interested in the government’s obligation to protect Indian Trust records. While efforts in recent years 

have led to improvements, such as the creation of the American Indian Records Repository, the Committee understands that valuable 

records still exist in unprotected locations on Indian reservations 

and government offices. The Committee urges the Department to 

continue its efforts to prevent deterioration and destruction of 

these valuable records and to provide adequate resources for this 

critical effort. 

Bill Language.—As in previous fiscal years, the Committee has 

included bill language under the Office of the Special Trustee that 

limits the amount of funding available for historical accounting to 

$31,171,000. 

DEPARTMENT-WIDE PROGRAMS 

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

The Department’s wildland fire management and FLAME wildfire suppression reserve accounts support fire activities for the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $718,057,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 729,521,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 574,072,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥143,985,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥155,449,000 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
50 

The Committee recommends $574,072,000 in new discretionary 

funding for wildland fire management which, when combined with 

the directed use of $189,000,000 in carryover emergency fire suppression funds, provides $763,072,000 for wildland fire management at the Department of the Interior. In addition, the Committee 

recommends $92,000,000 as requested for the FLAME wildfire suppression reserve account. The Committee’s recommendation fully 

funds the inflation-adjusted 10-year fire suppression average expenditures. The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the budget estimates by activity are shown in the table 

at the end of this report. 

Wildfire Preparedness.—The Committee recommends 

$276,964,000 for wildfire preparedness as requested, $13,488,000 

below the fiscal year 2011 and 2010 enacted level. The Committee 

believes that the Department and the Forest Service must work together, along with States and other partners, to maintain sufficient 

readiness within the preparedness program. The Department 

should immediately notify the Committees on Appropriations if it 

appears that funding shortfalls may limit needed firefighting capacity. 

Wildfire Suppression Operations.—The Committee recommends 

$270,611,000 as requested for fire suppression operations but directs the Department to utilize $189,000,000 in carryover emergency fire suppression funds. The Committee recommendation, including the FLAME wildfire suppression reserve fund, fully meets 

the 10-year average expenditure on all emergency and discretionary funded suppression actions which actually occurred, adjusted for inflation. 

Other Wildland Fire Management Operations.—The Committee 

recommends $215,497,000 for other national fire plan wildland fire 

operations, $13,157,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted funding 

level and $33,551,000 above the budget request. The Committee 

recommends increasing the hazardous fuels reduction program by 

$26,551,000 over the request. The Committee recommends funding 

Rural Fire Assistance at the fiscal year 2010 enacted level of 

$7,000,000 and rejects the termination of this program in the request. The Rural Fire Assistance program is important to small, 

rural communities and helps ensure safe and effective firefighting. 

The program also improves the capacity and capability of rural 

firefighters to respond and fight wildland fires. Other subactivities 

are funded at the requested levels. 

In testimony before this Committee in March, the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) outlined the management challenges 

that the Department of the Interior faces, including protecting 

lives, property and resources from wildland fire. GAO testified that, 

in collaboration with the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service, Interior has taken steps to manage this daunting challenge and 

has demonstrated improvements, although work remains in developing a cohesive strategy, establishing clear goals and a strategy 

to contain wildland fire costs, management of the fuel reduction 

program, and interagency budgeting and planning. 

The Committee is appreciative of the leadership in the Forest 

Service and the Department of the Interior in producing the cohesive strategy, but questions the dissimilar approaches currently 

taken by the two agencies in the management of hazardous fuels, 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
51 

budgets, and firefighting resources. As part of the continuing development of the cohesive strategy, the Committee looks forward to an 

evaluation of alternative approaches to effective management of 

the full set of wildland fire management programs that will ensure 

comprehensive, cost efficient and effective reduction of risks posed 

to firefighters, the public and communities and the natural resources that support them within and outside the Wildland Urban 

Interface (WUI). 

The Committee is deeply concerned with the Interior Department’s fiscal year 2012 budget proposal that arbitrarily restricts 

the use of hazardous fuels funds to projects in or immediately adjacent to the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). The Committee believes that the socio-economic health and vitality of rural areas are 

highly dependent on the health and vitality of the landscapes and 

ecosystems that surround them. There is also a significant risk to 

communities if neighboring public land managers are not able to 

conduct the necessary treatments that would prevent the build-up 

of fuel loads. The Committee also believes that continued emphasis 

on structural protection will eventually result in communities, and 

the natural resources they depend on, being more threatened by 

fires originating outside of the WUI than they are presently. While 

the Committee appreciates the Department’s efforts to ensure 

scarce hazardous fuels reduction funds are directed to the highest 

priority projects in the highest priority areas, the Committee directs the Department to provide the Committee with a more rational process for establishing priorities that includes the full scope of 

community interests that are threatened by wildland fire within 

120 days after enactment of this Act. 

The Committee also shares GAO’s concerns about containing 

costs in the fire program, particularly given the constrained fiscal 

environment. The Committee is appreciative of the agencies’ efforts 

that are presently underway to eliminate duplication of fire-related 

information technology applications and consolidate governance 

and staffing in these IT systems and urges the two agencies to continue these efforts. However, more must be done. 

The Committee is aware of the duplication that exists in the Department of the Interior’s wildland fire programs, with multiple 

parallel organizations in four bureaus, each having nearly identical 

administrative organizations at the national, State and regional 

levels, and at the local level to manage fire planning and environmental compliance, prevention and preparedness, hazardous fuels 

reduction and biomass utilization, protection and suppression, 

smoke management and air quality, post-fire stabilization and 

burned area rehabilitation, facilities construction and maintenance, 

fire science, rural fire assistance, and fire management-related 

aviation management activities. 

The Committee directs the Department to complete an assessment of these Wildland Fire programs in order to determine the 

most cost effective and efficient means of providing comprehensive 

fire management services in support of Departmental and bureau 

missions, and to better direct scarce resources from duplicative administrative management organizations to focus resources on the 

protection of lives, property and natural and cultural resources. 

The Committee asks for a set of options for restructuring and conducting the wildland fire programs, including streamlining the DeVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:11 Jul 20, 2011 Jkt 067352 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR151.XXX HR151

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
52 

partment and bureau roles and responsibilities for administration 

and management of preparedness, suppression operation, hazardous fuels reduction, burned area rehabilitation, fire facilities, 

fire science, community assistance, and budget and finance functions. Further, the Department should evaluate existing alternative 

models for service delivery, including the Alaska Fire Service, 

States, and other countries and identify resources that can be redirected to on-the-ground services through reorganization of its 

wildland fire management programs. Lastly, the Committee directs 

the Department to report back to the Committee no later than 180 

days after enactment of this Act with a set of options including estimated cost savings and schedules for implementation. 

FLAME WILDFIRE SUPPRESSION RESERVE FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $60,878,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 92,000,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 92,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... +31,122,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $92,000,000 for the FLAME wildfire 

suppression reserve fund as requested. As discussed above under 

the wildland fire management account, the Committee fully funds 

the 10-year average expenditure for wildfire suppression. 

CENTRAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS FUND

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $10,155,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 10,149,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 10,149,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥6,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $10,149,000 for the central hazardous materials fund as requested, $6,000 below the fiscal year 

2011 enacted level. 

NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT AND RESTORATION

NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT FUND

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $6,449,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 6,263,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 5,763,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥686,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥500,000 

The Committee recommends $5,763,000 for the natural resource 

damage assessment fund, $686,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $500,000 below the budget request. The detailed allocation of funding by program is included in the table at the end 

of this report. 

The Committee notes that the program’s fiscal year 2012 budget 

request projects an unobligated balance of $493,442,000 in settlement funds carried forward at the end of fiscal year 2012, which 

is an increase from the amount carried forward in the previous two 

fiscal years. The Committee is concerned that the program is inefVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:11 Jul 20, 2011 Jkt 067352 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR151.XXX HR151

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
53 

fective in its ability to obligate funding in a timely manner. Meanwhile, habitat programs at the cooperating Interior bureaus are 

being proposed for cuts by the Administration. The Committee believes there may be economies of scale to be gained here and directs the program, in consultation with the cooperating Interior bureaus, to evaluate alternative approaches to delivering restoration 

projects that better utilize the existing expertise throughout Interior bureaus in a way that not only implements restoration projects 

faster but provides a supplemental source of funding to other bureau habitat programs. The program is directed to report back to 

the Committee within 120 days of enactment of this Act. 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $85,651,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 73,119,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 57,019,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥28,632,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥16,100,000 

The Committee recommends $57,019,000 for the working capital fund, $28,632,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and 

$16,100,000 below the budget request. The Committee recommends 

$52,019,000 for the Financial and Business Management System 

(FBMS), $28,266,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and 

$6,100,000 below the budget request. The Committee notes that 

this funding decrease corresponds to the funding increase over the 

budget request for FBMS contained in the Department’s fiscal year 

2011 Operating Plan. The Committee expects the Department to 

complete deployment expeditiously in order to maximize the benefits including shutting down costly, outdated legacy systems. The 

Committee expects the Department to mandate standardization 

and minimize additional future costs. Further, the Committee expects that the Department will produce standardized reporting beginning in fiscal year 2012 that will be used to monitor funds status, obligations and expenditures. 

The Committee also recommends $2,500,000, which is $2,500,000 

below the budget request, to support the Department’s continuing 

IT transformation from an antiquated system of stovepipes in each 

bureau to consolidated enterprise architecture under the Office of 

the Chief Information Officer. The Committee expects this ongoing 

initiative to reduce long-term IT costs. Additionally, the Committee 

recommends $2,500,000, which is $2,500,000 below the budget request, for the Department’s efforts to identify operating efficiencies 

and achieve savings across bureaus through consolidation of services, facilities, and infrastructure. The Committee has not provided 

$5,000,000 as requested for training, recruitment, retention, and 

hiring of the acquisition workforce. 

Bill Language.—The Committee has included bill language from 

prior years continuing the Department of the Interior’s prohibition 

on establishing reserves in the appropriated Working Capital Fund 

other than for accrued annual leave and depreciation of equipment 

without the prior approval of the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations. 

The Committee has also continued language from prior years relating to the Department’s ability to recover its costs for leasing 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
54 

space and providing for training, professional services and equipment to State, local and tribal government employees at the National Indian Program Training Center in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The National Indian Training Center’s mission is to establish 

partnerships with State, local and tribal governments for providing 

educational opportunities in support of the Department’s trust responsibilities to American Indians. Any funds recovered shall only 

be available to the National Indian Program Training Center. 

The Committee has not provided requested bill language relating 

to training, recruitment, retention, and hiring of the acquisition 

workforce. 

The Committee has provided the Administrative Provision carried in prior years, as requested, governing acquisition of certain 

aircraft. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (INCLUDING

TRANSFERS OF FUNDS) 

Section 101 continues a provision providing for emergency transfer authority with the approval of the Secretary. 

Section 102 modifies a provision providing for emergency transfer 

authority with the approval of the Secretary. 

Section 103 continues a provision providing for the use of appropriations for certain services. 

Section 104 continues a provision permitting the transfer of 

funds between the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of the 

Special Trustee for American Indians. 

Section 105 continues a provision permitting the redistribution of 

tribal priority allocation and tribal base funds to alleviate funding 

inequities. 

Section 106 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 107 continues a provision allowing the Secretary to pay 

private attorney fees for employees and former employees in connection with Cobell v. Salazar. 

Section 108 provides authority to the National Park Service to 

implement modifications to restoration efforts of the Everglades 

ecosystem. 

Section 109 continues a provision authorizing the Secretary of 

the Interior to acquire lands in support of transportation of visitors 

to Ellis, Governors, and Liberty Islands, NJ and NY. 

Section 110 extends the authority of the Department to hire Indian probate judges to handle Indian probate cases. 

Section 111 continues a provision allowing for the reorganization 

of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement only in conformance with Committee reprogramming 

guidelines. 

Section 112 allows the Bureau of Indian Education to utilize 

funds recovered from grants or ISDA contracts to Tribes upon reassumption of school operations by the Bureau. 

Section 113 extends a provision allowing the Bureau of Land 

Management to enter into long-term cooperative agreements for 

long-term care and maintenance of excess wild horses and burros 

on private land. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
55 

Section 114 provides the Secretary of the Interior statutory authority to enter into rental or lease agreements that benefit Bureau 

of Indian Affairs operated schools. 

Section 115 continues a provision dealing with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s responsibilities for mass marking of salmonid 

stocks. 

Section 116 addresses a matter of jurisdiction between the National Park Service and the Coast Guard relating to boater safety 

checks on the Yukon River within the Yukon-Charley National Preserve. 

Section 117 provides the Secretary of the Interior the authority 

to hire, upon graduation, college and graduate students who have 

recently completed a rigorous internship program with a land management agency, such as the NPS Business Plan Initiative. 

Section 118 requires the exhaustion of administrative review before litigants may file in Federal court. 

Section 119 provides that certain rules published by the Secretary shall not be subject to judicial review if certain conditions 

are met. 

Section 120 provides for the trailing of livestock across public 

lands through fiscal year 2014. 

Section 121 requires the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 

Regulation and Enforcement to report to the Committee quarterly 

on permitting. 

Section 122 allows the Department of the Interior to lease certain land within Fort Pulaski National Monument. 

Section 123 reinstates a demonstration program to allow certain 

tribes to maintain some autonomy from the Department of the Interior in the management of their trust funds and finances. 

Section 124 continues a provision prohibiting funds to implement, administer or enforce Secretarial Order 3310 issued by the 

Secretary of the Interior on December 22, 2010. 

The Committee did not include requested language for outer continental shelf inspection fees or onshore oil and gas inspection fees. 

TITLE II—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created by Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, which consolidated nine programs 

from five different agencies and departments. Major EPA programs 

include air and water quality, drinking water, hazardous waste, research, pesticides, radiation, toxic substances, enforcement and 

compliance assurance, pollution prevention, oil spills, Superfund, 

Brownfields, and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank program. 

In addition, EPA provides Federal assistance for wastewater treatment, sewer overflow control, drinking water facilities, other water 

infrastructure projects, and diesel emission reduction projects. The 

Agency is responsible for conducting research and development, establishing environmental standards through the use of risk assessment and cost-benefit, monitoring pollution conditions, seeking 

compliance through enforcement actions, managing audits and investigations, and providing technical assistance and grant support 

to States and Tribes, which are delegated authority for much of the 

program implementation. Under existing statutory authority, the 

Agency contributes to specific homeland security efforts and may 

participate in international environmental activities. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
56 

Among the statutes for which the Environmental Protection 

Agency has sole or significant oversight responsibilities are: 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended. 

Toxic Substances Control Act, as amended. 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended. 

Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, as amended. 

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as 

amended. 

Oil Pollution Act of 1990. 

Public Health Service Act (Title XIV), as amended. 

Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended. 

Clean Air Act, as amended. 

Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended. 

Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002. 

Bioterrorism Act of 2002. 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended. 

Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization 

Act of 2002 (amending CERCLA). 

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986. 

Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended. 

Pollution Prosecution Act of 1990. 

Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2003. 

Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. 

For fiscal year 2012, the Committee recommends $7,149,202,000 for the Environmental Protection Agency, $1,532,915,000 below the 

fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $1,823,798,000 below the budget 

request. The amounts recommended by the Committee are changes 

to the request. Comparison to the budget request and 2011 enacted 

levels are shown by account, program area and selected activity in 

the table at the end of the report. 

Reprogramming.—The Agency is held to the reprogramming limitation of $1,000,000. This limitation will be applied to each program area in every account at the levels provided in the detailed 

table at the end of this report. This will allow the Agency the flexibility to reprogram funds within a set program area. However, 

where the Committee has cited funding levels for certain program 

projects or activities within a program area, the reprogramming 

limitation continues to apply to those funding levels. Further, the 

Agency may not use any amount of deobligated funds to initiate a 

new program, office, or initiative, without the prior approval of the 

Committee. The other guidelines laid out in the ‘‘Reprogramming 

Guidelines’’ section of this report continue to be in effect. 

Congressional Budget Justification.—The Committee directs the 

Agency to include in future Justifications the following items: (1) 

a comprehensive index of programs and activities within the program projects; (2) the requested bill language, with changes from 

the enacted language highlighted, at the beginning of each account 

section; (3) a justification for every program/project, including those 

proposed for elimination; (4) a comprehensive, detailed explanation 

of all changes within a program project; (5) a table showing consolidations, realignments or other transfers of resources and personnel 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
57 

from one program project to another such that the outgoing and receiving program projects offset and clearly illustrate a transfer of 

resources; and, (6) a table listing the budgets and FTE by major 

office within each National Program Management area with pay/ 

non-pay breakouts. The Committee notes that the Congressional 

Justification includes the bill language for each account. The Committee directs the Agency to highlight and explain any changes to 

the proposed bill language in the Congressional Justification. 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

The Science and Technology (S&T) account funds all Environmental Protection Agency research (including Superfund research 

activities paid with funds moved into this account from the Hazardous Substance Superfund account). This account includes programs carried out through grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements with other Federal agencies, States, universities, and private 

business, as well as in-house research. It also funds personnel compensation and benefits, travel, supplies and operating expenses, including rent, utilities and security, for all Agency research. Research addresses a wide range of environmental and health concerns across all environmental media and encompasses both longterm basic and near-term applied research to provide the scientific 

knowledge and technologies necessary for preventing, regulating, 

and abating pollution, and to anticipate emerging environmental 

issues. 

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $813,480,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 825,596,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 754,611,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥58,869,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥70,985,000 

The Committee recommends $754,611,000 for science and technology, $58,869,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and 

$70,985,000 below the budget request. The Committee recommends 

that $23,016,000, as requested by the President, be paid to this account from the Hazardous Substance Superfund account for ongoing research activities consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 

1980, as amended. The changes to the request, as recommended by 

the Committee, appear in the table at the end of this report. The 

Committee provides the following additional detail by program 

area. 

Clean Air and Climate.—Funding has been reorganized in this 

program area, as requested, therefore comparisons to the fiscal 

year 2011 enacted level present little value. The Committee recommends $120,082,000 for the Clean Air and Climate Program 

which is $14,288,000 below the request. The Committee remains 

very interested in the demonstration projects for the hydraulic hybrid technology and funding has been provided as requested for the 

Clean Automotive Technology and Fuel Cell and Hydrogen programs. The Committee has not provided the requested increases in 

the Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification program 

project. The Committee understands the engine certifications and 

implementation of the light and heavy-duty vehicles standards are 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
58 

priority activities for the Agency to fund within baseline levels, and 

expects the Agency to prioritize accordingly. 

Enforcement.—Funding for forensics support has been maintained at the 2011 enacted level of $15,293,000, which is $33,000 

below the budget request. 

IT/Data Management.—Funding has been maintained at the 

2011 enacted level of $3,657,000, which is $451,000 below the 

budget request. 

Operations and Administration.—The Committee has provided 

$70,050,000 for Facilities Infrastructure and Operations, $390,000 

above the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $6,471,000 below the 

budget request. The Committee has not provided the increases requested for 2012. The Committee’s recommendation fully supports 

the requested amounts for rent, utilities, security, transit subsidy, 

and regional moves while eliminating funding for other facilities 

operations. The Committee continues to support plans to reduce energy utilization rates in order to mitigate rising utility costs. 

Pesticide Licensing.—Funding has been maintained at the fiscal 

year 2011 enacted level of $6,578,000 which is $253,000 below the 

budget request. EPA is directed to absorb the laboratory fixed cost 

increases. 

Research: Air, Climate and Energy.—The bill provides 

$93,000,000 for Air, Climate and Energy research, which is 

$15,000,000 below the budget request. From within this amount, 

$77,195,000 is for Research: Clean Air and $15,805,000 is for Research: Global Change. Funding has not been provided for other 

air, climate, and energy research activities. The recommended level 

does not provide the $3,000,000 increase for the NAAQS monitor 

development, applies a $5,000,000 programmatic reduction for climate research, and eliminates funding for other proposed research 

in this program area including research on biofuels and mercury. 

Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability.—Funding has 

been reorganized in this program area as requested, therefore comparisons to the fiscal year 2011 enacted level present little value. 

The Committee recommends $125,514,000, which is $12,543,000 

below the budget request. The Committee has not provided the requested increase for green chemistry and design. Within the 

amount provided, the Committee supports the increased research 

focus on Computational Toxicology and Endocrine Disruptors. 

Research: National Priorities.—The bill provides $5,000,000 

which shall be used for extramural research grants to fund highpriority water quality and availability research by not-for-profit organizations who often partner with the Agency. Funds shall be 

awarded competitively with priority given to partners proposing research of national scope and who provide a 25 percent match. The 

Agency is directed to allocate funds to grantees within 180 days of 

enactment of this Act. 

Research: Safe and Sustainable Water Resources.—The Committee recommends $108,532,000, which is $8,765,000 below the 

fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $10,244,000 below the budget request. The Committee has not provided the requested $5,996,000 

increase for additional green infrastructure research beyond what 

is already provided in the base, or the requested $4,226,000 increase for additional drinking water case studies. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
59 

Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities.—The Committee recommends $154,324,000, which is $16,702,000 below the 

budget request. Resources for Endocrine Disruptor research, Computational Toxicology research, and Human Health Risk assessment have been transferred to the Research: Chemical Safety and 

Sustainability program area as a result of the proposed reorganization of ORD resources. The Committee has not provided funding for 

the Fellowships program in 2012, a $17,261,000 decrease below the 

budget request. The Committee has provided $2,559,000 for the 

laboratory study and footprint analysis, and encourages ORD to institute efficiency improvements that will result in long term savings using the amounts provided. 

Additional Guidance.—The Committee has included the following 

additional guidance with respect to funding provided under this account. 

Computational Toxicology.—Recognizing ToxCast has great 

promise to streamline and significantly increase the throughput of 

the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP), the Committee directs EPA to accelerate the evaluation, validation and implementation of the endocrine-relevant ToxCast assays. The Agency 

shall (1) in future EDSP Test Orders, use a targeted approach and 

adjust individual Test Orders in response to scientifically credible 

requests by taking existing data into account, and using information from valid in vitro assays or computer models, including 

ToxCast, as appropriate; and (2) use a peer consultation process to 

revise the EDSP weight of the evidence guidance to assure a systematic and consistent approach for evaluating other scientifically 

relevant information and EDSP results. These two activities shall 

include public comment and publication of Agency responses. 

Consolidation of laboratory and other research space.—From fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2010, EPA released approximately 250,000 square feet of space at headquarters and facilities 

nationwide resulting in a cumulative annual rent avoidance of over 

$1.1 million in this account. These achieved savings and potential 

savings partially offset EPA’s escalating rent budget. The Committee continues to support the Agency’s space strategy efforts, including those options that could lead to further efficiencies and potential reductions to the Agency’s real property footprint. 

Hydraulic Fracturing.—The Committee directs the Agency to 

submit the Final Draft of the Interim Study Results and any additional final study results of the Plan to Study the Potential Impacts 

of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources, for Interagency Review and public comment, consistent with the processes 

described in Sections 2.2 and 2.5 of the Draft Hydraulic Fracturing 

Study Plan released February 7, 2011. 

Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).—While the Committee is supportive of the goals of EPA’s IRIS program, fundamental improvements to the policies and practices of this program 

are necessary to ensure that assessments reflect the highest standard of scientific inquiry. As such, assessments must be based on 

the best available evidence and evaluated in accordance with established protocols. 

Therefore, EPA shall incorporate, as appropriate, based on chemical-specific datasets and biological effects, the recommendations of 

Chapter 7 of the National Research Council’s Review of the EnviVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:11 Jul 20, 2011 Jkt 067352 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR151.XXX HR151

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
60 

ronmental Protection Agency’s Draft IRIS Assessment of Formaldehyde, into the IRIS process. The Agency shall issue a progress report to the appropriate authorizing and appropriating committees 

of the Congress no later than December 1, 2011 describing its implementation of the National Research Council’s recommendations 

for ongoing and new assessments. 

Although the Committee does not wish to delay the IRIS process, 

it is imperative that EPA incorporate best practices to ensure timely and accurate risk assessments. In order to ensure that any action taken by EPA as a result of ongoing and new assessments is 

based firmly on the principles of modern scientific methods and 

commonly accepted practices, no funds shall be used to take any 

administrative action based on any draft or final assessment that 

does not incorporate the recommendations in Chapter 7 of the National Research Council’s Review of the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s Draft IRIS Assessment of Formaldehyde as part of the assessment process. 

Additionally, no funds shall be used to take any administrative 

action based on any draft or final assessment which has not fully 

documented the implementation of the National Academy of 

Science’s (NAS) recommendations. 

The Committee directs EPA to contract with the NAS to conduct 

up to three reviews of IRIS assessments that EPA seeks to make 

final. These reviews will include an evaluation of whether the recommendations it made in previous reviews, including in Chapter 7 

of the National Research Council’s Review of the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s Draft IRIS Assessment of Formaldehyde, have 

been implemented. Of the three studies, the Committee directs the 

Agency to contract with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of the cancer and non-cancer hazards from oral exposure to inorganic arsenic. Based on EPA’s performance with the 

2010 draft cancer assessment, the need to conduct a comprehensive, independent peer-review of the toxicology of inorganic arsenic, 

and the significant societal implications of changes in risk management approaches to arsenic, the Committee finds the need to require the NAS to conduct a study of the cancer and non-cancer hazards of inorganic arsenic, and to provide its recommendations regarding the estimated toxicity values for both endpoints based on 

its analysis. The NAS study should include, but not be limited to, 

the methodology from which the most recent cancer potency is derived, the 300 studies in the published scientific literature EPA 

failed to review for its 2010 draft assessment, and an analysis of 

the dose-response relationship between inorganic arsenic and cancer to determine whether a threshold can be established for safe 

exposure at low levels. The Committee directs that no further action be taken to post EPA’s 2010 draft cancer assessment of inorganic arsenic as final or for the use of any risk values from this 

assessment in Federal regulatory or permitting decisions pending 

the completion of the NAS study. NAS shall choose the remaining 

two reviews from a representational sample of IRIS assessments 

and notify Congress directly of these choices. 

Furthermore, no funds shall be used for action on any proposed 

rule, regulation, guidance, goal or permit, issued after May 21, 

2009, that would result in the lowering or further lowering of any 

exposure level that would be within or below background conVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:11 Jul 20, 2011 Jkt 067352 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR151.XXX HR151

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
61 

centration levels in ambient air, public drinking water sources, soil, 

or sediment. 

Title 42 Hiring Authority.—The Committee directs EPA to more 

effectively use Title 42 authority to recruit external talent to the 

Agency. EPA’s Title 42 authority is intended to ensure that the 

Agency has the benefit of our Nation’s best scientific minds. While 

the Committee recognizes the world class talent that currently resides within the Agency, EPA should identify where critical talent 

gaps exist and actively recruit accredited scientists with the knowledge and expertise needed by the Agency. EPA should expand its 

recruitment to include advertising vacancy announcements in scientific publications to ensure the widest applicant pool possible. 

Consistent with the National Academies of Science recommendations, for all vacant Title 42 slots, EPA’s search committees and selection committees should include members who are outside the 

agency. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS AND MANAGEMENT

The Environmental Programs and Management account encompasses a broad range of abatement, prevention, enforcement, and 

compliance activities, and personnel compensation, benefits, travel, 

and expenses for all programs of the Agency except Science and 

Technology, Hazardous Substance Superfund, Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, Inland Oil Spill Programs, and 

the Office of Inspector General. 

Abatement, prevention, and compliance activities include setting 

environmental standards, issuing permits, monitoring emissions 

and ambient conditions and providing technical and legal assistance toward enforcement, compliance, and oversight. In most cases, 

the States are directly responsible for actual operation of the various environmental programs, and the Agency’s activities include 

oversight and assistance. 

In addition to program costs, this account funds administrative 

costs associated with the operating programs of the Agency, including support for executive direction, policy oversight, resources management, general office and building services for program operations, and direct implementation of Agency environmental programs for headquarters, the ten EPA regional offices, and all nonresearch field operations. 

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $2,756,470,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 2,876,634,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 2,498,433,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥258,037,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥378,201,000 

The Committee recommends $2,498,433,000 for environmental 

programs and management, $258,037,000 below the fiscal year 

2011 enacted level and $378,201,000 below the budget request. The 

changes to the request, as recommended by the Committee, appear 

in the table at the end of this report. The Committee provides the 

following additional detail by program area: 

Clean Air and Climate.—Resources have been transferred to and 

from other program areas as part of the budget reorganization rendering little value to comparisons to the 2011 enacted level. The 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
62 

Committee recommends $263,741,000, which is $51,545,000 below 

the budget request. Within the amount provided, the Committee directs the following changes to the request: For the Climate Protection Program, $91,997,000 which is $19,637,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and 

$19,997,000 below the budget request. From within this total, the 

Committee provides the following program amounts: (1) 

$48,206,000 to fund the Energy Star program at fiscal year 2008 

levels; (2) $12,646,000 for the Greenhouse Gas Registry, a 

$5,000,000 programmatic reduction from the budget request; and 

(3) $25,529,000 for voluntary climate protection programs, 

$7,000,000 below the budget request. These voluntary programs 

seek to achieve pollution reductions across various sectors in conjunction with willing partners, rather than using overly burdensome regulations. At the same time these programs divert funds 

away from EPA’s core mission responsibilities and often lack a 

statutory mandate. 

The Committee understands that the Energy Star program has 

instituted reforms to cease self-certification via the website and include third party verification to address the 2010 GAO findings. 

However the Committee continues to question the Federal role of 

the program along with the need for additional resources if companies are required to submit their products to a third party for a review. In addition, the Committee believes EPA may not rely on 

broad user fee authority as the basis for charging Energy Star fees 

and therefore lacks such authority. If EPA wishes to collect user 

fees to offset the costs of the program, the Administration should 

send a legislative proposal to the committees of jurisdiction for consideration in the same manner as they have requested for the electronic manifest system and proposed increases for pesticide user 

fees. 

For Federal Stationary Source Regulations, $20,590,000 which is $9,258,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and 

$13,507,000 below the budget request. The Committee’s recommendation represents a one-third reduction to the 2011 enacted 

level. This amount does not provide funding for the New Source 

Performance Standards as bill language has been included to relieve EPA of the need to promulgate such standards. EPA’s justification identifies over 300 air toxics rules that need to be under 

development by fiscal year 2012. At the same time, no new legislation has passed since 1990 mandating that EPA engage in these 

rulemakings. This is the clearest example of EPA’s regulatory 

agenda running out of control and it must be tempered. The Committee understands that a number of these required actions are the 

result of past regulatory attempts that failed to withstand judicial 

review; however, in the case of ozone, EPA has voluntarily chosen 

to review the 2008 standards well in advance of the next update. 

The Committee strongly urges EPA to wait until the next mandatory review cycle before promulgating a new ozone NAAQS standard. Further, the committee disagrees with the proposal to add 30 

new Federal regulators for stationary sources. 

For Federal Support for Air Quality Management, $115,270,000 

which is $11,782,000 above the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and 

$18,552,000 below the budget request. The amount includes a 

$24,446,000 incoming transfer of funds from the air toxics program 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
63 

as a result of the budget reorganization. The Committee has not 

provided any of the requested programmatic increases, including 

the increases for greenhouse gas permitting of stationary sources. 

EPA is also asked to absorb additional workforce and IT costs within the funds provided. Further, the recommended level assumes a 

$4,700,000 programmatic reduction to fund EPA’s stationary source 

permitting programs at the fiscal year 2006 enacted level, and 

overall Federal Support for Air Quality Management and Air toxics 

at the fiscal year 2008 levels following the reorganization. The 

Committee agrees that more FTE are required in this account, but 

only if those FTE improve the performance of EPA’s permit review 

and approval process, which continues to be a point of frustration 

for applicants. 

Funding for the Domestic Stratospheric Ozone Program has been maintained at the fiscal year 2011 enacted level of $5,547,000, 

which is $65,000 below the budget request. 

Brownfields.—The Committee recommends $23,680,000, which is 

equal to the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $2,717,000 below 

the budget request. The Committee has not provided funding for 

the Smart Growth program, a voluntary interagency partnership 

established in 2009 without a Congressional mandate. The Committee has also not provided requested funding or FTE increases 

above the fiscal year 2011 enacted level in order to address the 

grants management workload as grants in the STAG account have 

been reduced in 2012. 

Compliance.—The Committee provides $106,874,000, equal to the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $12,774,000 below the budget request. The Committee’s recommendation includes the transfer of 

resources from the Compliance Assistance Centers and Incentives 

program to the Compliance Monitoring and Civil Enforcement program, as requested. The Committee rejects the $9,631,000 proposed 

increase for the Regaining Ground in Compliance Initiative on the 

grounds that additional monitoring, inspections, and reporting are 

not the solutions to improving compliance. EPA working in concert 

with local stakeholders and providing technical assistance is the 

key for regaining compliance in those communities. The Committee 

has also not provided funding for the plethora of increased web 

training, ICIS database and IT enhancements requested in the 

budget. In maintaining the enacted level the Committee also assumes that the program will absorb the increased payroll costs. 

Enforcement.—The Committee recommends $226,656,000, which 

is $29,194,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and 

$41,562,000 below the budget request. The Committee’s recommended level recognizes the transfer of funds from the Compliance line items to Civil Enforcement. EPA implemented this reorganization under the 2011 budget without the explicit approval of 

Congress. 

For fiscal year 2012, EPA has proposed the largest budget ever 

for its Office of Enforcement and Compliance. This continues a 

string of regular increases for the enforcement budget despite reductions in the FTE levels. Since 2006, the enforcement line item 

has received anywhere between a 4 and 7 percent increase annually. Given increases in recent years, the Committee directs EPA 

to absorb the payroll costs within the $163,883,000 provided for 

civil enforcement. As noted in previous sections, the Committee 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
64 

does not agree with the Regaining Ground on Compliance Initiative 

as proposed, and has not provided the requested increases. The 

Committee’s recommended level also does not provide additional resources for the air toxic monitoring at schools or for the Deepwater 

Horizon litigation. The Committee recognizes these are high priority activities and expects they will be prioritized accordingly 

within the funds provided. The Committee recommendation has reduced funding by $15,000,000 to bring the amount for civil enforcement in line with 2007 funding levels. The criminal enforcement program is funded at $41,365,000, equal to the fiscal year 2008 level and $10,000,000 below the budget request. Funding for the Environmental Justice program has 

been maintained at the fiscal year 2011 enacted level, recognizing 

that this is an Administration priority. The Committee recommends $14,572,000 for NEPA implementation, equivalent to the 

2008 level and a $3,500,000 reduction from the request. 

Environmental Protection: National Priorities.—The bill provides $15,000,000 for a competitive grant program to provide rural and 

urban communities with technical assistance to improve water 

quality and provide safe drinking water. Grants shall be awarded 

on a competitive basis, and priority for said grants shall be given 

to qualified not-for-profit organizations whose activities are national in scope, offer a 25 percent match, and are supported by a 

majority of small community water systems or currently provide 

assistance to private well owners. The Agency is directed to allocate funds to grantees within 180 days of enactment of this Act. 

Geographic Programs.—The Committee recommends 

$346,280,000, which is $69,762,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $116,727,000 below the budget request. The Committee has provided funding for programs that support restoration 

and protection of our nation’s most important water bodies, as protection of these resources continues to be a priority for the Committee. From within the amount provided, the Committee directs 

the following changes to the request: 

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.—The Committee recommends 

$250,000,000 for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), 

$100,000,000 below the budget request. While this amount is 

$49,400,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level, the GLRI continues to be the largest single recipient of funds within Geographic 

Programs, and restoration of the Great Lakes continues to be a key 

priority for the Committee. Funding for the Agency’s Great Lakes 

National Program Office and its work to implement the Great 

Lakes Legacy Act is included in this amount. Within the amount 

provided, funds shall be allocated to the five focus areas as follows: 

$101,364,000 for Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern, of 

which $50,000,000 is for the Great Lakes Legacy Act; 

$43,303,000 for Invasive Species; 

$39,402,000 for Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source Pollution; 

$40,377,000 for Habitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration; 

and $25,554,000 for Accountability, Education, Monitoring, Evaluation, Communication and Partnerships. 

Funding amounts for these focus areas are subject to a reprogramming threshold of $5,000,000. The Agency is directed to report quarterly to the Committees on Appropriations on changes 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
65 

below the threshold. As the Agency implements the Initiative in 

2011 and 2012, EPA is directed to accelerate the obligations and 

outlays given lessons learned and protocols established in 2010. 

Given the late appropriation for fiscal year 2011, the Committee remains concerned about the slow pace at which the funds were utilized in fiscal year 2010, and expects that 2011, 2012, and future 

resources will be transferred to Federal partners in a more expeditious manner. More than half of the GLRI funds provided to EPA 

were transferred to the fifteen other participating Federal entities 

to administer programs that those entities have the authority, experience, or expertise in performing. The Committee understands 

that appropriate controls needed to be established to ensure proper 

accountability and oversight before those funds were transferred. 

In turn, the Committee expects those Federal entities will similarly 

be in a position to accelerate the obligation of funds to projects 

given lessons learned in 2010. The Committee continues to direct 

the EPA to work with other Federal agencies to ensure that funds 

transferred through interagency agreements are used to increase 

each Agency’s level of effort by supplementing and expanding existing programs and not supplanting an Agency’s existing resources 

as the Agency moves forward in the third year of the Initiative. 

The Committee is pleased with the progress the Agency is making together with local, State, non-governmental and other Federal 

agency partners with the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. The 

Committee understands that plan implementation, particularly as 

deadlines and targets approach, will require difficult decisions 

given the proposed funding levels. The Committee expects the partners to meet action plan objectives even if doing so will result in 

significant shifts over time in the size and scope of projects funded 

and the distribution of funds across focus areas. 

The Committee directs the Agency and the other Federal agencies to exercise maximum flexibility to minimize non-Federal match 

requirements in recognition of the exceptional economic circumstances of the region and the significant ongoing investments 

made by non-Federal partners. The Committee understands that 

States have struggled to provide the State match for the funds provided for Great Lakes Legacy Act work. If the Agency again determines that States are unable to provide the required match, EPA 

should conduct a thorough review to identify the best use of funds 

across all 16 Federal partners and across all five focus areas. The 

Committee directs EPA to consult with both Federal and non-Federal partners when setting funding priorities for 2012, and when 

proposing to reallocate funds. 

Lastly, the Committee directs EPA and the other Federal partners to prioritize action oriented projects in lieu of additional studies, monitoring and evaluations. Sound science should continue to 

serve as the backbone for all decisions in the Great Lakes; however, the Committee expects to see measurable results from the 

large increases provided over the last few fiscal years. The Committee has reinforced this directive by maintaining the fiscal year 

2011 funding levels for work on the Areas of Concern and Invasive 

Species. 

Chesapeake Bay.—The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for 

the Chesapeake Bay Program, $4,391,000 below the fiscal year 

2011 enacted level and $17,350,000 below the budget request. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
66 

While funding has been maintained at the fiscal year 2010 enacted 

level, the Committee is concerned that States and local stakeholders have not bought into the goals and approach contained in 

the latest Chesapeake Bay action plan. The Committee appreciates 

the enhanced Federal coordination and commitment as an outgrowth of the May 2009 Executive Order; however, State and local 

buy-in is critical for restoration of the Bay. As such the Committee 

has not provided the requested increase for 2012. From within the amount provided, $18,828,000 is for state imple- mentation grants and $9,627,000 is for Chesapeake Bay Operations, both equal to the fiscal year 2010 enacted levels. TMDL development and implementation is funded at $1,000,000, enforcement at $1,017,000, and Chesapeake Stat at $821,000. The bill provides $5,000,000 to partially restore the Administration’s cut in the 

fiscal year 2011 enacted levels. The bill does not provide the newly 

requested funding for air deposition activities. The bill provides $2,000,000 in small watershed grants, as requested. The Committee recognizes that local governments utilize 

other programs to assist with the cleanup of the Bay and directs 

the Agency, from within the small watershed grant amount, to support a competitive grant to conduct a survey of local government 

policies and programs used to control polluted runoff from urban, 

suburban and agricultural lands within the Bay’s four largest watersheds to provide all parties with information on the full scope 

of cleanup activities. The Agency should make the results of these 

surveys public to assist local government decision-makers with information on successful practices already in place, best management practices aimed at improving water quality, better implementation of existing policies, and road maps to help counties and municipalities decide how best to reduce pollution. 

Puget Sound.—The Committee provides $30,000,000, which is $8,095,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and 

$10,711,000 above the budget request, to manage and implement 

Washington State’s Puget Sound Action Agenda, an approved Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) under 

Section 320 of the Clean Water Act. The Committee directs that an 

intended use list to guide the activities and project funding to restore Puget Sound be established. 

The list shall be created by the Section 320 Agency designated 

by the State of Washington and shall include an identification and 

determination of the highest priority activities, projects and recipients necessary to implement the CCMP. This list shall be made 

available jointly by the Administrator and the Section 320 Agency 

for public comment prior to approval by the Administrator. After 

considering public comments, the Administrator shall review and 

approve the priority list upon a determination that projects listed 

are consistent with the goals and priorities of the approved comprehensive conservation and management plan. If the Administrator finds that the annual priority list is inconsistent with the 

CCMP, the Administrator shall recommend alternatives to the Section 320 Agency who shall then resubmit the annual priority list 

for approval. Subject to the availability of funds, the Administrator 

shall fund the projects that rank highest on the priority list. 

The Committee directs the Agency to expeditiously obligate 

funds, in a manner consistent with the authority and responsibilVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:11 Jul 20, 2011 Jkt 067352 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR151.XXX HR151

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
67 

ities under Section 320 and the National Estuary Program. Not 

more than 3 percent shall be used for EPA intramural costs. In addition, and as in the prior year, funds are provided for continued 

funding of the existing competitive grant to manage the Action 

Agenda and development of the intended use plan. 

South Florida.—The Committee recommends $1,653,000, equal to the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $408,000 below the budget 

request. 

Mississippi River Basin.—The Committee has not provided funding to initiate a new grant program in the Mississippi River basin. 

The Committee is pleased to see that the Agency has proposed a 

more focused approach to targeting the funding in such a large watershed. However, the Agency’s proposal continues to lack definitive targets and goals, and it is unclear what results could be expected from this new program similar to the Section 319 non-point 

source grants in the STAG account. 

Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE).—The 

Committee has not provided funding for the voluntary CARE program in 2012. 

Other geographic activities.—The Committee has not provided 

funding for the Northwest Forest program as it lacks demonstrable 

results. 

Information Exchange/Outreach.—The Committee recommends 

$120,936,000, which is $13,043,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $24,274,000 below the budget request. The Committee recommendation does not include funding for the Environmental Education Program. This program has not been reauthorized since 1996, yet Congress has continued to fund it despite a 

lack of demonstrated results. The recommendation also provides 

$48,771,000 for the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental 

Relations, equal to the fiscal year 2007 level. From within this 

amount, $3,285,000 has been provided for the Administrator’s Immediate Office and the recommendation caps the FTEs for the office at 20 FTEs. All other activities within this project area are 

maintained at the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. 

International Programs.—The Committee recommends 

$16,195,000, which is $2,873,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted 

level and $3,252,000 below the budget request. The bill funds the 

Mexico Border program at half of the level requested as the outcomes associated with the non-water and wastewater infrastructure activities are unclear. Further, since the Committee recommendation eliminates the STAG water infrastructure grants in 

2012, there will be an inherently reduced workload. The Committee 

recommendation includes funding for International Sources of Pollution at the fiscal year 2009 enacted level of $7,506,000, which is 

$796,000 below the budget request. 

IT/Data Management/Security.—The Committee recommends 

$93,372,000, which is $6,177,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted 

level and $2,041,000 below the budget request. The Committee has 

not provided additional funds for the increased compliance reporting or for base workforce costs which the agency should absorb. 

Legal/Science/Regulatory/Economic Review.—The Committee 

recommends $89,234,000, which is $33,423,000 below the fiscal 

year 2011 enacted level and $39,376,000 below the budget request. 

On average, EPA produces 150 new regulations per year and the 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
68 

process for the regulatory development is overseen by the Office of 

Regulatory Policy and Management. In addition, several of EPA’s 

new policy initiatives are funded in this account including the 

Smart Growth Program and the Promoting a Greener Economy Initiative. These often are voluntary partnerships established without 

a Congressional mandate, and as such, the Committee has not included funding for the Smart Growth Program and the Promoting 

a Greener Economy Initiative in fiscal year 2012. The Committee’s 

recommendation reduces by half the funding for program evaluation and regulatory review and analysis. EPA’s regulatory agenda 

has had a chilling effect on infrastructure investments and the reductions come not only at a critical time for reducing spending but 

also at a time to reduce the pace of new regulations. 

The recommended level maintains the fiscal year 2011 enacted 

level for the Administrative Law, Alternative Dispute Resolution, 

Civil Rights Compliance, and Legal Advice: Program Support. 

Funding for the Science Advisory Board has been maintained at 

the fiscal year 2008 level. Basic legal support for the environmental 

programs has been returned to the fiscal year 2006 levels. 

Operations and Administration.—The Committee recommends 

$476,419,000, which is $19,598,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $31,116,000 below the budget request. The recommendation fully funds the request for rent, utilities and security 

and applies a $10,711,000 programmatic reduction to maintain 

funding for facility infrastructure and operations at the fiscal year 

2011 enacted level. In order to fund the operational lines at the fiscal year 2006 levels, the recommendation provides the following reductions to the request: –$11,000,000 for acquisition management; 

–$3,000,000 for central planning, budgeting and finance; 

–$3,000,000 for financial assistance and IAG management; and 

–$3,405,000 for human resources management; 

EPA has the flexibility to redirect any funds from rent or utility 

savings in order to meet other identified needs within the recommended level. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.—The Committee recommends $112,643,000, which is $5,400,000 below the fiscal year 

2011 enacted level and $4,228,000 below the budget request. The 

Committee has not provided the $2,000,000 request to develop the 

e-manifest system despite the Committee’s strong support for this 

proposal. An electronic manifest system would offer millions of dollars of administrative savings to the regulated community. However, EPA still has yet to obtain the requisite user fee authority to 

collect fees and fund the operational costs of the system. The Committee directs the program to absorb the requested pay increases 

within the funds provided. 

Toxics risk review prevention.—The Committee recommends 

$100,123,000, equal to the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and 

$15,174,000 below the budget request. The Committee recognizes 

the increasing workload and challenges associated with assessing 

and tracking the over 80,000 chemicals in commerce. The Committee supports those efforts by maintaining funding for the toxics 

and chemical review activities in a declining budget. 

Water: Ecosystems.—The Committee recommends $47,947,000, 

which is $5,306,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
69 

$6,479,000 below the budget request. From within the amount provided, the Committee directs $26,748,000 to the National Estuary 

Program (NEP) and Coastal Waterways, maintaining funding at 

the fiscal year 2011 enacted level for each of the 28 NEPs under 

Section 320 of the Clean Water Act. The recommended level provides $21,199,000 for the Wetlands program as the Committee has 

eliminated previously reprogrammed funding in 2010 and 2011 for 

work on the Enhanced Coordination Procedures with the Army 

Corps of Engineers, and the Office of Surface Mining. The Committee has included bill language relieving EPA of the requirement 

to perform this work, rendering the associated resources no longer 

necessary. 

Water: Human Health Protection.—The Committee recommends 

$98,324,000, which is $5,864,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted 

level and $9,000,000 below the budget request. From within the 

amount provided, the Committee has provided the requested funding for the Beach/Fish programs and the requested $2,000,000 increase for the geological sequestration of carbon dioxide in the Underground Injection Control program. The Committee has not provided the $1,200,000 increase for the Regaining Ground Initiative 

on compliance. The Committee does not believe that increasing reporting or monitoring is the solution for increasing compliance. 

Rather, EPA should focus on collaborating with local stakeholders 

on compliance issues, including how to meet arsenic standards, in 

order to assist those communities as they work to ensure a clean 

drinking water supply that is protective of human health. The 

Committee has also included a $7,800,000 programmatic reduction 

to temper the litany of new EPA drinking water regulations and 

return funding for the Drinking Water regulatory office to fiscal 

year 2006 levels. 

Water Quality Protection.—The Committee recommends 

$192,550,000 for this program, $31,197,000 below the fiscal year 

2011 enacted level and $32,936,000 below the budget request. From 

within the amount, funding for marine pollution has been maintained at the fiscal year 2011 enacted level, $1,468,000 below the 

budget request. The Committee has reduced the Surface Water 

Protection activities commensurate with the proportional reduction 

in the allocation from the 2010 enacted level. As previously noted 

in other program areas, the Committee does not support the Regaining Compliance Initiative as proposed, and has not provided 

the increase for the initiative. The Committee understands EPA 

reprioritized 2011 funding to initiate work on the proposed Urban 

Waters initiative. Since the Committee did not explicitly provide 

funds for this new program in 2011, the Committee views the initiative as a new request. As such, the Committee has not provided 

the $5,000,000 in funding to establish a new Urban Waters program. 

Additional Guidance.—The Committee has included the following 

additional guidance with respect to funding provided under this account. 

Administrator Priorities.—The Committee is aware via a 2010 reprogramming request from the Agency that the Administrator routinely sets aside funding within each budget to address Administrator priorities. Under the fiscal year 2010 budget this funding 

grew from $5 million to $6.75 million. The Committee notes that 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
70 

such funding is not directly linked to any known performance and 

the bill therefore provides no such funding. The Committee directs 

the Agency to submit a report within 90 days of enactment that 

identifies how the fiscal year 2010 funding was used, by account, 

program area and program project. Each activity funded should include a justification for the effort and any anticipated results. 

Arsenic Reporting.—Legitimate concerns have been raised relating to the challenges that many small and rural communities, particularly in the West, have in meeting national compliance standards set by the EPA for arsenic in drinking water. In 2001, the 

Agency adopted a new standard for arsenic in drinking water at 10 

parts per billion (ppb), replacing the older standard of 50 parts per 

billion, in order to protect consumers served by public water systems from the effects of long-term exposure to this odorless and 

tasteless naturally occurring element. In many instances, small 

communities with arsenic levels only marginally higher than the 

national standard lack the population or tax base to build or operate a water treatment plant or the ability to take other corrective 

measures. The Committee believes that current options established 

by the Agency to assist communities in complying with the standard are not working. EPA and State regulatory agencies must do 

a better job to empower smaller communities to ensure their water 

is safe without requiring communities to consider unaffordable utility rate increases. The Committee therefore directs the Agency to 

do the following not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act: (1) promptly submit to Congress an overdue report—requested in the Fiscal Year 2005 Omnibus Appropriations 

Act (P.L. 108–447)—on the extent to which communities are being 

affected by the arsenic rule, and proposing compliance alternatives 

and making recommendations to minimize costs; (2) convene a 

working group composed of representatives from States, small publicly owned water systems, and treatment manufacturers, which 

shall submit to the Committee a report on barriers to the use of 

point-of-use and point-of-entry treatment units, package plants (including water bottled by the public water system), and modular 

units; and (3) in consultation with the working group, submit to 

the Committee a report on alternative affordability criteria that 

give extra weight to small, rural, and lower income communities. 

Boiler MACT.—The Committee is encouraged by the suspended 

implementation of the boiler MACT rules and directs the Environmental Protection Agency to abandon the current proposed rule. 

This rule contains unattainable limits based on narrow data sets 

and is counterproductive to the national goal of increasing domestic 

sources of energy and would lead to wide-spread economic hardship 

in many industries. 

Brown Marmorated Stink Bug.—The Committee appreciates the 

work of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention regarding the brown marmorated stink bug. This pest is causing significant damage to agricultural products, particularly tree fruit in 

the mid-Atlantic States. The Committee encourages the Office to 

work collaboratively with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, including the Agricultural Research Service, the National Institute of 

Food and Agriculture, and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, and state partners to expeditiously approve a control program as soon as the appropriate agents are evaluated for release. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
71 

Economic Analysis of Reciprocating Engine Rule.—The Committee is aware that on March 3, 2010, the EPA promulgated final 

rules for Compression Ignition Reciprocating Engines (75 Fed. Reg. 

9648 et. seq.) under the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0708), requiring owners of compression engines (often diesel or diesel-natural gas 

fueled) to install catalytic converters on the engines to operate 

after May of 2013. 

The Committee is concerned that such rule places a limitation on 

operation of emergency stationary engines to operate for no more 

than 15 hours per year as part of an emergency demand response 

program. The Committee is also concerned the rule clarified that 

no emergency engine was allowed to supply power to an electric 

grid and that no emergency engine was allowed to provide power 

as part of a financial arrangement. This aspect of the rule will 

make it difficult for municipalities to maintain emergency backup 

generating capacity. 

The Committee is concerned that EPA failed to adequately address the economic impact such rule would have on small governmental jurisdictions that own or operate emergency engines subject 

to the rule. The Committee directs EPA to initiate an analysis 

within 60 days of enactment of this act and to report back to the 

Committee on the economic effect such rule would have on small 

government jurisdictions defined as a government of a city, county, 

town, school district or special district with a population of less 

than 50,000. 

Endocrine Disruptors (ED).— The Committee continues to have 

concerns with the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program’s 

(EDSP) slow progress and believes it needs additional guidance. 

The EPA Inspector General criticized the slow progress, noting several missed lawsuit-related test validation milestones. In order to 

spur the agency to action, the Committee directs EPA to: (1) rely 

on standardized laboratory performance criteria for EDSP testing; 

(2) include basic and clinical endocrinologists with a range of expertise and deep knowledge in endocrinology including effects of chemical stressors on the endocrine system of humans and wildlife in 

tier 1 assay testing results peer review; (3) take steps to ensure 

EDSP testing minimizes the use of animals and considers existing 

knowledge and targeted testing, and justifies use with appropriate 

statistical considerations; (4) evaluate the Tier 1 test chemicals in 

ToxCast assays and determine their performance in endocrinerelevant estrogenic, androgenic, and thyroid assays to refine toxicological prediction models; (5) utilize high throughput in vitro 

screening assay results to prioritize Tier 1 chemical testing and to 

inform future endocrine disruptor investigations; and (6) coordinate 

the Agency’s capabilities with those of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the National Toxicology Program, the 

National Chemical Genomics Center, and the U.S. Food and Drug 

Administration into an integrated, comprehensive endocrine 

screening program. 

The Committee also directs EPA as part of the Agency’s biennial 

budget justification to include: (a) information describing: coordination with other government research organizations that are part of 

the Tox21 Consortium, and in particular how the Agency works 

within the National Research Council’s Tox 21 framework in its ED 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
72 

research; (b) the status of EPA’s eight chemical action plans; and 

(c) how the ED research provides supporting science for the Agency’s regulatory efforts. 

Personnel and Full Time Equivalents.—Many difficult decisions 

were required in order to identify the appropriate funding distribution for the fiscal year 2012 House budget recommendation. The 

Committee understands that the recommended budget will require 

many more difficult decisions as the Agency executes the fiscal 

year 2012 plan. The Committee has long been concerned about the 

growing disparity between EPA headquarters and regional FTE, 

many of whom are policy advisors to the Administrator or Assistant Administrators or who implement voluntary initiatives. The 

Committee recognizes that not all headquarters FTE are located in 

Washington DC, and a significant number of those FTE are lab and 

budget personnel in Research Triangle Park, Cincinnati, and Las 

Vegas. Nonetheless, in fiscal year 2010, EPA had nearly 800 more 

FTE in headquarters positions than in regional positions resulting 

in a payroll $210 million higher for headquarters personnel. Had 

the Committee not taken action to reduce the fiscal year 2011 

budget, this gap would have grown by nearly 300 FTE under EPA’s 

assumption for a flat 2011 budget. The Committee remains concerned about the distribution of regional FTE to headquarters 

under the final 2011 Operating Plan. As EPA executes the 2012 

budget, the Agency is directed to bring the headquarters FTE in 

line with the regional FTE and to cap its FTE level at no more 

than the fiscal year 2010 level of 16,594 which is 609 FTE below 

the budget request, and the Agency’s lowest FTE utilization level 

since 1992. 

Pesticide Permitting.—The Committee is concerned with the 

EPA’s movement toward requiring a permit under the Clean Water 

Act for a discharge from a point source into navigable waters of a 

pesticide authorized for sale, distribution, or use under FIFRA, or 

the residue of such a pesticide, resulting from the application of 

such pesticide. This rule would have far-reaching implications and 

move beyond the intended application of the Clean Water Act. In 

order to address this issue the Committee has included bill language in Title V of this Act clarifying the regulatory responsibilities under the Clean Water Act and FIFRA. 

Recycling Programs.—The Committee recognizes that across the 

Nation recycling programs have proliferated in number and effectiveness over the past decades. However, there is limited aggregate 

data for policy makers and citizens to evaluate the success of such 

efforts in a timely manner. The Committee also understands there 

are limitations to ascertaining data from the various governments 

and business that have recycling programs but there should be a 

goal to understand the impact of these programs in aggregate. 

Therefore, EPA shall report to the Committee within 45 days after 

enactment of this Act, on the development of a process to collect 

additional data on the recovery rates achieved by the variety of 

U.S. recycling programs. 

Regional Haze.—The Committee is aware that EPA has recently 

proposed Federal implementation plans to address regional haze, 

and the Committee has concerns about the costs, technology requirements and compressed compliance periods in those plans. In 

the Committee’s view, EPA has not properly balanced the substanVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:11 Jul 20, 2011 Jkt 067352 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR151.XXX HR151

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
73 

tial expense of these controls with the minimal visibility improvement the controls would cause, as required by the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). Improving visibility at Class I areas is an aesthetic value, 

not a health issue, and hence States have been given great leeway 

by the CAA to consider a host of economic factors in deciding what 

they should do to address visibility at Class I areas. Because of 

EPA’s actions, the Committee directs EPA to defer action on finalizing any visibility Federal implementation plans for at least one 

year so that EPA and the affected states can work out their differences on matters such as compliance deadlines and the costs of 

proposed actions to address regional haze in order to adhere to the 

statutory direction of the CAA. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) provides audit, evaluation, 

and investigation products and advisory services to improve the 

performance and integrity of EPA programs and operations. The 

Inspector General (IG) will continue to perform the function of IG 

for the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. This account funds personnel compensation and benefits, travel, and expenses (excluding rent, utilities, and security costs) for the Office 

of Inspector General. In addition to the funds provided under this 

heading, this account receives funds from the Hazardous Substance 

Superfund account. 

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $44,701,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 45,997,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 41,099,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥3,602,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥4,898,000 

The Committee recommends $41,099,000, which is $3,602,000 

below the fiscal year 2011 level and $4,898,000 below the budget 

request. In addition, the Committee recommends $9,955,000 as a 

payment to this account from the Hazardous Substance Superfund 

account, equal to the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. The Committee’s recommendation funds the Inspector General at the fiscal year 

2008 level given that the Inspector General does not fully utilize 

its FTE positions. 

Exercising authorities provided in the Inspector General Reform 

Act, the IG requested an additional $4,760,000 above the President’s request. The Committee appreciates the value of a strong Inspector General, and reiterates that the IG has not utilized the 

FTE positions requested in the President’s budget for at least two 

years. The Committee believes the Inspector General should fully 

utilize resources requested in the President’s budget before requesting amounts in addition to those of the Administration. 

The IG is directed to continue to submit quarterly staffing reports to Congress until such time as the Committee informs the Inspector General that the quarterly staffing reports are no longer required. 

The Committee has again included authorization for the EPA IG 

to serve as the IG for the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
74 

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

The Buildings and Facilities account provides for the design and 

construction of EPA-owned facilities as well as for the repair, extension, alteration, and improvement of facilities used by the Agency. The funds are used to correct unsafe conditions, protect health 

and safety of employees and Agency visitors, and prevent deterioration of structures and equipment. 

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $36,428,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 41,969,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 36,428,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... 0 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥5,541,000 

The Committee recommends $36,428,000, which is equal to the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $5,541,000 below the budget request. The Committee supports the proposed projects that will reduce agency operational and rent costs. EPA should prioritize 2012 

projects based on anticipated cost savings and allocate funds accordingly. 

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

The Hazardous Substance Superfund (Superfund) program was 

established in 1980 by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act to clean up emergency 

hazardous materials, spills, and dangerous, uncontrolled, and/or 

abandoned hazardous waste sites. The Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act (SARA) expanded the program substantially in 

1986, authorizing approximately $8,500,000,000 in revenues over 

five years. In 1990, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act extended the program’s authorization through 1994 for 

$5,100,000,000 with taxing authority through calendar year 1995. 

The Superfund program is operated by EPA subject to annual appropriations from a dedicated trust fund and from general revenues. Enforcement activities are used to identify and induce parties 

responsible for hazardous waste problems to undertake cleanup actions and pay for EPA oversight of those actions. In addition, responsible parties have been required to cover the cost of fund-financed removal and remedial actions undertaken at spills and 

waste sites by Federal and State agencies. Funds are paid from 

this account to the Office of Inspector General and Science and 

Technology accounts for Superfund related activities. 

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $1,280,908,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 1,236,231,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 1,224,295,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥56,613,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥11,936,000 

The Committee recommends $1,224,295,000 for the Hazardous 

Substance Superfund, $56,613,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $11,936,000 below the budget request. The changes 

to the request, as recommended by the Committee, appear in the 

table at the end of this report. The Committee provides the following additional detail by program area. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
75 

Audits, evaluations, and investigations.—The Committee recommends $9,955,000, equal to the fiscal year 2011 enacted level 

and $54,000 below the budget request. 

Enforcement.—The Committee has provided $181,615,000, which 

is $10,006,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and 

$10,000,000 below the budget request. Of the funds provided, 

$159,844,000 shall be for Superfund: Enforcement. The EPA has 

proposed its largest enforcement budget ever, and the Committee’s 

recommendation brings Superfund enforcement in line with 2006 

levels. 

Indoor air and radiation.—The Committee recommends 

$2,454,000, equal to the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $33,000 

below the budget request. 

Legal/Science/Regulatory/Economic Review.—The Committee 

recommends $1,528,000, equal to the fiscal year 2011 enacted level 

and $149,000 below the budget request. 

Operations and Administration.—The Committee recommends 

$136,369,000, which is $279,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted 

level and $1,700,000 below the budget request. The Committee is 

pleased to see that EPA fully offset rent and utility increases with 

reductions elsewhere in the Central, Budgeting and Planning line 

item. Funding for acquisition management and human resources 

has been maintained at the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. 

Superfund Cleanup.—The Committee has provided $810,757,000 

as requested, $41,497,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. 

Within this amount the Committee has provided $574,499,000 for 

the Remedial program and $194,895,000 for Emergency Response 

and Removal, as requested. The Committee is concerned that as 

budgets tighten EPA will continue to propose to reduce funding 

from cleanup accounts. However, only two of every three dollars appropriated from the Superfund Trust Fund are targeted for cleanup 

functions, with the remaining funds focused on administrative or 

enforcement costs. The Committee expects that future budget requests will propose a higher percentage of cleanup funding as part 

of the total request in addition to proposing funding sufficient to 

meet program goals, such as increasing the number of annual ‘‘construction completes’’ and more importantly ‘‘sites made ready for 

reuse’’ in this program. 

The Committee commends EPA for proactively identifying methods to reduce contract costs and urges EPA to continue to identify 

contract efficiencies so that more funds can be spent on site remediation and cleanup. However, given the IG findings of criminal activity and kickbacks for contracts at the Federal Creosote site in 

New Jersey, the Committee is concerned about whether the controls EPA currently has in place for Superfund contracts are sufficient. The IG should report to the Committee within 90 days of enactment concerning EPA’s implementation of IG recommendations, 

including ongoing efforts to tighten contracting controls. 

Bill Language.—Bill language is included to pay $23,016,000 

from this account to the Science and Technology account, and 

$9,955,000 to the Office of Inspector General account. 

Additional Guidance.—The Committee has included the following 

additional guidance with respect to funding provided under this account. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
76 

Financial Assurance.—The Committee is concerned that the promulgation of new financial responsibility requirements pursuant to 

section 108(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 42 U.S.C. 9608(b)) will impose a severe economic burden on industries of the United States. 

Such a result would directly conflict with the President’s general 

principles of regulation as provided in Executive Order No. 13563 

of January 18, 2011, which include ‘‘promoting economic growth 

. . . and job creation’’. The Committee directs the Administrator of 

the Environmental Protection Agency to complete a thorough analysis of the capacity of the financial and credit markets to provide 

the necessary instruments (surety bonds, letters of credit, insurance, and trusts) for meeting any new financial responsibility requirements pursuant to section 108(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 

U.S.C. 9608(b)). Until the Administrator demonstrates that such an 

analysis has been completed, the Committee provides no funds for 

Environmental Protection Agency to develop, propose, finalize, implement, enforce, or administer any regulation that would establish 

any such new financial responsibility requirements. The Environmental Protection Agency should not, as a matter of policy and in 

this strained economy, impose a new regulatory program on industries of the United States if the financial and credit markets cannot 

serve the demand for additional financial assurance. 

Superfund Special Accounts.—The Committee continues to have 

concerns about the large unobligated balances in the 939 special 

accounts, which hold site-specific settlement funds from responsible 

parties. The Committee similarly understands that funds in these 

accounts may be dedicated to specific sites where remediation 

strategies may still need to be developed. Nonetheless, the Committee expects EPA will accelerate the obligation of funds within 

these special accounts in 2012 to address risks posed by contamination at these sites. 

Superfund Alternative Sites.—As in prior years, the Committee 

continues to direct the Agency to report annually, by Region, on the 

sites using the Superfund Alternative Approach Agreements, including intramural and extramural costs. 

LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK TRUST FUND PROGRAM

Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the 

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, authorized the 

establishment of a response program for cleanup of releases from 

leaking underground storage tanks. Owners and operators of facilities with underground tanks must demonstrate financial responsibility and bear initial responsibility for cleanup. The Federal trust 

fund is funded through the imposition of a motor fuel tax of onetenth of a cent per gallon. 

In addition to State resources, the Leaking Underground Storage 

Tanks (LUST) Trust Fund provides funding to clean up sites, enforces necessary corrective actions and recovers costs expended 

from the Fund for cleanup activities. The underground storage 

tank response program is designed to operate primarily through cooperative agreements with States. Funds are also used for grants 

to non-State entities, including Indian Tribes, under Section 8001 

of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The Energy Policy 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
77 

Act of 2005 expanded the authorized activities of the Fund to include the underground storage tank program. In 2006, Congress 

amended section 9508 of the Internal Revenue Code to authorize 

expenditures from the trust fund for prevention and inspection activities. 

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $112,875,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 112,481,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 105,669,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥7,206,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥6,812,000 

The Committee recommends $105,669,000 for the Leaking Un- derground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund Program, $7,206,000 

below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $6,812,000 below the 

budget request. This brings funding for the program in line with 

the fiscal year 2008 enacted levels following increases over the previous few budget cycles. 

Bill Language.—The Committee has included the proposed bill 

language which authorizes, for one year, the Administrator to use 

the LUST Trust Fund for tribal grants to develop and implement 

underground storage tank programs. 

INLAND OIL SPILL PROGRAM

This appropriation, authorized by the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act, as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, provides 

funds to prepare for and prevent releases of oil and other petroleum products in navigable waterways. In addition, EPA is reimbursed for incident specific response costs through the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund managed by the United States Coast Guard. 

EPA is responsible for directing all cleanup and removal activities posing a threat to public health and the environment; conducting site inspections; providing a means to achieve cleanup activities by private parties; reviewing containment plans at facilities; reviewing area contingency plans; pursuing cost recovery of 

fund-financed cleanups; and conducting research of oil cleanup 

techniques. Funds for this appropriation are provided through the 

Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund which is composed of fees and collections made through provisions of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the 

Comprehensive Oil Pollution Liability and Compensation Act, the 

Deepwater Port Act of 1974, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

Amendments of 1978, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 

as amended. Pursuant to law, the Trust Fund is managed by the 

United States Coast Guard. 

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $18,342,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 23,662,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 18,274,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥68,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥5,388,000 

The Committee recommends $18,274,000 for the Inland Oil Spill program, $68,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and 

$5,388,000 below the budget request. The Committee has not provided an additional $5,100,000 and 16 FTE requested for increased 

facility inspections under the latest SPCC rule, but recognizes 

these activities will be a priority within base funds. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
78 

STATE AND TRIBAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS

The State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account provides 

grant funds for programs operated primarily by State, local, tribal 

and other governmental partners. The account includes two broad 

types of funds: (1) Infrastructure Assistance, which is used primarily by local governments for projects supporting environmental 

protection; and, (2) Categorical Grants, which assist State and tribal governments and other environmental partners with the operation of environmental programs. 

In the STAG account, EPA provides funding for infrastructure 

projects through two State Revolving Funds (Clean Water and 

Drinking Water), geographic specific projects in Alaskan Native 

Villages and on the United States-Mexico Border, Brownfield revitalization projects, diesel emission reduction grants and other targeted infrastructure projects. 

The State Revolving Funds (SRFs) provide Federal financial assistance to protect the Nation’s water resources. The Clean Water 

SRF helps eliminate municipal discharge of untreated or inadequately treated pollutants and thereby helps maintain or restore 

the country’s water to a swimmable and/or fishable quality. The 

Clean Water SRF provides resources for municipal, inter-municipal, State, and interstate agencies and tribal governments to plan, 

design, and construct wastewater facilities and other projects, including non-point source, estuary, stormwater, and sewer overflow 

projects. The Safe Drinking Water SRF finances improvements to 

community water systems so that they can achieve compliance with 

the mandates of the Safe Drinking Water Act and continue to protect public health. 

The major Federal environmental statutes include provisions 

that allow the Federal government, through EPA, to delegate to the 

States and Tribes the day-to-day management of environmental 

programs. The Federal statutes were designed to recognize the 

States as partners and co-regulators, allowing the States to issue 

and enforce permits, carry out inspections and monitoring, and collect data. To assist the States in this task, the statutes also authorized EPA to provide grants to the States and Tribes. These grants, 

which cover every major aspect of environmental protection, include those programs authorized by sections 319 and 106 of the 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (for non-point 

source pollution and the water quality permits programs), sections 

105 and 103 of the Clean Air Act (for State and Local air quality 

management programs), section 128 of CERCLA (for the 

brownfields program management), section 1443(a) of the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (for public water system supervision), and section 3011 of RCRA (for hazardous waste financial assistance). 

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $3,758,913,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 3,860,430,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 2,610,393,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 ........................................................................ ¥1,148,520,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 .................................................................... ¥1,250,037,000 

The Committee recommends $2,610,393,000 for the State and 

Tribal Assistance Grants account, $1,148,520,000 below the fiscal 

year 2011 enacted level and $1,250,037,000 below the budget request. The changes to the request, as recommended by the ComVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:11 Jul 20, 2011 Jkt 067352 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR151.XXX HR151

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
79 

mittee, appear in the table at the end of this report. The Committee provides the following additional detail by program area: 

Infrastructure Assistance.—For infrastructure assistance, the 

Committee recommends $1,608,000,000, which is $1,046,680,000 

below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $1,051,041,000 below 

the budget request. During calendar year 2009, the Committee provided over $11 billion for water and wastewater infrastructure assistance. In April 

2011, the Committee provided an additional $2.49 billion for fiscal 

year 2011. As a result, EPA has $2.8 billion in unobligated SRF 

balances yet to be transferred to States. In addition, the States 

have yet to spend $3.57 billion that the Federal government has allocated for drinking water and wastewater projects. The Committee 

believes that EPA and the States must continue to push this $6.4 

billion through the queue in order to address the pressing infrastructure needs facing the nation. As a result, and in light of 

mounting budget pressures the bill provides funding at the fiscal 

year 2008 enacted levels for the Clean Water and Drinking Water 

State Revolving Funds: $689,000,000 and $829,000,000 respectively. While the Committee recognizes the importance of infrastructure investment, in times of limited funding it is imperative 

that the Committee have accurate information regarding the role 

of Federal funding in addressing the infrastructure needs of communities. Within one year of enactment of the bill, EPA should 

submit to the Committees on Appropriations a report that specifies 

the community names, locations, the prevailing water and wastewater rates, and rates as a percentage of total annual infrastructure costs for each community on each State’s intended use plan for 

2012. 

The Committee continues to include bill language to allow EPA 

and the States to provide additional forms of subsidy to those communities which cannot afford the below market rates provided by 

an SRF loan. These subsidies, which can be in the form of negative 

interest loans, principle forgiveness or grants, will apply to 30 percent of the funds appropriated for the Drinking Water SRF and to 

30 percent of the Clean Water SRF. The Committee has carried 

forward this authority recognizing that many small, rural and/or 

disadvantaged communities do not have the resources to borrow 

from the SRFs with the responsibility to pay back the loan, even 

with the lower interest rate offered by the SRFs. The Committee 

directs the Agency to report on how EPA and the States have used 

this authority including information on the number and amounts 

of loans awarded with additional subsidization, recipient communities, and descriptions of projects funded. 

The Committee has not included bill language mandating that 

States must use 20 percent of their SRF grants for projects that 

are considered green infrastructure. While the Committee believes 

that decentralized, alternative infrastructure projects may prove to 

be an important component in the efforts to improve and restore 

our waters, the Committee also does not believe that this should 

be a mandatory function of the State Revolving Funds. 

Alaska Native Villages.—Since 1995 the Committee has provided 

over $450,000,000 to address the lack of basic drinking water and 

wastewater infrastructure needs in rural and Native communities. 

The Committee has continued to authorize the program since its 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
80 

expiration in 2000 in order to continue to address the significant 

challenges in these rural communities despite the duplication of 

available funding relative to the State Revolving Funds. The Committee has not included funding for this unauthorized grant program in 2012 recognizing that low income and disadvantage communities may apply for water and wastewater infrastructure funding through the State Revolving Funds. Additional subsidies are 

available for those communities that may not be able to afford the 

traditional low-interest SRF loans. 

Brownfields Infrastructure Projects.—The Committee has pro- vided $60,000,000 for Brownfields infrastructure projects, 

$39,800,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and 

$39,041,000 below the budget request. The Committee supports the 

cleanup work and the ability of this Federal program to leverage 

private investment and spur redevelopment. The Committee is concerned that, given the downturn in the redevelopment and real estate markets, these sites are not being made ready for reuse as evident by the lower outlay rates for the Recovery Act funding. Therefore, the Committee supports the continued work of the program, 

but at a reduced rate for 2012. 

Diesel Emissions Reductions Grants (DERA).—The Committee 

does not agree with the President’s proposal to terminate the 

DERA grants. The DERA grant program has clear, proven, quantifiable benefits and the Committee finds fault in eliminating this 

program in favor of the new programs throughout the President’s 

proposal that lack a clear implementation plan and have no demonstrated benefits. The Committee has not provided funding for 

these programs elsewhere in the bill in order to partially restore 

the funding for DERA grants at $30,000,000, which is $19,900,000 

below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. 

U.S.-Mexico Border.—The Committee appreciates the Agency’s 

increased commitment to ensure funds are liquidated quickly in the 

U.S.-Mexico border program. The Committee understands the 

changes the Agency has implemented clearly have had an impact 

at reducing unliquidated balances from over $300,000,000 in 2007 

to $125,000,000 as of January 2010. While this demonstrates 

progress, the Committee is concerned that unliquidated obligations 

have increased in the past year to $136,000,000. In addition the 

program is carrying $15,700,000 in unobligated funds as of June 

2011. As such the Committee has not provided funds for this program in 2012 and directs the agency to expeditiously obligate and 

spend previously appropriated funds. 

Categorical Grants.—For categorical grants to States and other 

environmental partners for the implementation of delegated programs, the Committee recommends $1,002,393,000, which is 

$101,840,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and 

$198,996,000 below the budget request. From within the amount 

provided, the Committee directs the following changes to the request: 

1. $150,505,000 for non-point source grants (Sec. 319). The 2012 

President’s Budget proposed to reduce funding for these grants by 

$36,200,000 from the annualized 2010/2011 CR level as these 

grants lack a targeted strategy, have innate difficulties in measuring performance, and are partially duplicative of other agriculture grants. Under the final CR, the Administration reduced 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
81 

funding for non-point source grants by $25,000,000 in order to redirect funds to other air and water grants. The Committee recommends $150,505,000 to reduce funding by $25,000,000 from the 

final 2011 enacted level, and $14,252,000 below the request. 2. $204,264,000 for pollution control grants (Sec. 106), $34,522,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted and $46,000,000 

below the budget request. The fiscal year 2012 funding level represents a $25,000,000 reduction from the 2010 enacted level. 

3. $201,580,000 for State and Local Air Quality grants, which is $34,527,000 below the 2011 enacted level and $103,920,000 below 

the budget request. The fiscal year 2012 funding level represents 

a $25,000,000 reduction from the 2010 enacted level. 

4. $62,875,000 for tribal general assistance program grants, $4,864,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $8,500,000 

below the budget request. The fiscal year 2012 funding level is 

maintained at the 2010 enacted level. 

5. All other adjustments to the requested levels for Categorical 

grants withhold proposed increases in order to maintain level funding at the 2011 enacted levels. This includes no new funding for 

the multimedia tribal grants given the Committee’s continued concerns about implementation. 

Bill Language.—The Committee recommends the following new 

proposals to the STAG bill language: 

(1) a provision that directs a subset of funds provided for 

water quality monitoring for State participation in national 

statistical surveys; 

(2) language allocating 1.5 percent of the amounts appropriated for the State Revolving Funds to territories; 

(3) a limitation on the use of funds available for additional 

subsidization for use toward new construction projects; 

(4) authority for Tribes to transfer funds between the Clean 

Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. 

The Committee has incorporated the following changes to the 

proposed STAG bill language: 

(1) deletes the green infrastructure requirement for the State 

Revolving Funds; 

(2) deletes the authorization for the United States-Mexico 

Border infrastructure grants; 

(3) deletes the authorization for the Alaska Native Villages 

infrastructure grants; and 

(4) deletes the authority for EPA to issue new grants to 

Tribes for implementation of environmental programs; 

(5) sets the additional subsidization requirement for the 

State Revolving Funds to no less than 30 percent; and 

(6) removes a limitation on the amount of Clean Water State 

Revolving Funds that may be available for additional subsidization. 

Additional Guidance.—The Committee has included the following 

additional guidance with respect to funding provided under this account: 

Brownfields Technical Assistance Centers.—Within the funds provided for State and Tribal Assistance Grants, $2,000,000 is included for the EPA’s Technical Assistance to Brownfield Communities program, equal to the 2011 enacted level and the budget request. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
82 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER AND RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

The Committee recommendation continues the language, carried 

in prior years, concerning Tribal Cooperative Authority, the collection and obligation of pesticides fees, and additional transfer authorities for the purposes of implementing the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. 

The Committee has expanded upon the President’s proposal to 

rescind prior year funds. Bill language has been included to rescind 

$140,000,000 from the STAG and Superfund accounts, and prohibits the Agency from taking the rescission against amounts designated by Congress as emergency funding. 

The Committee has not included bill language to allow EPA to 

use funds to implement the Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) projects as funding has not been provided for 

the CARE program in fiscal year 2012. 

Bill language to provide additional oil spill transfer authority has 

not been included as the Administration has not demonstrated why 

delays in reimbursement from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund 

cannot be addressed administratively. As the Agency responsible 

for inland oil spills, EPA has a more compelling case to request authority to withdraw directly from the Oil Spill Liability Trust 

Fund. Therefore, if this issue requires a legislative fix, the Committee questions why the Administration has not proposed to pursue such authority from the appropriate Committees of jurisdiction. 

TITLE III—RELATED AGENCIES 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

FOREST SERVICE

The U.S. Forest Service manages 193 million acres of National 

Forests, Grasslands, and a Tallgrass Prairie, including lands in 44 

States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and cooperates with 

States, other Federal agencies, Tribes and private landowners to 

sustain the Nation’s forests and grasslands. The Forest Service administers a wide variety of programs, including forest and rangeland research, State and private forestry assistance, cooperative 

forest health programs, an International program, National Forest 

System, and wildland fire management. The National Forest System (NFS) includes 155 National forests, 20 National grasslands, 

20 National recreation areas, a National Tallgrass prairie, 6 National monuments, and 6 land utilization projects. The NFS is 

managed for multiple uses, beginning with wood, water and forage, 

and expanded under the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act to include recreation, grazing, fish and wildlife habitat management. 

More recently programs were developed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the 

Wilderness Act, and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The Forest 

Service celebrated its centennial in 2005. 

Health and vitality of national forests.—The Committee is deeply 

concerned about the declining health of our national forests and 

mortality due to insects, disease and catastrophic wildfire. Across 

the country, our national forests face numerous challenges. In the 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
83 

western United States alone, the Forest Service estimates at least 

20 million acres of dead and dying forests due to bark beetles. As 

a result, the Committee has made active forest management the 

priority in its recommendations. Numerous scientific studies have 

shown that proactive management results in more resilient forested landscapes that are less susceptible to insects, disease and 

other threats. The Committee believes an ounce of prevention is 

worth a pound of cure—a concept that is certainly true for the prevention of catastrophic wildfires. The Committee strongly urges the 

Forest Service to increase and expand projects to improve the 

health and vitality of national forests. While protecting communities and vital infrastructure should be the priority, the Committee believes strategically treating landscapes is also vital to protecting wildlife, watersheds and other important values. 

The Committee has included language in the Title IV General 

Provisions allowing the Forest Service to use a pre-decisional objection process in place of the current appeals process. The Committee 

notes that the current use of the pre-decisional objection process 

has improved Forest Service projects and public input and support 

of projects. The authority also saves the Service time and resources. The Committee believes this authority will help the Forest 

Service accomplish more work on the ground while maximizing appropriated dollars. 

The Committee has taken a new approach in this bill by funding 

the Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) initiative on a proof of 

concept pilot basis for the time being. In line with this endeavor, 

the Committee applauds the underlying effort by the Forest Service 

to focus the budgeting process on achieving overall goals in its multiple-use mandate. The Committee shares the Service’s belief that 

a stove-piped budget can distract both Congress and Federal agencies from setting and accomplishing measurable, big-picture goals 

and recognizes that the Service should have the flexibility to set 

and meet goals to carry out its overall mission and should then be 

held accountable to Congress and the taxpayer. To this end, the 

Committee will be carefully evaluating whether the IRR pilot program helps the Service to better set, accomplish, and report management goals and enhance transparency and accountability. 

The Committee recognizes the critical importance of the Secure 

Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, which plays 

an enormous role in enabling rural communities that have lost 

their main source of revenue as Federal forest policies have shifted 

to continue funding critical education and infrastructure programs. 

Many rural counties, primarily those in the West, would be unable 

to provide their children with an adequate education without compensation for the loss of tax-base due to Federal presence. While 

the Committee is pleased to see that reauthorization of this program, which expires at the end of the fiscal year, was included in 

the request, the Committee is concerned that the request proposes 

moving this program from mandatory to discretionary spending. 

Doing so jeopardizes the long-term viability of the program, especially in difficult budget environments and particularly as this program has not been reauthorized beyond fiscal year 2011. The Committee strongly encourages the appropriate authorizing committees 

to take action on this issue to ensure that counties that benefit 

from this program do not see a lapse in needed benefits. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
84 

Forest Service Washington and regional offices.—The Committee 

is concerned about the amount of resources devoted to the Forest 

Service’s Washington Office and nine regional offices. While the 

Committee supports the structure of the Forest Service and understands the need for these offices, they consume a great deal of the 

Forest Service’s budget. The Committee believes that regional offices should carry out the goals of the Forest Service Chief, instead 

of creating new initiatives or policies, and more resources need to 

be devoted to much-needed projects and on-the-ground management of national forests. In light of limited funding, the Committee 

directs the Forest Service to examine the amount of personnel and 

resources in these offices in search of efficiencies and elimination 

of duplicative functions. The Forest Service should include these 

findings and recommendations in its fiscal year 2013 budget request. 

Forest Service performance accountability.—The Committee is 

concerned that the Forest Service has had, and continues to have, 

performance and budgetary accountability problems. Numerous 

GAO and IG reports continue the theme, as discussed in the Committee’s 2011 oversight hearing, that the Service lacks strategies 

and guidance for major programs and the Service lacks data on activities and costs so it cannot judge performance accountability. 

The Committee will continue to require greater accountability and 

transparency of Forest Service management and will not simplify 

or reduce performance measures until the Service more clearly 

demonstrates, in advance, how it plans to use its funds to improve 

the condition of public lands. 

The amounts recommended by the Committee for each Forest 

Service appropriation account, compared with the budget estimates 

by activity, are shown in the table at the end of this report. 

FOREST AND RANGELAND RESEARCH

Forest and rangeland research and development conducts basic 

and applied scientific research. This research provides both credible 

and relevant knowledge about forests and rangelands and new 

technologies that can be used to sustain the health, productivity, 

and diversity of private and public lands to meet the needs of 

present and future generations. Research is conducted across the 

U.S. through five research stations, the Forest Products Laboratory, two Technology and Development Centers, and the International Institute of Tropical Forestry in Puerto Rico, as well as cooperative research efforts with many of the Nation’s universities. 

The R&D Branch also manages the system of 80 Experimental forests, watersheds, rangelands, and Research Natural Areas. 

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $306,637,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 295,773,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 277,282,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥29,355,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥18,491,000 

The Committee recommends $277,282,000 for forest and rangeland research, $29,355,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level 

and $18,491,000 below the budget request. 

Funding for FIA under this heading is $66,805,000, which is 

$4,866,000 above the budget request. The Committee notes that an 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
85 

additional $4,925,000 for the FIA program is provided within the 

state and private forestry appropriation under the forest resource 

information and analysis budget line item. This level fully funds 

the FIA program and should include the newly added states of Wyoming and Nevada as part of FIA data. The Committee also recommends no less than $29,161,000 for the forest products laboratory. 

The Committee strongly supports the Forest Service research 

program and its products. Unfortunately declining budget allocations have forced the Committee to make difficult choices and instead focus limited funds on the on-the-ground management of national forests for future generations. 

The Committee commends the Forest Service for its localized 

needs research in support of projects on national forests and encourages this to continue. Specifically, the Committee encourages 

the Forest Service to continue and complete research on the effectiveness of Multiple Indicator Monitoring for measuring bank alteration. The Committee also encourages additional research on 

whether Multiple Indicator Monitoring and other bank stability 

measures are effective in predicting actual harm to fish. 

STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY

Through cooperative programs with State and local governments, 

non-industrial private forest landowners, forest industry and conservation organizations, the Forest Service supports the protection 

and management of the nearly 500 million acres of non-Federal forested lands in the country. Technical and financial assistance is offered to improve management of private forests; conserve environmentally important forests; control insects and disease; enhance 

stewardship of urban and rural forests; and improve wildland fire 

management and protect communities from wildfire. 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, 2011 .............................................................. $277,596,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 341,582,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 208,608,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥68,988,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥132,974,000 

The Committee recommends $208,608,000 for state and private 

forestry, $68,988,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and 

$132,974,000 below the budget request. The reduction compared to 

the request is mostly due to the recommended cut of $132,000,000 

in the forest legacy program. 

The Committee strongly endorses the concept of incorporating 

State Forestry Assessments and Strategies into budget formulation 

and funding allocation processes for Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act programs. Consistent with the 2008 Farm Bill, the Committee recognizes the value of competitive grant procedures to address national and regional priorities. Moreover, the Committee 

also recognizes that providing flexibility to combine a percentage of 

the appropriations among programs authorized in the Cooperative 

Forestry Assistance Act is likewise important to address state-speVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:11 Jul 20, 2011 Jkt 067352 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR151.XXX HR151

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
86 

cific priorities and needs consistent with the State Assessments 

and Strategies. 

Accordingly, the Committee directs the Forest Service to develop 

a process in consultation with State Foresters that provides for the 

consideration and incorporation of appropriate findings and recommendations in State Assessments and Strategies into the annual 

budget preparation process for Cooperative Forestry Assistance 

programs. Further, the Committee directs the Forest Service to develop a process in coordination with State Foresters to respond to 

state-specific priorities identified in the State Assessments and 

Strategies by allowing state foresters flexibility, with appropriate 

accountability, to combine a percentage of the appropriations 

among programs authorized in the Cooperative Forestry Assistance 

Act. Further, the Committee directs the Forest Service, in coordination with state foresters, to develop a process that supports an effective competitive grant procedure to address national and regional priorities. The Committee expects the Forest Service to report on the respective processes and recommendations within six 

months of enactment of this Act. The Committee notes that the 

Forest Service must still comply with the reprogramming requirements in this report. 

Forest Health Management.—The Committee recommends 

$97,564,000 for forest health management, $7,994,000 below the 

fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $1,991,000 below the budget request. The forest health program should continue to stress strategic 

funding allocations, and should continue the slow-the-spread, suppression and eradication efforts for gypsy moth and bark beetle 

work in the West. 

Urban and Community Forestry.—The Committee recommends 

$29,042,000 for urban and community forestry, $2,998,000 below 

the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $3,335,000 below the budget 

request. The Committee notes the importance of this program to 

numerous urban areas and lauds the goal of increasing urban tree 

canopies which ultimately reduces energy costs and improves water 

quality. 

International Forestry.—The Committee recommends $5,000,000 

for International Forestry, $4,492,000 below the fiscal year 2011 

enacted level and $5,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee is supportive of International Forestry and does not support 

the budget request proposal to terminate this program. The budget 

request states that funding for this program would continue and be 

pulled from other line items, such as line items under the National 

Forest System. The Committee strongly disagrees with this and directs the Forest Service to use line items for their intended purpose. 

International Forestry enables forestry experts for the Federal 

government to participate in negotiations for trade agreements and 

assist with forestry work abroad. This program plays a large role 

in protecting the U.S. forest products industry by improving the 

sustainability and legality of timber management overseas thereby 

reducing the amount of underpriced timber on the world market. 

Much of the funding for these activities is provided by other departments or agencies, including the Department of State, the 

United States Trade Representative and the U.S. Agency for International Development. The Forest Service has the responsibility of 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
87 

housing this program so they may easily draw upon the expertise 

of the entire Forest Service. Though the program is funded at a low 

level, it leverages roughly three dollars for every dollar it receives 

from other funding sources. The Committee recognizes the Forest 

Service International Programs for its successful projects in the 

areas of invasive species control, illegal logging interventions and 

international negotiations, all of which directly benefit the United 

States. 

Administrative Provisions.—The Committee retains bill language 

clarifying that the Service may sign direct funding agreements 

with foreign governments and institutions as well as other domestic agencies (including the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Department of State, and the Millennium Challenge Corporation), institutions and organizations to provide technical assistance and training programs overseas on forestry and rangeland 

management. 

NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM

Within the National Forest System (NFS), which covers almost 

193 million acres, there are nearly 600 congressionally designated 

areas, including 21 national recreation areas, 439 wilderness areas, 

122 wild and scenic rivers, 6 national monuments, one national 

preserve and 11 national scenic areas. The NFS hosted over 174 

million visits in 2009. The NFS includes over 152,000 miles of 

trails and roughly 17,900 recreation sites, including approximately 

5,100 campgrounds and 38 major visitor centers. Wilderness areas 

cover 36 million acres, which account for approximately 60 percent 

of the wilderness in the contiguous 48 States. The NFS includes a 

substantial amount of the Nation’s timber inventory. In fiscal year 

2010 the Forest Service sold 2.6 billion board feet of timber from 

management of national forests. 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 423 threatened or endangered species. NFS lands and waters provide 80 percent of the elk, mountain 

goat, and bighorn sheep habitat in the lower 48 States and extensive coldwater fish habitat, including salmon and steelhead. In addition, approximately 66 million Americans rely on drinking water 

that originates from NFS lands. 

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $1,542,248,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 1,704,526,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 1,546,463,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... +4,215,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥158,063,000 

The Committee recommends $1,546,463,000 for the national forest system, $4,215,000 above the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and 

$158,063,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee is deeply concerned about the aftermath of 

wildfires in the Southwest. The Committee notes that the Wallow 

Fire has burned well over 500,000 acres, much of which was at 

high severity potentially prohibiting natural regeneration of the 

forest. The Committee believes the Wallow Fire warrants expedited 

actions for emergency rehabilitation far beyond the mechanisms 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
88 

commonly used and encourages the Forest Service to apply for Alternative Arrangements under the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA). The Committee strongly believes Alternative Arrangements will be necessary to protect human health and safety as well 

as the environment in the wake of the Wallow Fire. Without 

prompt action, there will likely be significant environmental impacts including conditions conductive to flooding, mudslides, and 

debris flows that threaten human life and property, water quality 

and soil productivity. 

The Committee notes that similar to fiscal year 2011, the budget 

request included a major restructuring in which several major programs were combined into a new entity, Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR). The Committee has not approved this request but 

will allow a proof of concept pilot in three regions of the Forest 

Service as described below. 

The Committee agrees with the goals for the new integrated effort, but is concerned that the dramatic shift in programs may not 

be practical for the entire national forest system. Instead the Committee directs the Forest Service to begin a proof of concept pilot 

program for regions one, three and four. This would include national forests and grasslands primarily in the states of Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and one forest in Wyoming. The Committee believes it’s necessary to allow the use of the 

IRR concept in three regions for at least three years to realistically 

understand if the concept works. Until that time, the Forest Service is directed to initiate the pilot only in these three regions. The 

Committee has included bill language under the headings specified 

to facilitate the IRR in three places: National Forest System, of 

which $122,600,000 may be used for IRR; Capital Improvements 

and Maintenance of which $9,000,000 of the Legacy Roads & Trails 

program may be transferred to the National Forest System for the 

IRR pilot; and, Wildland Fire Management of which $27,100,000 

from the hazardous fuels program may be transferred to the National Forest System for the IRR pilot. 

The Committee is encouraged by the watershed condition framework and prioritization, and recommends the Service continue this 

important work. The Committee does not, however, support a competitive process for funding priority watershed stabilization 

projects. The Forest Service should instead focus its efforts on effective implementation of the overall IRR pilot and keep the competitive process to the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration 

program (CFLR). 

The Committee expects the IRR to achieve a combination of the 

following: retain and/or create local forest products jobs and businesses in rural communities, maintain and enhance watershed condition and function, integrate timber sales and stewardship contracting into restoration planning, improve fish and wildlife habitat, reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire, improve forest health 

and resiliency and relocate or remove unnecessary erosion-prone 

roads. The Committee understands that not all of these objectives 

can be met in each project and that management goals should be 

based on site specific conditions. 

If the Forest Service can demonstrate more work accomplished 

with less funding and prove management efficiencies, the Committee will consider expanding the authority or maintaining the 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
89 

authority for specific regions. The Committee strongly urges the 

Forest Service to use the IRR as an opportunity to dramatically increase active management of national forests to improve forest 

health and resilience for future generations. This can only be done 

with measurable performance goals and accountability. 

Within 60 days of enactment, the Committee directs the Forest 

Service to present a plan for measuring performance and accountability with the Integrated Restoration Resource pilot. The plan 

should include traditional measures, such as timber targets and 

acres treated, while also including new measures such as watershed condition improvement. The Committee understands that it 

may take additional time to develop measures for watersheds. The 

Committee encourages the Forest Service to focus on broad goals. 

Planning.—The Committee recommends $30,033,000 for planning, $15,000,000 below fiscal year 2011 levels. As mentioned 

above, the Committee does not accept the proposed merging of the 

planning and inventory & monitoring line items. 

The Committee recognizes the Forest Service is in the process of 

reviewing comments and revising the draft planning rule. Nonetheless, the Committee has significant concerns about the implementation and cost of the planning rule as currently drafted. The draft 

rule places too many conflicting requirements on forest plans and 

will likely lead to increased litigation. The new inventory requirements for invertebrates will very likely cost millions upon millions 

of dollars and are virtually impossible to complete. The Committee 

believes the Forest Service must simplify the rule, ensure it is 

implementable, understandable to the public, and cost effective. 

The Committee retains language in Title IV General Provisions allowing forest management plans to expire if the Service has made 

a good faith effort to update plans commensurate with appropriated funds. The Committee modifies this language by allowing 

forest plans to be completed under the 1982 and 2000 planning 

rules and allows these plans to be used in place of revised plans 

that would be completed under the new planning rule (expected to 

be released in December of 2011). 

Inventory and Monitoring.—The Committee recommends 

$165,219,000 for inventory and monitoring, $2,000,000 below the 

fiscal year 2011 enacted level. The Committee does not accept the 

proposed merging of this line item with the planning line item. The 

next budget justification should clearly indicate how these funds 

are allocated, what is accomplished, and how this relates to the 

pursuit of integrated forestry, habitat and watershed improving activities. 

The Committee is concerned about the lack of monitoring related 

to livestock grazing allotments and strongly encourages the Forest 

Service to increase both annual and trend monitoring on allotments. The Committee directs the Forest Service to allocate a 

greater portion of monitoring funds for these efforts. The Committee also encourages the Forest Service to work with state agencies, universities, professional societies and other USDA agencies, 

such as the Natural Resource Conservation Service, to efficiently 

increase allotment monitoring. 

Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness.—The Committee recommends $281,627,000 for recreation, heritage and wilderness, 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
90 

equal to fiscal year 2011 enacted funding and $8,871,000 below the 

budget request. 

Travel Management Rule.—The Committee is concerned about 

travel management plans on some national forests, though it notes 

that many national forests have completed plans with few problems. The Committee has been informed by several communities 

that travel management plans did not properly include public and 

community input and needs. Where communities are dissatisfied 

with travel management plans, the Committee directs the Forest 

Service to revise these plans. The Committee notes that travel 

management plans were defunded in House consideration of H.R. 

1, the Full Year Continuing Appropriation Act, though they were 

not defunded in the final fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution. To 

avoid future defunding, the Forest Service needs to address plans 

that don’t adequately meet community needs. Due to specific concerns related to all travel management plans in the State of California, the Committee includes language in Title IV General Provisions prohibiting the implementation of travel management plans 

in California until the agency completes additional analysis to include more routes. The language also prevents the agency from 

designating maintenance level 3 (ML–3) roads as highways. The 

Committee notes that the California State Patrol has confirmed numerous times that it does not consider ML–3 roads as highways. 

The Committee notes that the implementation of the Travel 

Management Rule has resulted in a significant reduction in nonstreet legal off-highway vehicle access that continues to impact 

recreation and multiple-use on National Forest lands. In particular, 

some Regions and other administrative units of the National Forest 

System have proposed to restrict non-street legal off-highway vehicle use on unpaved maintenance-level 3 roads despite previously allowing for such, and in contradiction to state and local regulations 

that allow mixed-use on similarly surfaced roads outside a National 

Forest boundary. Therefore, the Committee directs the agency to 

allow for mixed-use of off-highway vehicles on maintenance-level 3 

roads consistent with state and local policy, except where there exists a documented and substantive traffic safety issue. 

Wyoming Wilderness Act.—The Committee directs the Forest 

Service to recognize that Congress intended to ensure that existing 

and historic motorized recreational uses were to continue in wilderness study areas designated in the 1984 Wyoming Wilderness Act. 

The Committee further directs the Forest Service to recognize that 

winter motorized uses including snowmobiles and commercial 

heliskiing have short term ephemeral effects that do not adversely 

impact the maintenance of wilderness character and do not preclude Congress from designating these areas as Wilderness. Recent 

decisions have misconstrued this intent, and the policy regarding 

ephemeral effects, and severely limited previously established winter motorized uses. This Committee directs the Forest Service to 

ensure that important historic and existing uses be allowed to continue on Wilderness Study Areas at commercially sustainable levels of use. 

Grazing Management.—The Committee recommends $55,445,000 

for grazing management, $5,707,000 above the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $10,000,000 above the budget request. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
91 

As mentioned above under monitoring and inventory, the Committee is concerned about the lack of both annual and trend monitoring for allotments. The Committee believes this data is necessary to inform future decisions and help defend Forest Service 

grazing actions in court. The Committee also encourages the Forest 

Service to coordinate monitoring with state agencies, universities, 

professional societies, permittees, and other USDA agencies, such 

as the Natural Resource Conservation Service, to efficiently increase allotment monitoring and gather high-quality data. 

Forest Products.—The Committee recommends $336,722,000 for 

forest products, which is $673,000 above the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. The Committee expects the agency to increase its vegetation and timber management activities to sell not less than 3.0 

billion board feet of forest products in fiscal year 2012. The Committee further expects the agency to prioritize the use of hazardous 

fuels reduction funding to projects that treat and reduce Fire Regime Condition Class II and III forests predominantly through mechanical treatments. 

The Committee is concerned that recent mill closures in forested 

rural areas have diminished the Service’s ability to actively manage national forests to prevent catastrophic wildfires, and largescale insect and disease infestation. Forest products infrastructure 

is essential to improving the health and resilience of national forests while also contributing to the health of rural communities. The 

Committee directs the Forest Service to consider local infrastructure needs and capacity while planning forest management 

projects. 

The Committee notes that over the last ten years the timber supply in Region 10 has been constrained to less than 10 percent of 

the allowable sale quantity in the current land management plan. 

As a result, all of the large mills and all but one mid-sized mill 

have closed. In an effort to restore confidence in the timber supply 

and to foster and allow investment in new facilities, the Forest 

Service pledged to prepare and offer four 10-year timber sales each 

with a volume of 150–200 million board feet. The agency recently 

converted the first two 10-year timber sales to smaller, stewardship 

projects. These projects will not accomplish the original objectives 

of restoring confidence and allowing investments in new facilities. 

The Committee directs the Forest Service to prepare and offer 

within three years, the four 10-year timber sales as promised. 

Wildlife and Fish Habitat Management.—The Committee recommends $140,260,000 for wildlife and fish habitat management, 

which is equal to the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. As mentioned 

under inventory & monitoring and grazing management, the Committee directs the Service to increase monitoring of threatened and 

endangered fish and their habitat, especially in grazing allotments. 

The Committee expects a portion of funding from this program to 

be allocated for this purpose. 

Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Fund.—The Committee recommends $30,000,000 for the collaborative forest landscape restoration fund, $15,030,000 above the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $10,000,000 below the budget request. The Committee transferred $15,000,000 from wildland fire management, 

specifically hazardous fuels, to the national forest system to fund 

CFLR under one activity. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
92 

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $459,644,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 337,927,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 366,088,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥93,556,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ +28,161,000 

The Committee recommends $366,088,000 for capital improve- ment and maintenance, $93,556,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $28,161,000 above the budget request. 

Facilities Maintenance and Capital Improvement.—The Committee recommends $49,661,000 for facilities, $85,339,000 below 

the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $51,124,000 below the budget request. 

Road Maintenance & Construction.—The Committee recommends 

$201,885,000 for road maintenance and construction, $6,690,000 

above the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $44,067,000 above the 

budget request. The Committee notes that this level of funding is 

$26,000,000 below the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. Specifically, 

the Committee recommends $166,885,000 for road maintenance, 

$35,000,000 for the legacy roads program and $35,000,000 for road 

construction. The Committee is supportive of the proposal to build 

additional roads in the Tongass National Forest. 

While the Forest Service is rightly focused on the removal of erosion-prone roads, the Committee believes it must also focus on road 

maintenance and construction. As the Forest Service states in its 

budget justification, ‘‘Virtually all activities on [Forest Service] 

lands require travel over the [national forest road] system . . .’’ 

These important activities include firefighting; forest management 

to improve habitat, watersheds and reduce fire risk; search and 

rescue; illegal drug interdiction; and, access to hunting, fishing, 

camping and other recreation. The Committee believes current 

road construction techniques can help to reduce erosion and prevent mass soil failures while also providing safe fish passage and 

proper storm water drainage. The Committee realizes the Forest 

Service has limited funds compared to road infrastructure needs 

and encourages the use of stewardship contracts and other combined projects (for example improving forest health and maintaining or reconstructing roads) to accomplish more work with less 

funding. 

Legacy Road and Trail Remediation.—The Committee recommends $35,000,000 for the legacy road and trail remediation 

program, $9,910,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and 

$40,000,000 below the budget request. The Committee has retained 

bill language governing this program and clarifying its purpose so 

the language does not need to be repeated yearly. 

Back-country airstrips.—The Committee notes that backcountry 

airstrips are an appropriate use of certain National Forest System 

(NFS) lands that can provide enhanced access for a variety of legitimate activities. The Committee encourages the Forest Service to 

support, through cooperative relationships with pilots and other interested user groups, the operation and maintenance of appropriate, existing backcountry airstrips as part of a balanced, safe, 

and efficient forest transportation system. The Committee urges 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
93 

the Forest Service to evaluate whether it is appropriate to establish 

additional backcountry airstrips on NFS lands as part of the land 

management planning process and consistent with applicable Federal Aviation Administration regulations (49 U.S.C. 1349). Further, 

the Committee directs the Forest Service to provide within 90 days 

upon enactment of this Act, an inventory of backcountry airstrips 

presently under Forest Service jurisdiction; a detailed description, 

including examples of the management, conservation, recreational, 

and public safety and security benefits and uses of existing airstrips; a description of any existing conflicts that presently hinder 

or may hinder operational use of any such airstrips in the future; 

a description of the primitive or wilderness values of the area in 

the vicinity of the airstrips, including environmental and habitat 

values that may be affected by the airstrip and its use; and an accounting of operation and maintenance costs incurred by the Forest 

Service in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 related to the present inventory of backcountry airstrips. 

The Committee includes language in the Title IV General Provisions clarifying the role of forest roads in silvicultural operations 

as it relates to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. 

LAND ACQUISITION

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $32,934,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 90,000,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 12,500,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥20,434,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥77,500,000 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,500,000 for land acquisition, $20,434,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted 

level and $77,500,000 below the budget request. The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the budget estimates 

by activity are shown in the table at the end of this report. 

The Committee has included language in the front of the report 

regarding Land and Water Conservation Fund programs. 

ACQUISITION OF LANDS FOR NATIONAL FORESTS SPECIAL ACTS

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $1,048,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 955,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 955,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥93,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $955,000 for acquisition of lands for 

national forests, special acts, as requested. 

ACQUISITION OF LANDS TO COMPLETE LAND EXCHANGES

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $250,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 227,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 227,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥23,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $227,000 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 pubVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:11 Jul 20, 2011 Jkt 067352 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR151.XXX HR151

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
94 

lic 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, 2011 .............................................................. $3,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 3,262,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 3,262,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥338,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $3,262,000 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, 2011 .............................................................. $50,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 45,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 45,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥5,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $45,000, as requested, for gifts, donations and bequests for forest and rangeland research. Authority 

for the program is contained in Section 4(b) of the Forest and 

Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 

1643(b); Public Law 95–307). 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, 2011 .............................................................. $2,577,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 0 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 2,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥577,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ +2,000,000 

The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the management of 

national forest lands for subsistence uses in Alaska and does not 

support the budget request’s termination of this program. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
95 

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $1,968,042,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 1,515,062,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 1,805,099,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥162,943,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ +290,037,000 

The Committee recommends $1,805,099,000 for wildland fire 

management, $162,943,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level 

and $290,037,000 above the request. The Committee recommends 

$1,006,052,000 for preparedness as requested; $538,720,000 for 

suppression as requested; $460,327,000 for other operations; and 

directs the Forest Service to utilize $200,000,000 in carryover 

emergency fire suppression funds. In addition, the Committee recommends $290,418,000 for the FLAME wildfire suppression reserve account which is equal to the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. 

The Committee’s recommendation exceeds levels necessary to fully 

fund the 10-year fire suppression average of $1,707,062,000. However, due to internal transfers, baseline funding for suppression 

and preparedness differ substantially from the fiscal year 2011 enacted levels. In response to Congressional direction, the budget request transferred $355,000,000 from the suppression activity into 

the preparedness activity. This transfer now allows the preparedness activity funding level to fully represent the cost of staffing the 

wildland fire management program. The amounts recommended by 

the Committee compared with the budget estimates by activity are 

shown in the table at the end of this report. 

Wildfire Preparedness.—The Committee recommends 

$1,006,052,000 for wildfire preparedness as requested. 

Wildfire Suppression Operations.—The Committee recommends 

$538,720,000 for fire suppression operations as requested. The 

Committee recommendation, combined with preparedness, fully 

meets the inflation adjusted, 10-year average actual expenditure on 

all emergency and discretionary funded suppression actions. 

Hazardous Fuels.—The Committee recommends $334,584,000 for 

the hazardous fuels reduction activity, $15,000,000 below the fiscal 

year 2011 enacted level and $80,569,000 above the budget request. 

The $15,000,000 reduction is due to the transfer of Collaborative 

Forest Landscape Restoration Act funding to the National Forest 

System. The recommendation also includes $5,000,000 for biomass 

utilization grants as requested. 

The Committee is deeply concerned about the Forest Service’s requirement that 75 percent of hazardous fuels funding be spent in 

the wildland urban interface. While the Committee agrees that protecting communities should be the top priority, many times protecting communities requires hazardous fuels work be done outside 

the wildland urban interface. The Committee also notes that the 

definition of wildland urban interface varies greatly across the 

country. The Committee directs the Forest Service to remove this 

requirement from its funding and instead focus hazardous fuels reduction dollars based on areas with the greatest need as determined by land managers. 

The Committee also strongly encourages the Forest Service to 

focus on Fire Regime Condition Class II and III areas. These areas 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
96 

are the most prone to catastrophic fire and many times require mechanical thinning followed by prescribed burns. The Committee realizes much of this work is more expensive than prescribed burning 

alone, but encourages the Committee to leverage hazardous fuels 

dollars by combining projects and using tools such as stewardship 

contracting and timber sales. Finally, the Committee also encourages the Forest Service to focus on the quality, not just quantity, 

of its fuels reduction work. Across the country and most recently 

in the Arizona fires, areas that have been thinned to historical 

stocking levels have survived severe wildfires. The Committee commends the Forest Service for its work in these areas and encourages it to do much more. 

The Forest Service is directed to work with the Committee on an 

informal report on the Arizona and New Mexico wildfires of 2011. 

The informal report should include information on the number of 

acres burned, severity of acres burned, habitat for endangered species burned, and wilderness and roadless areas burned. The report 

should also include the number of acres that, as a result of such 

fires, need rehabilitation and restoration (areas where forest cover 

could be re-established), to be determined without regard to the 

availability of funding for such purposes, excluding wilderness 

areas or other areas that lack reasonable access for rehabilitation 

and restoration efforts. The report should also include the plans 

and goals of the Forest Service for rehabilitation and restoration in 

the impacted area, including how those plans are informed by the 

available science on the topic, and the estimated cost of fully implementing such plans and goals. Finally, the report should include an 

update on areas actively managed to improve forest health or habitat or to reduce fire risk or for other reasons and how those areas 

responded to fire. 

The Committee is deeply concerned about the future of the heavy 

air-tanker fleet and directs the Secretary to develop a five-year 

long-term contract for heavy air tanker contractors with reviews 

based on performance such that it reasonably meets collateral requirements with a financial lender over the duration of the contract. The Secretary shall use sound analytical methodology when 

developing criteria for the heavy airtanker Request for Proposal 

(RFP), including the cost per unit of retardant delivered to the fire, 

the initial attack success based on air speeds and retardant capacity. 

FLAME WILDFIRE SUPPRESSION RESERVE FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $290,418,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 315,886,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 290,418,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... 0 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥25,468,000 

The Committee recommends $290,418,000 for the FLAME wildfire suppression reserve fund, equal to fiscal year 2011 enacted 

funding and $25,468,000 below the budget request. As discussed 

under the wildland fire management account, the Committee fully 

funds the 10-year average expenditure for wildfire suppression. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
97 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS, FOREST SERVICE

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

The Committee has continued most administrative provisions included in previous years. The Committee has continued the 

wildland fire transfer authority as enacted in fiscal year 2010. 

The Committee continues previous language concerning interactions with foreign countries and clarifies that the Forest Service 

may sign direct funding agreements with foreign governments and 

institutions as well as other domestic agencies as described under 

the International Forestry header above. 

The Committee continues the authority for transfers of 

$3,000,000 to the National Forest Foundation and the National 

Fish and Wildlife Foundation. The Committee recommendation 

does not provide administrative funds for use by the National Forest Foundation. 

The recommendation provides, as requested, authority for the 

Forest Service to conduct priority projects with the Youth Conservation Corps and Public Lands Corps in accordance with P.L. 

109–154. 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

The provision of Federal health services to Indians is based on 

a 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 28 hospitals, 58 health centers, two school health centers, and 31 health stations. Tribes and tribal groups, through contracts and compacts with the IHS, operate 17 hospitals, 235 health 

centers, 13 school health centers, and 258 health stations (including 166 Alaska Native village clinics). 

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICES

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $3,665,273,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 4,166,139,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 4,034,322,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... +369,049,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥131,817,000 

The Committee recommends $4,034,322,000 for Indian Health 

Services, $369,049,000 above the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and 

$131,817,000 below the budget request. Except as otherwise indicated below, increases are to fully fund: mandatory pay increases 

for commissioned officers; inflation costs; and staffing of new facilities. The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with 

the budget estimates by activity are shown in the table at the end 

of this report. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
98 

Hospitals and health clinics.—The Committee recommends 

$1,858,433,000 for hospitals and health clinics programs, 

$95,568,000 above the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and 

$105,453,000 below the budget request. The Committee directs the 

Service to continue the cooperative agreement with the National 

Indian Health Board from within existing funds. 

Dental health.—The Committee recommends $166,492,000 for 

dental health, $13,858,000 above the fiscal year 2011 enacted level 

and $4,367,000 below the request. 

The Committee commends the Service’s Division of Oral Health 

for its Early Childhood Caries (ECC) initiative to reduce the prevalence of early childhood caries among young American Indian and 

Alaska Native children by 25 percent and increasing dental access 

by 50 percent by 2015. The Committee understands that the Service will be releasing its first report in 2011. The Service is directed 

to update the Committee at least quarterly on the progress of the 

initiative and the ability of the Service to meet its goals in the allowed time frame. 

The Committee is pleased to learn that the Service has fully implemented an electronic dental record (EDR) system at 60 sites and 

is in the process of connecting an additional 21 sites. However, the 

Committee is concerned that the Service has no current plans for 

the remaining 149 sites. The Service is strongly encouraged to 

make implementation of the EDR a priority as it works to fully implement the overall electronic health record system. Further, the 

Committee directs the Service to provide, within 90 days of enactment of this Act, a detailed schedule for implementation of the 

EDR assuming present funding levels. 

The Committee understands that two of the four top leadership 

positions within the Division of Oral Health, including the Director’s position, are vacant. An additional dentist is on detail outside 

of the Division. The Committee is concerned about the vacancies 

because the lack of staff undermines recent recruitment gains of 

dentists. The Committee urges the Service to fill the vacancies expeditiously. 

Urban Health.—The Committee recommends $45,525,000 for 

urban health programs, $2,472,000 above the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $1,220,000 below the budget request. The requested 

increase to improve third party collections is funded at $944,000. 

Contract Support Costs.—The Committee recommends 

$573,761,000 for contract support costs, $176,068,000 above the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $111,924,000 above the budget request. Two recent court cases found that the Bureau of Indian Affairs was legally obligated to pay the full amount of all contract 

support costs that it had contractually agreed with Indian tribes to 

pay, and limitations on the overall contract support cost appropriation does not overcome the Bureau’s obligation to pay said costs. 

The Committee believes that both the Bureau and the Indian 

Health Service should pay all contract support costs for which it 

has contractually agreed and directs the Service to include the full 

cost of the contract support obligations in its fiscal year 2013 budget submission. 

IHS Recruitment and Retention.—The Committee has been concerned for some time about the high vacancy rate for all IHS 

health care providers, including reports that interested candidates 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
99 

are not being pursued by the Service. The Committee was pleased 

that the Director commissioned a report on the recruitment and retention of health care professionals. The report included 12 specific 

recommendations to improve the hiring and retention of health 

care providers for Indian Country. The Committee directs the Service to provide a report within 90 days of enactment of this Act on 

the status of the Service’s plans to implement these reforms. 

INDIAN HEALTH FACILITIES

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $403,947,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 457,669,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 427,259,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... +23,312,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥30,410,000 

The Committee recommends $427,259,000 for Indian health facilities, $23,312,000 above the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and 

$30,410,000 below the request. These funds are to be supplemented 

with $20,000,000 in unobligated funds appropriated for fiscal year 

2007 and prior years. Except as otherwise indicated below, increases are to fully fund: mandatory pay increases for commissioned officers; inflation costs; and staffing of new facilities. The 

amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the budget estimates by activity are shown in the table at the end of this 

report. 

Health Care Facilities Construction.—The Committee recommends $85,724,000 for health care facilities construction, 

$46,568,000 above the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $540,000 

above the budget request. 

The Committee remains concerned about the high unobligated 

balances in this account. The Committee directs the Service to 

evaluate its construction priority system and provide a detailed report to the Committee on its efforts within 30 days of enactment 

of this Act on the cause of these unobligated balances and a plan 

for reducing these balances. 

The Committee notes that joint venture programs have been 

proven successful as a means of reducing the IHS construction 

backlog, for example, at the Carl Albert Hospital in Ada, Oklahoma. The Committee is encouraged by the success of this project 

and urges the IHS to use this project as a model for future joint 

venture programs. Furthermore, the Committee directs the Service 

to provide thorough outreach to tribal governments encouraging 

them to develop joint venture initiatives for the construction of IHS 

projects. 

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 

(NIEHS), an agency within the National Institutes of Health, was 

authorized in section 311(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 and in section 

126(g) of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 

1986 to conduct certain research and worker training activities asVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:11 Jul 20, 2011 Jkt 067352 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR151.XXX HR151

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
100 

sociated with the nation’s Hazardous Substance Superfund program. 

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $79,054,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 81,085,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 79,054,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... 0 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥2,031,000 

The Committee recommends $79,054,000 for the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, equal to the fiscal year 

2011 enacted level and $2,031,000 below the budget request. The 

Committee supports the work of the NIEHS to provide scientific research and worker training to address and prevent diseases caused 

by environmental contamination. The Committee recognizes that 

NIEHS had to reprioritize 2010 funding in order to train workers 

and volunteers responding to the Deep Water Horizon oil spill in 

2010. In doing so, NIEHS deferred funding for several 2010 and 

2011 projects. As such the Committee finds sufficient justification 

to maintain the enacted funding level for NIEHS in fiscal year 

2012. 

AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY

TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC HEALTH

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 

an agency in the Department of Health and Human Services, was 

created in section 104(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980. The 

Agency’s mission is to serve the public through responsive public 

health actions to promote healthy and safe environments and prevent harmful toxic exposures. ATSDR assesses hazardous exposures in communities near toxic waste sites and advises the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other government agencies, community groups and industry partners on actions needed to 

protect people’s health. In addition, ATSDR conducts toxicological 

and applied research to support environmental assessments, supports health surveillance systems and registries, develops and disseminates information on hazardous substances, provides education 

and training on hazardous exposures, and responds to environmental emergencies. Through a national network of dedicated scientists and public health practitioners in state health departments, 

regional EPA offices and headquarters, ATSDR has been at the 

forefront in protecting people from acute toxic exposures that occur 

from hazardous leaks and spills, environment-related poisonings, 

and natural and terrorism-related disasters. 

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $76,638,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 76,337,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 74,039,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥2,599,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥2,298,000 

The Committee recommends $74,039,000 for the Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), $2,599,000 below the 

fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $2,298,000 below the budget request. ATSDR has successfully reduced non-payroll costs in light of 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
101 

increasing payroll pressures. However, the ATSDR budget justification does not clearly explain changes for FTE from one year to the 

next including an increase of 5 FTE from previous estimates for fiscal years 2010 and 2011. Therefore the Committee questions the 

justification for the increase in payroll costs and has targeted the 

reduction accordingly. The Committee recommends that ATSDR 

provide additional clarity on the rationale for FTE changes in the 

fiscal year 2013 budget justification. 

Within the funds provided, $2,000,000 has been included to continue to the important epidemiological studies of health conditions 

caused by exposures to uranium released from mining and milling 

operations in the Navajo Nation. 

The Committee supports ATSDR’s current health studies of past 

community exposure to volatile organic compounds at the U.S. Marine Corps base at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina and urges the 

application of the studies’ findings to research pertinent to smaller 

communities such as Endicott, New York, that have experienced 

exposure to volatile organic compounds. 

The Committee is concerned about the findings in the April 2010 

GAO report indicating that management deficiencies, and a failure 

to prioritize significant research, may lead to delays in releasing 

critical public health information. The Committee supports the 

GAO recommendations to develop or revise procedures that would 

ensure a risk assessment is conducted at the beginning of a project 

and that ATSDR establish a formal tracking system. 

OTHER RELATED AGENCIES 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND OFFICE OF

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) was established by 

Congress under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA). The Office of Environmental Quality (OEQ), which provides professional and administrative staff for the Council, was established in the Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970. 

The Council on Environmental Quality has statutory responsibility 

for overseeing Federal agency implementation of the requirements 

of NEPA. CEQ also assists in coordinating environmental programs 

among the Federal agencies in the Executive Branch. 

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $3,153,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 3,444,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 2,661,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥492,000 

Budget Estimate, 2012 ............................................................... ¥783,000 

The Committee recommends $2,661,000 for the Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental Quality, $492,000 

below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $783,000 below the 

budget request. Commensurate with the appropriation, the authorized level for CEQ FTE is capped at 19, equivalent to the 2006 utilization level. Funding has not been provided for one additional 

NEPA coordinator and one additional ocean policy coordinator. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
102 

CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $10,777,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 11,147,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 10,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥777,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥1,147,000 

The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for salaries and expenses of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (the 

Board), which is $777,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level 

and $1,147,000 below the budget request. 

Bill Language.—The Committee continues to carry language, as 

in prior years, authorizing the EPA Inspector General to act as the 

Inspector General for the Board. The Committee has not provided 

funds to be transferred to the EPA IG who reports sufficient existing funding to cover these responsibilities. 

OFFICE OF NAVAJO AND HOPI INDIAN RELOCATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation was established 

by Public Law 93–531 to plan and conduct relocation activities associated with the settlement of a land dispute between the Navajo 

Nation and the Hopi Tribe. 

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $7,984,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 9,570,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 7,530,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥454,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥2,040,000 

The Committee recommends $7,530,000 for salaries and expenses 

of the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation, $454,000 below 

the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $2,040,000 below the budget 

request. 

INSTITUTE OF AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE CULTURE AND

ARTS DEVELOPMENT

PAYMENT TO THE INSTITUTE

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $8,283,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 9,225,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 7,900,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥383,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥1,325,000 

The Committee recommends $7,900,000 for the Institute of 

American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development, $383,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and 

$1,325,000 below the budget request. 

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

The Smithsonian Institution is the world’s largest museum and 

research complex, with 19 museums and galleries, 20 libraries, numerous research centers and the National Zoological Park. Funded 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
103 

by both private and Federal sources, the Smithsonian is unique in 

the Federal establishment. Created by an Act of Congress in 1846 

to carry out the trust included in James Smithson’s will, it has 

been engaged for 165 years in the ‘‘increase and diffusion of knowledge.’’ In 2010, the Smithsonian attracted more than 30 million 

visitors to its museums, galleries, and zoological park. Additional 

millions also view Smithsonian traveling exhibitions and participate in the annual Folklife Festival on the National Mall. As custodian of the National Collections, the Smithsonian is responsible for 

more than 137 million art objects, natural history specimens, and 

artifacts. These scientific and cultural collections are a vital resource for global research and conservation efforts. The collections 

are displayed for the enjoyment and education of visitors and are 

available for research by the staff of the Institution and by thousands of visiting students, scientists, and historians each year. 

The amounts recommended by the Committee for the Smithsonian Institution, compared with the budget estimates by activity, 

are shown in the table at the end of this report. 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $634,889,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 636,530,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 626,971,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥7,918,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ –9,559,000 

The Committee recommends $626,971,000 for salaries and expenses of the Smithsonian Institution, $7,918,000 below the fiscal 

year 2011 enacted level and $9,559,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee commends the Smithsonian Institution, the largest museum and research complex in the world, for reaching new 

audiences and broadening access to a diverse array of educational 

activities and resources to nearly 5,000 school classrooms and millions of people worldwide. The Smithsonian Institution’s efforts are 

complemented through non-Federal contributions, including a 

model of philanthropic giving, which exceeded $158 million last 

year. 

The Committee also commends the Smithsonian for its selection 

as one of the ten best places to work in the Federal government. 

The Smithsonian ranked fourth overall in its first year as a participant in the annual survey conducted by the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM). The Committee believes the taxpaying public 

is best served by well-managed and top performing agencies with 

high employee morale. This ranking, combined with oversight provided by the General Accountability Office (GAO) and the Inspector 

General, provides further evidence that the Smithsonian Institution has made considerable progress toward improving governance 

and implementing sound management practices. 

The Committee is concerned about the recent GAO report highlighting problems in identifying and repatriating Indian human remains and objects. Per GAO’s recommendations, the Committee 

urges the Smithsonian to take actions to expand the oversight and 

reporting role of the special committee, establish an administrative 

appeals process, and develop a policy for the disposition of culturally unidentifiable items. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
104 

The Committee strongly supports efforts to create virtual natural 

history collections utilizing advanced information technologies to 

make regional and rural museum collections more accessible. The 

Committee encourages collaboration between the Smithsonian Institution and regional and rural natural history repositories to facilitate greater educational, scientific, and rural access to natural 

history collections throughout the United States. 

The Committee also supports the joint venture between the Library of Congress and the Smithsonian Institution creating a comprehensive compilation of audio and video recordings of personal 

histories and testimonials of individuals who participated in the 

Civil Rights movement. 

The Committee remains committed to the preservation of Smithsonian Institution collections, including the priceless military uniform collection, at the National Museum of American History. The 

Committee urges the Smithsonian to continue placing a high priority on the preservation of these irreplaceable historical collections. 

The Smithsonian Institution is directed to work with the Committee to standardize its annual budget submission justifications 

and supporting materials to clearly and succinctly indicate proposed increases and decreases in proposed funding levels using as 

a baseline enacted funding levels from the previous fiscal year. 

FACILITIES CAPITAL

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $124,750,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 225,000,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 124,750,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... 0 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥100,250,000 

The Committee recommends $124,750,000 for facilities capital, equal to the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $100,250,000 below 

the budget request. 

The Committee supports revitalization of Smithsonian Institution facilities and the planning and design of future projects. The 

Committee also supports and remains committed to the construction of the congressionally authorized National Museum of African 

American History and Culture. However, the Committee notes that 

the Facilities Capital account has grown by more than 18 percent 

since fiscal year 2008. Funding the account to the request level 

would represent a 113 percent increase from fiscal year 2008. It is 

simply not feasible to recommend significant additional spending at 

this time, regardless of the merit of pending initiatives, when extraordinary fiscal restraint is warranted and necessary. Accordingly, the Committee recommends $50,000,000 for construction of the National Museum of African American History and 

Culture. These funds, which will ensure that construction begins 

on time, complement $45,000,000 provided by the Committee in 

prior years for pre-construction planning and design. The Committee further directs that the balance of Facilities Capital funding 

be devoted to the highest and best use for revitalization efforts of 

Smithsonian Institution assets on a priority basis. 

A growing number of projects necessitate the need for the Smithsonian Institution to set clear priorities within the Facilities Capital account. The Committee directs the Smithsonian to clearly esVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:11 Jul 20, 2011 Jkt 067352 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR151.XXX HR151

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
105 

tablish and articulate specific funding needs as well as the priority 

order of all projects for Facilities Capital program initiatives. 

Bill language.—The Committee has included bill language providing that any future procurement for construction of the National 

Museum of African American History and Culture may cover the 

full scope of the project, but that any contract for such procurement 

must contain a clause clarifying that any payment under the contract will be subject to the availability of funds. 

NATIONAL GALLERY OF ART

The National Gallery of Art is one of the world’s great galleries. 

Its magnificent works of art, displayed for the benefit of millions 

of visitors annually, 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 throughout the country bring great art treasures to 

Washington, DC, and the Nation. In 1999, the Gallery opened a 

sculpture garden, which provides an opportunity for the public to 

have an outdoor, artistic experience in a contemplative setting. 

Table of Allocations by Activity.—The amounts recommended by 

the Committee compared with the budget estimates by activity are 

shown in the table at the end of this report. 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $110,525,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 118,781,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 112,185,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... +1,660,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥6,596,000 

The Committee recommends $112,185,000 for salaries and expenses of the National Gallery of Art, $1,660,000 above the fiscal 

year 2011 enacted level and $6,596,000 below the budget request. 

Increases above the fiscal year 2011 enacted level are to address 

the most critical repairs to the Gallery’s buildings and equipment 

on a priority basis. Within the amount provided, the Committee includes $3,481,000 as requested for the Gallery’s Special Exhibition 

program. 

Bill Language.—The Committee has included bill language specifying the amount provided for Special Exhibitions. 

REPAIR, RESTORATION AND RENOVATION OF BUILDINGS

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $48,125,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 19,219,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 13,938,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥34,187,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥5,281,000 

The Committee recommends $13,938,000 for repair, restoration 

and renovation of buildings at the National Gallery of Art, 

$34,187,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and 

$5,281,000 below the budget request. Reductions from the request 

are to defer design of West Building Exterior Site Renovations and 

Master Facilities Plan work. 

The Committee supports the completion by January 2014 of repairs addressing a systemic structural failure of the anchors supVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:11 Jul 20, 2011 Jkt 067352 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR151.XXX HR151

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
106 

porting the 16,200 individual marble panels of the National Gallery’s East Building exterior fac ̧ade. A group of Committee members viewed the failure and agreed with the Gallery and expert engineering consultants that the situation posed a significant safety 

hazard to Gallery visitors and staff. The Committee provided 

$40,000,000 in fiscal year 2010 and $42,250,000 in fiscal year 2011 

to pay the entire cost of this work which, when completed, will address the serious risk posed to public safety. 

Bill Language.—The Committee has included bill language, as 

requested, relating to lease agreements of no more than 10 years 

that addresses space needs created by ongoing renovations in the 

Master Facilities 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 houses nine stages, seven of 

which have a total of more than 7,300 seats. The Center consists 

of over 1.5 million square feet of usable floor space with visitation 

averaging 8,000 on a daily basis. The support systems in the building often operate at capacity 18 hours a day, seven days a week, 

365 days a year. 

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $22,455,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 23,200,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 22,455,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... 0 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥745,000 

The Committee recommends $22,455,000 for operations and 

maintenance equal to the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and 

$745,000 below the budget request. The Committee recognizes that 

increasing operations and maintenance costs present challenges for 

all agencies funded in the bill, and finds it to be a sufficient justification for maintaining funding at the fiscal year 2011 enacted 

level as the budget authority for the bill has declined by seven percent. 

CAPITAL REPAIR AND RESTORATION

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $13,892,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 13,650,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 13,650,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥242,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $13,650,000 for capital repair and restoration as requested and $242,000 below the fiscal year 2011 

enacted level. 

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 manVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:11 Jul 20, 2011 Jkt 067352 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR151.XXX HR151

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
107 

date through its role as an international institute promoting policyrelevant research and dialogue to increase understanding and enhance the capabilities and knowledge of leaders, citizens, and institutions worldwide. The Woodrow Wilson Center hosts scholars and 

policy makers to do their own advanced study, research and writing as well as a facilitates debate and discussions among scholars, 

public officials, journalists and business leaders from across the 

country on major long-term issues facing this Nation and the 

world. 

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $11,203,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 11,005,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 10,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥1,203,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥1,005,000 

The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for salaries and expenses of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 

$1,203,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $1,005,000 

below the budget request. The Center is funded at the fiscal year 

2009 enacted level. 

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS

GRANTS AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $154,690,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 146,255,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 135,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥19,690,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥11,255,000 

The Committee recommends $135,000,000 for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), $19,690,000 below the fiscal year 

2011 enacted level and $11,255,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee commends the NEA for its participation in the 

Blue Star Museums partnership involving Blue Star Families and 

some 1,100 museums in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and American Samoa. Blue Star 

Museums is a program that offers free admission to museums for 

all active duty, National Guard and Reserve military personnel and 

their families from Memorial Day through Labor Day. As a result 

of this partnership, more than 350,000 military family members 

are expected to visit participating museums this year. 

The Committee values greatly the longstanding collaborative relationship between the NEA and the States. State Arts Agencies 

(SSAs) support the arts for communities at the grassroots level regardless of their geographic location, providing much of their funding to smaller organizations, community groups, and schools rather 

than well-established arts organizations. Based on this widely supported successful model, the Committee has funded state partnerships, including the underserved set-aside, at $46,000,000. 

The Committee is committed to supporting proven national initiatives with broad geographic reach. The Big Read, Challenge 

America, and Shakespeare in American Communities are among 

the cost-effective grant programs with broad, bipartisan congresVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:11 Jul 20, 2011 Jkt 067352 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR151.XXX HR151

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
108 

sional support that meet these criteria, supporting the NEA’s goal 

of extending the arts to underserved populations in both urban and 

rural communities across the United States. 

Since the Big Read’s inception in 2006, the NEA has awarded $11 million in grants—leveraged with $24 million in private-sector 

funding—in every state, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 

U.S. Virgin Islands, and virtually every congressional district. The 

Committee remains firmly committed to the Big Read program 

and, because of its proven return on investment, directs that the 

Big Read be funded at no less than $3,000,000, with no fewer than 

150 grants awarded to all 50 states and U.S. territories, in fiscal 

year 2012. 

Similarly, Shakespeare in American Communities remains one of 

the most cost-effective, well-managed, and successful national programs reaching diverse audiences throughout the United States. 

The Committee directs that Shakespeare in American Communities 

be maintained as a national program funded at no less than 

$2,000,000 in fiscal year 2012. 

The Committee does not support the budget request proposal to 

eliminate the National Heritage Fellowship program and the American Jazz Masters Fellowship program. The National Heritage Fellowship program, which was created in 1982, has celebrated over 

350 cultural leaders from 49 states and five U.S. territories, focusing national attention on the keepers of America’s deep and rich 

cultural heritage found in communities large and small, rural and 

urban. Similarly, the American Jazz Masters Fellowship, also created in 1982, has bestowed appropriate national recognition on a 

uniquely American art form Congress has proclaimed a national 

treasure. Accordingly, the Committee directs the NEA to continue 

these popular honorific fellowships in the same manner as it has 

in the past. 

The Committee believes the proposal to establish a separate NEA 

American Artist of the Year honorific award is not warranted and 

could be perceived as an attempt to circumvent clear, long-established congressional guidelines prohibiting direct grant funding to 

individual artists. 

The Committee views the NEA’s newest initiative—known as 

Our Town—as an economic development and revitalization proposal more properly aligned with the goals and objectives of the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development. While the Committee believes that the NEA is well-positioned to provide expertise 

to HUD and other Federal agencies on promoting the arts in large 

and small communities, funding for this endeavor ought to be utilized through the considerable grant-making resources of HUD and 

other Federal agencies. The Committee believes that as competition 

for Federal dollars grows, limited direct grant funding dollars within the NEA should be devoted to core programs with a proven 

record of success. 

In 1997, Congress established that 40 percent of NEA program 

funds be allocated to States through State Arts Agencies (SAAs) because they understand community priorities and are accessible to 

local arts organizations. By exempting Our Town from this requirement, the request would provide funding to communities without 

this necessary safeguard. The Committee is particularly concerned 

that funding for this program would gravitate toward large urban 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
109 

centers with strong existing arts infrastructures at the expense of 

State Arts Agencies which are better positioned to reach underserved populations. This precedent could undermine support not 

only for SSAs but for the NEA more broadly. 

While the Committee has expressed reservations about this initiative, it believes the program ought to be provided an opportunity 

to demonstrate its worth. Therefore, the Committee recommends 

$2,000,000 for the Our Town initiative, $3,000,000 below the budget request, to provide a limited number of grants to support arts 

development in local communities. Further, the Committee directs 

these funds be distributed in a manner consistent with the congressional requirement governing the allocation of funds to States. 

The Committee notes that the NEA administrative budget has 

risen by 17 percent since fiscal year 2008. While this year’s NEA 

request proposed an overall reduction in grant program funding, 

the request did not propose a corresponding reduction in administrative costs or FTEs. Accordingly, the Committee has reduced the 

administrative budget by almost nine percent and urges the NEA 

to cap FTEs in the coming fiscal year at the fiscal year 2008 level 

of 155 FTEs. 

The Committee urges the NEA to take any and all necessary 

steps to work with the appropriate authorizing committees in a 

timely fashion to renew its congressional authorization. 

Bill Language.—Each year, the Committee provides in bill language specific guidelines under which the Endowment is directed 

to distribute taxpayer dollars in support of the arts. With the exception of established honorific programs, grant funding to individual artists is strictly prohibited. The Committee directs that priority be given to providing services or grant funding for projects, 

productions, or programs that encourage public knowledge, education, understanding, and appreciation of the arts. Any reduction 

in support to the states for arts education should be no more than 

proportional to other funding decreases taken in other NEA programs. 

Reforms originally instituted by the Committee in P.L. 108–447 

relating to program priorities and grant guidelines are fully restated in Sections 419 and 420 of the bill. The Committee expects 

the NEA to adhere to them fully. These reforms maintain broad bipartisan support and continue to serve well both the NEA and the 

public interest. 

The Committee has not included bill language contained in the 

request to establish a new category of honorific awards. However, 

the Committee has retained bill language in Section 419 from past 

years to continue the successful and popular National Heritage Fellowship program and American Jazz Masters Fellowship program. 

Further, the Committee has not included two additional legislative changes proposed in the budget request. The first attempts to 

clarify supplanting language by stipulating allowed match for 

grants made to the states; the second seeks authority to issue guidance on the waive-of-match provision for states and regions. 

The Committee views these proposals as generally reasonable 

and desirable, provided some flexibility is provided to the States in 

response to their individual and clearly defined circumstances. 

However, the Committee believes that these proposals should not 

be adopted without the full consultation and active participation of 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
110 

State Arts Agencies. Anything less would result in a Federal mandate that could, in some instances, prove difficult for States in the 

future. 

Therefore, the Committee directs the NEA to engage in a collaborative process, building upon its longstanding partnership with diverse State Arts Agencies, to fashion clarifying bill language for 

consideration by the Committee addressing matching requirements 

and waiver procedures. 

The allocation of funding among NEA activities is shown in the 

table at the end of this report. 

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES

GRANTS AND ADMINISTRATION (INCLUDING MATCHING GRANTS)

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $154,690,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 146,255,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 135,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥19,690,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥11,255,000 

The Committee recommends a total of $135,000,000 for the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), $19,690,000 below 

the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $11,255,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee commends the NEH Federal/State Partnership 

for its ongoing, successful collaboration with state humanities councils in each of the fifty states as well as Washington, D.C., the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and American 

Samoa. Every NEH dollar received by a council is matched by a 

local contribution. In recent years, the proportion of NEH program 

funds supporting the work of state humanities councils has grown 

to nearly 40 percent. The Committee urges the NEH to provide no 

less than 40 percent of program funds to support the critical work 

of state humanities councils. 

The Committee does not support the budget request proposal to 

discontinue the We the People program. We the People was initiated 

on Constitution Day—September 17, 2002—and should remain a 

core NEH grant program designed to promote the teaching, study, 

and understanding of American history, culture, and democratic 

principles. Grants awarded through the We the People program leverage millions of non-Federal dollars supporting enrichment and 

educational materials provided to thousands of educators, schools, 

community colleges, and libraries nationwide. We the People is a 

proven, cost-effective national grant program with broad geographic reach and bipartisan congressional support. The Committee directs that it be sustained at no less than $4,750,000 in fiscal year 2012. 

The Committee supports broadly the goals of the Bridging Cultures initiative which strives to promote civil discourse and a better 

understanding of our multi-cultural society. However, the Committee believes that the best use of limited dollars is for proven, 

cost-effective, and successful core grant programs. Therefore, the 

Bridging Cultures initiative is funded at $2,000,000, which is 

$2,000,000 below the budget request. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
111 

The Committee supports the Documenting Endangered Languages grant program, which is working to preserve an estimated 

3,000 endangered languages throughout the world. The Committee 

urges the NEH to provide priority consideration to preserving endangered Native American tribal languages. 

The allocation of funding among NEH activities is shown in the 

table at the end of this report. 

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 designs for 

parks, public buildings, public squares, as well as the design of National monuments, coins and medals, and overseas American military cemeteries. As a result, the Commission annually reviews 

more than 600 projects. In fiscal year 1988, the Commission was 

given responsibility for the National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs program. 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $2,289,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 2,400,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 2,234,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥55,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥166,000 

The Committee recommends $2,234,000 for salaries and expenses 

of the Commission of Fine Arts, $55,000 below the fiscal year 2011 

enacted level and $166,000 below the budget request. The Commission of Fine Arts is funded at the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

NATIONAL CAPITAL ARTS AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $2,994,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 0 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 0 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥2,994,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ 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. As requested, no funding is proposed 

for this non-competitive grants program administered by the Commission of Fine Arts, a reduction of $2,994,000 from the fiscal year 

2011 enacted level. 

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 established the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The ACHP was granted 

permanent authorization as part of the National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 2006 (Public Law 109–453). The ACHP 

promotes the preservation, enhancement, and productive use of our 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
112 

nation’s historic resources and advises the President and Congress 

on national historic preservation policy. 

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $5,896,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 6,108,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 5,498,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥398,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥610,000 

The Committee recommends $5,498,000 for salaries and expenses 

of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), $398,000 

below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $610,000 below the 

budget request. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is 

funded at the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The National Capital Planning Act of 1952 designated the National Capital Planning Commission as the central planning agency 

for the Federal government in the National Capital Region. The 

three major functions of the Commission are to prepare and adopt 

the Federal elements of the National Capital Comprehensive Plan, 

prepare an annual report on a five-year projection of the Federal 

Capital Improvement Program, and review plans and proposals 

submitted to the Commission. 

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $8,490,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 8,154,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 8,133,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥357,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥21,000 

The Committee recommends $8,133,000 for salaries and expenses 

of the National Capital Planning Commission, $357,000 below the 

fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $21,000 below the budget request. The recommendation does not include the requested amount 

for official reception expenses associated with hosting international 

visitors engaged in the planning and development of world capitals. 

UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM

HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM

In 1980, Congress passed legislation creating a 65 member Holocaust Memorial Council with the mandate to create and oversee a 

living memorial/museum to victims of the Holocaust. 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. Private funds 

support educational outreach throughout the United States. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
113 

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $49,024,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 52,694,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 50,524,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... +1,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥2,170,000 

The Committee recommends $50,524,000 for the Holocaust Memorial Museum, an increase of $1,500,000 above the fiscal year 

2011 enacted level and $2,170,000 below the budget request. 

PRESIDIO TRUST

PRESIDIO TRUST FUND

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $14,970,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 12,000,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 12,000,000 

Comparison:.

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥2,970,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $12,000,000 for the Presidio Trust 

as requested, a decrease of $2,970,000 below the fiscal year 2011 

enacted level. These funds fulfill the commitment made by Congress to support the transition of the Presidio Army Base to a 

mixed-use, financially independent facility by the year 2013 as authorized by P.L. 104–333. The Presidio’s self-sufficiency plan stipulated that the Presidio Trust receive Federal appropriations 

through fiscal year 2012, at which time the Trust becomes responsible for funding the operations and maintenance of the Presidio in 

perpetuity. 

Since its inception, the Trust has been effective at leveraging 

Federal dollars to attract private dollars. Private revenue and tenant investment in the Presidio over the past decade has exceeded 

$1.2 billion which is more than four times the amount of appropriated funding provided during the same period. This successful 

collaboration between the private and public sectors has saved taxpayers over $1 billion in capital costs and over $45 million in annual operating costs while also significantly reducing the Federal 

government’s role in managing this national historic landmark. 

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER MEMORIAL COMMISSION

The Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission was created by 

Congress in 1999 through Public Law 106–79 for the purpose of establishing a permanent national memorial to Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe in 

World War II and 34th President of the United States. The Commission consists of 12 members, four members of the House of Representatives, four Senators, and four private citizens appointed by 

the President. 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $0 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 6,000,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 2,000,000 

Comparison:.

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... +2,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥4,000,000 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
114 

The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for salaries and expenses of the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission, $2,000,000 

above the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $4,000,000 below the 

budget request. This represents one-third of the requested funding 

for salaries and expenses in order to complete construction of the 

Memorial by 2015. 

CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION

Appropriation enacted, 2011 .............................................................. $0 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 83,768,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 28,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... +28,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥55,768,000 

The Committee recommends $28,000,000 for capital construction 

of the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial, $28,000,000 above the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $55,768,000 below the budget request. This represents one-third of the requested funding for construction costs given that planned construction will not begin until 

two months before the end of the fiscal year. Bill language has 

been included to authorize the contracting officer to procure construction services as long as such contracts are contingent upon the 

availability of funds. 

TITLE IV—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Section 401 continues a provision providing for public availability 

of information on consulting services contracts. 

Section 402 continues a provision prohibiting activities to promote public support or opposition to legislative proposals. 

Section 403 continues a provision providing for annual appropriations unless expressly provided otherwise in this Act. 

Section 404 continues a provision limiting the use of personal 

cooks, chauffeurs or servants. 

Section 405 provides for restrictions on departmental assessments unless approved by the Committees on Appropriations. 

Section 406 continues a provision preventing the use of funds to 

sell giant sequoia trees on National Forest or Bureau of Land Management lands in a manner different than such sales were conducted in the past. 

Section 407 continues a limitation on accepting and processing 

applications for patents and on the patenting of Federal lands; permits processing of grandfathered applications; and permits thirdparty contractors to process grandfathered applications. 

Section 408 continues a provision limiting payments for contract 

support costs in past years to the funds available in law and accompanying report language in those years for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service. 

Section 409 continues a provision allowing Forest Service land 

management plans to be more than 15 years old if the Secretary 

is acting in good faith to update such plans. 

Section 410 continues a provision limiting preleasing, leasing, 

and related activities within the boundaries of National Monuments. 

Section 411 continues a provision through fiscal year 2013 providing the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of AgriVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:11 Jul 20, 2011 Jkt 067352 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR151.XXX HR151

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
115 

culture the authority to enter into reciprocal agreements with foreign wildfire organizations. 

Section 412 continues a provision through fiscal year 2013 authorizing the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to give consideration to rural communities, local and nonprofit groups, and disadvantaged workers in entering into contracts 

for hazardous fuels and watershed projects. 

Section 413 modifies a provision which restricts funding for acquisition of land from being used for declarations of taking or complaints in condemnation. 

Section 414 modifies a provision addressing timber sales involving Alaskan western red cedar. 

Section 415 modifies a provision continuing certain authorities to 

renew grazing permits or leases administered by the Forest Service 

or Department of the Interior through 2016. 

Section 416 provides that none of the funds made available by 

this Act may be distributed to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). 

Section 417 continues a provision which prohibits no-bid contracts and grants except under certain circumstances. 

Section 418 continues a provision which requires public disclosure of certain reports. 

Section 419 continues a provision which delineates the grant 

guidelines for the National Endowment for the Arts. 

Section 420 continues a provision which delineates the program 

priorities for the programs managed by the National Endowment 

for the Arts. 

Section 421 amends existing law to allow for the use of certain 

competitive grants funds. 

Section 422 extends the Forest Service Realignment and Enhancement Act of 2005 authority through 2016. 

Section 423 modifies a provision allowing Department of the Interior bureaus and the Forest Service to conduct joint programs to 

promote customer service and efficiency. 

Section 424 retains a provision allowing the State of Utah, 

through contracts or cooperative agreements with the Forest Service, to perform certain activities on Forest Service lands through 

fiscal year 2013. 

Section 425 requires that the Department of the Interior, the 

EPA, the Forest Service, and the Indian Health Service provide the 

Committees on Appropriations a quarterly report on the status of 

balances of appropriations. 

Section 426 requires the President to submit a report to the 

Committees on Appropriations no later than 120 days after the fiscal year 2013 budget is submitted to Congress describing in detail 

all Federal agency obligations and expenditures for climate change 

programs and activities in fiscal years 2011 and 2012. 

Section 427 extends a provision allowing the Forest Service and 

Bureau of Land Management to enter into stewardship contracts 

with private entities to achieve land management goals on national 

forests or public lands that meet local and rural community needs 

through fiscal year 2023. 

Section 428 continues a provision prohibiting the use of funds to 

promulgate or implement any regulation requiring the issuance of 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
116 

permits under title V of the Clean Air Act for carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, water vapor, or methane emissions. 

Section 429 continues a provision prohibiting the use of funds to 

implement any provision in a rule if that provision requires mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from manure management systems. 

Section 430 enables Indian Tribes and tribal organizations to 

consolidate funds supplied by any Federal department or agency to 

carry out the Indian Employment, Training and Related Services 

Demonstration Act. 

Section 431 provides a one year stay for actions related to greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources. 

Section 432 prohibits the use of funds to develop, carry out, implement, or enforce proposed regulations published on June 18, 

2010. 

Section 433 prohibits the use of funds to carry out, implement, 

administer or enforce proposed enhanced coordination procedures 

issued on June 11, 2009 or guidance dated April 1, 2010. 

Section 434 prohibits the use of funds to develop, propose, finalize, implement, administer or enforce any regulation that identifies 

fossil fuel combustion waste as hazardous waste. 

Section 435 prohibits the use of funds to develop, adopt, implement, administer, or enforce a change or supplement to a rule or 

guidance documents pertaining to the definition of waters under 

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. 

Section 436 prohibits the use of funds to further develop, finalize, 

implement or enforce the proposed regulatory requirements published on April 20, 2011, or to develop or enforce any other new 

regulations or requirements designed to implement section 316(b) 

of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. 

Section 437 provides the Forest Service the authority to use a 

pre-decisional objection process in place of post-decisional appeals. 

Section 438 clarifies Silvicultural Operations under the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act. 

Section 439 prohibits the use of funds to expand the stormwater 

discharge program under section 402(p) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act until certain criteria are met. 

Section 440 modifies claim maintenance structure for placer 

claims held by two or more persons, known as association placer 

claims. 

Section 441 recognizes the authority of States to implement flexible air permitting programs. 

Section 442 maintains current management of bighorn sheep as 

it relates to domestic sheep management for both the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. 

Section 443 clarifies current permitting activities for the outer 

continental shelf and sets parameters for the approval of exploration permits by the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Section 444 provides direction to EPA and NAS on review of the 

IRIS process. 

Section 445 prohibits the withdrawal of certain lands in the 

State of Arizona from the Mining Law of 1872 without the expressed consent of the Congress. 

Section 446 prohibits the Forest Service in California from implementing the travel management rule without additional analysis 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
117 

and prevents the agency from designating ML–3 roads as highways. 

Section 447 prohibits EPA from using funds to take action 

against registered pesticides in a response to a final biological opinion under the Endangered Species Act. 

Section 448 prohibits EPA from using funds to implement, administer or enforce the 2010 Portland Cement rule. 

Section 449 prohibits the government from entering into contracts or agreements with any corporation that was convicted of a 

felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the preceding 24 months. 

Section 450 prohibits EPA from using funds to implement, administer or enforce the lead renovation rule until EPA has approved a commercially available lead test kit. 

Section 451 prohibits funds for contracts or agreements with entities with unpaid Federal tax liabilities that have not entered into 

payment agreements to remedy the liability. 

Section 452 prohibits EPA from using funds to implement, administer or enforce the 2010 water quality rule for the State of 

Florida. 

Section 453 prohibits EPA from using funds to prepare, propose, 

promulgate, finalize, implement, or enforce regulations for greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles or motor engines 

after model year 2016, and to grant a waiver to a State or political 

subdivision thereof to adopt or enforce standards for greenhouse 

gas emissions from new motor vehicles or motor engines after 

model year 2016. 

Section 454 prohibits EPA from using funds to modify the primary or secondary air standard for coarse particulate matter under 

the Clean Air Act. 

Section 455 prohibits EPA from using funds to develop, propose, 

finalize, implement, enforce or administer any regulation that 

would establish new financial responsibility requirements under 

CERCLA. 

Section 456 prohibits EPA from using funds to delineate new 

wetlands under the Clean Water Act in any county included in a 

major disaster declaration as a result of flooding in 2011. 

Section 457 requires the Indian Health Service to disburse funds 

to Alaska Native regional health entities instead of individual villages when such villages reside within areas served by regional 

health entities. 

Section 458 requires written notification to land owners adjacent 

to public and Federal land to be exchanged by the Bureau of Land 

Management or the Forest Service. 

Section 459 prohibits EPA from providing funds to any Great 

Lakes state that, as determined by the Commandant of the Coast 

Guard, has a more stringent performance standard or ballast water 

exchange standard than either a revised Coast Guard standard or 

the standard adopted by the International Maritime Organization. 

Section 460 prohibits EPA from using funds to finalize proposed 

guidance on false or misleading pesticide labels. 

Section 461 prohibits EPA from using funds to regulate ammonia 

or ammonium under the secondary air quality standard for nitrogen and sulfur oxides pursuant to the Clean Air Act. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
118 

Section 462 directs EPA to study the cumulative impacts of certain rules, guidelines and actions within 12 months, and prohibiting EPA from taking final actions with respect to two rules. 

TITLE V—REDUCING REGULATORY BURDENS ACT OF 2011 

Clarifies permitting responsibilities under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and under the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act. 

TITLE VI—ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Section 601 establishes a Spending Reduction Account as required by Section 3(j) of H. Res. 5. 

BILL-WIDE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

The following items are included in accordance with various requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives: 

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules 

of the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call vote 

on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the 

names of those voting for and those voting against, are printed 

below: 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
119 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 133 here HR151.001
120 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 134 here HR151.002
121 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 135 here HR151.003
122 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 136 here HR151.004
123 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 137 here HR151.005
124 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 138 here HR151.006
125 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 139 here HR151.007
126 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 140 here HR151.008
127 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 141 here HR151.009
128 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 142 here HR151.010
129 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 143 here HR151.011
130 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 144 here HR151.012
131 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 145 here HR151.013
132 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 146 here HR151.014
133 

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. 

RESCISSION OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following table is submitted describing the 

rescission recommended in the accompanying bill: 

Department and activity: 

Amounts recommended for rescission: 

Department of the Interior: Land and Water Conservation Fund 

(contract authority) $30,000,000. 

Environmental Protection Agency: State and Tribal Assistance 

Grants $140,000,000. 

TRANSFERS OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following table is submitted describing the 

transfer of funds in the accompanying bill. 

APPROPRIATION TRANSFERS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

Account from which transfer is made Amount (000’s) Account to which transfer is made Amount (000’s) 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service.not specified ................ Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration.

not specified 

Department of the Interior, Operation of Indian Programs.not specified ................ Tribal trust forestry accounts ....... not specified 

Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Indian Affairs Construction.

not specified ................ Bureau of Reclamation ................. not specified 

Department of the Interior, Office 

of Insular Affairs.

not specified ................ Secretary of Agriculture ................ not specified 

Department of the Interior, Office 

of the Special Trustee for American Indians.

not specified ................ Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office 

of the Solicitor and Office of 

the Secretary accounts.

not specified 

Department of the Interior, 

Wildland Fire Management.

not specified ................ Department of the Interior, for repayment of advances made 

during emergencies.

not specified 

Department of the Interior, 

Wildland Fire Management.

up to $50,000 .............. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Wildland Fire Management.

up to $50,000 

Department of the Interior, FLAME 

Wildfire Suppression Reserve 

Fund.

not specified ................ Department of the Interior, 

Wildland Fire Management.

not specified 

Department of the Interior, Working Capital Fund.not specified ................ Department of the Interior, any 

account.

not specified 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Hazardous Substance Superfund.

not specified ................ Other Federal Agencies ................. not specified 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Hazardous Substance Superfund.

$9,955 .......................... Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Inspector General.

$9,955 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Hazardous Substance Superfund.

$23,016 ........................ Environmental Protection Agency, 

Science and Technology.

$23,016 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
134 

APPROPRIATION TRANSFERS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL—Continued 

Account from which transfer is made Amount (000’s) Account to which transfer is made Amount (000’s) 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Environmental Programs and 

Management.

up to $250,000 ............ Other Federal Department or 

Agency for Great Lakes Initiative.

up to $250,000 

USDA, Forest Service, Capital Improvement and Maintenance.not specified ................ General Fund of the Treasury ....... not specified 

USDA, Forest Service, Capital Improvement and Maintenance.up to $9,000 ................ National Forest System ................. up to $9,000 

USDA, Forest Service, Wildland Fire 

Management.

not specified ................ USDA, Forest Service, for repayment of advances made during 

emergencies.

not specified 

USDA, Forest Service, Wildland Fire 

Management.

not specified ................ USDA, Forest Service, National 

Forest System.

not specified 

USDA, Forest Service, Wildland Fire 

Management.

not specified ................ USDA, Forest Service, Forest and 

Rangeland Research.

not specified 

USDA, Forest Service, Wildland Fire 

Management.

not specified ................ USDA, Forest Service, State and 

Private Forestry.

not specified 

USDA, Forest Service, Wildland Fire 

Management.

up to $10,000 .............. Secretary of the Interior ............... up to $10,000 

USDA, Forest Service, Wildland Fire 

Management.

up to $27,100 .............. USDA, Forest Service, National 

Forest System.

up to $27,100 

USDA, Forest Service, Wildland Fire 

Management.

up to $50,000 .............. Department of the Interior, 

Wildland Fire Management.

up to $50,000 

USDA, Forest Service, FLAME Wildfire Suppression Reserve Fund.not specified ................ USDA, Forest Service, Wildland 

Fire Management.

not specified 

DISCLOSURE OF EARMARKS AND CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED

SPENDING ITEMS

Neither the bill nor the report contains any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined by 

clause 9 of rule XXI. 

COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(e) (RAMSEYER RULE)

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

SECTION 6 OF THE ACT OF JULY 1, 1980 

(Public Law 96–297) 

SEC. 6. VISITOR CENTER. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(d) FUNDING.—The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, Inc., shall 

be solely responsible for acceptance of contributions for, and payment of expenses of, the establishment of the visitor center. No 

Federal funds, except funds awarded through competitive grants, 

shall be used to pay any expense of the establishment of the visitor 

center. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
135 

SECTION 503 OF THE FOREST SERVICE REALIGNMENT 

AND ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2005 

SEC. 503. AUTHORIZATION FOR CONVEYANCE OF FOREST SERVICE 

ADMINISTRATIVE SITES. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(f) DURATION OF AUTHORITY.—The authority of the Secretary to 

initiate the conveyance of an administrative site under this title expires on September 30, ø2011¿ 2016. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 330 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 

SEC. 330. øIn fiscal years 2001 through 2011¿ In fiscal year 2012 

and each fiscal year thereafter, the Secretaries of the Interior and 

Agriculture, subject to annual review of Congress, ømay establish 

pilot programs¿ involving the land management agencies referred 

to in this section to conduct projects, planning, permitting, leasing, 

contracting and other activities, either jointly or on behalf of one 

another; may co-locate in Federal offices and facilities leased by an 

agency of either Department; and promulgate special rules as needed to test the feasibility of issuing unified permits, applications, 

and leases. The Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture may 

make reciprocal delegations of their respective authorities, duties 

and responsibilities in support of the ‘‘Service First’’ initiative 

agency-wide to promote customer service and efficiency. Nothing 

herein shall alter, expand or limit the applicability of any public 

law or regulation to lands administered by the Bureau of Land 

Management, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, or 

the Forest Service. To facilitate the sharing of resources under the 

Service First initiative, the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture may make transfers of funds and reimbursement of funds 

on an annual basis, including transfers and reimbursements for 

multi-year projects, except that this authority may not be used to 

circumvent requirements and limitations imposed on the use of 

funds. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 347 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999 

STEWARDSHIP END RESULT CONTRACTING PROJECTS

SEC. 347. (a) IN GENERAL.—Until øSeptember 30, 2013¿ September 30, 2023, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, via agreement or contract as appropriate, may enter into 

stewardship contracting projects with private persons or other public or private entities to perform services to achieve land manageVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:11 Jul 20, 2011 Jkt 067352 PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR151.XXX HR151

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
136 

ment goals for the national forests and the public lands that meet 

local and rural community needs. 

* * * * * * * 

FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE IV—PERMITS AND LICENSES 

* * * * * * * 

NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM

SEC. 402. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(l) LIMITATION ON PERMIT REQUIREMENT.— (1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) SILVICULTURAL ACTIVITIES.—The Administrator shall not 

require a permit under this section, nor shall the Administrator 

directly or indirectly require any State to require a permit, for 

discharges of stormwater runoff from roads, the construction, 

use, or maintenance of which are associated with silvicultural 

activities, or from other silvicultural activities involving nursery 

operations, site preparation, reforestation and subsequent cultural treatment, thinning, prescribed burning, pest and fire control, harvesting operations, or surface drainage. 

* * * * * * * 

(s) DISCHARGES OF PESTICIDES.— (1) NO PERMIT REQUIREMENT.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), a permit shall not be required by the Administrator 

or a State under this Act for a discharge from a point source 

into navigable waters of a pesticide authorized for sale, distribution, or use under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act, or the residue of such a pesticide, resulting 

from the application of such pesticide. 

(2) EXCEPTIONS.—Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the following discharges of a pesticide or pesticide residue: 

(A) A discharge resulting from the application of a pesticide in violation of a provision of the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act that is relevant to protecting water quality, if— 

(i) the discharge would not have occurred but for the 

violation; or 

(ii) the amount of pesticide or pesticide residue in the 

discharge is greater than would have occurred without 

the violation. 

(B) Stormwater discharges subject to regulation under 

subsection (p). 

(C) The following discharges subject to regulation under 

this section: 

(i) Manufacturing or industrial effluent. 

(ii) Treatment works effluent. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
137 

(iii) Discharges incidental to the normal operation of 

a vessel, including a discharge resulting from 

ballasting operations or vessel biofouling prevention. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 10101 OF THE OMNIBUS BUDGET 

RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1993 

SEC. 10101. FEE. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) For each placer claim held by an association of 2 or more persons, the claim maintenance fee shall be charged— 

(1) for each 20-acre tract that is subject to the claim; and 

(2) for any remaining tract (after application of paragraph 

(1)) that is subject to the claim. 

ø(c)¿ (d) OIL SHALE CLAIMS SUBJECT TO CLAIM MAINTENANCE

FEES UNDER ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 1992.—This section shall not 

apply to any oil shale claims for which a fee is required to be paid 

under section 2511(e)(2) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Public 

Law 102–486; 106 Stat. 3111; 30 U.S.C. 242). 

ø(d)¿ (e) WAIVER.—(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

CLEAN AIR ACT 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE III—GENERAL 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 328. AIR POLLUTION FROM OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF ACTIVITIES. 

(a)(1) APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN AREAS.—Not 

later than 12 months after the enactment of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990, following consultation with the Secretary of 

the Interior and the Commandant of the United States Coast 

Guard, the Administrator, by rule, shall establish requirements to 

control air pollution from Outer Continental Shelf sources located 

offshore of the States along the Pacific, Arctic and Atlantic Coasts, 

and along the United States Gulf Coast off the State of Florida 

eastward of longitude 87 degrees and 30 minutes (‘‘OCS sources’’) 

to attain and maintain Federal and State ambient air quality 

standards and to comply with the provisions of part C of title I. For 

such sources located within 25 miles of the seaward boundary of 

such States, such requirements shall be the same as would be applicable if the source were located in the corresponding onshore 

area, and shall include, but not be limited to, State and local requirements for emission controls, emission limitations, offsets, permitting, monitoring, testing, and reporting, except that any air 

quality impact of any OCS source shall be measured or modeled, as 

appropriate, and determined solely with respect to the impacts in 

the corresponding onshore area. New OCS sources shall comply 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
138 

with such requirements on the date of promulgation and existing 

OCS sources shall comply on the date 24 months thereafter. The 

Administrator shall update such requirements as necessary to 

maintain consistency with onshore regulations. The authority of 

this subsection shall supersede section 5(a)(8) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act but shall not repeal or modify any other 

Federal, State, or local authorities with respect to air quality. Each 

requirement established under this section shall be treated, for 

purposes of sections 113, 114, 116, 120, and 304, as a standard 

under section 111 and a violation of any such requirement shall be 

considered a violation of section 111(e). 

* * * * * * * 

(4) DEFINITIONS.—øFor purposes of subsections (a) and (b)¿ For 

purposes of this subsection and subsections (b) and (d)— (A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(C) OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF SOURCE.—The terms ‘‘Outer 

Continental Shelf source’’ and ‘‘OCS source’’ include any equipment, activity, or facility which— 

(i) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

Such activities include, but are not limited to, platform and 

drill ship exploration, construction, development, production, 

processing, and transportation. For purposes of this subsection, 

emissions from any vessel servicing or associated with an OCS 

source, including emissions while at the OCS source or en 

route to or from the OCS source within 25 miles of the OCS 

source, øshall be considered direct emissions from the OCS 

source¿ shall be considered direct emissions from the OCS 

source but shall not be subject to any emission control requirement applicable to the source under subpart 1 of part C of title 

I of this Act. For platform or drill ship exploration, an OCS 

source is established at the point in time when drilling commences at a location and ceases to exist when drilling activity 

ends at such location or is temporarily interrupted because the 

platform or drill ship relocates for weather or other reasons. 

* * * * * * * 

(d) PERMIT APPLICATION.—In the case of a completed application 

for a permit under this Act for platform or drill ship exploration for 

an OCS source— 

(1) final agency action (including any reconsideration of the 

issuance or denial of such permit) shall be taken not later than 

6 months after the date of filing such completed application; 

(2) the Environmental Appeals Board of the Environmental 

Protection Agency shall have no authority to consider any matter regarding the consideration, issuance, or denial of such permit; 

(3) no administrative stay of the effectiveness of such permit 

may extend beyond the date that is 6 months after the date of 

filing such completed application; 

(4) such final agency action shall be considered to be nationally applicable under section 307(b); and 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
139 

(5) judicial review of such final agency action shall be available only in accordance with section 307(b) without additional 

administrative review or adjudication. 

* * * * * * * 

FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE 

ACT 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 3. REGISTRATION OF PESTICIDES. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(f) MISCELLANEOUS.— (1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(5) USE OF AUTHORIZED PESTICIDES.—Except as provided in 

section 402(s) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the 

Administrator or a State may not require a permit under such 

Act for a discharge from a point source into navigable waters 

of a pesticide authorized for sale, distribution, or use under this 

Act, or the residue of such a pesticide, resulting from the application of such pesticide. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 206 OF THE FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND 

MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1976 

EXCHANGES

SEC. 206. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(j) In the case of any exchange involving public land or National 

Forest System land to be carried out (whether directly or through 

a third-party) under this Act or other applicable law, the Secretary 

concerned shall provide written notice of the proposed land exchange to each owner of non-Federal land adjoining the parcel of 

public land or National Forest System land proposed for exchange 

and each owner of non-Federal land adjoining the non-Federal land 

proposed to be acquired in the exchange. The Secretary shall determine adjoining landowners using the most-recent available tax 

records. For purposes of providing notification under this subsection, adjoining land means land sharing any length of border 

with the public land, National Forest System land, or non-Federal 

land subject to the proposed exchange, including contact solely at a 

boundary corner. 

CHANGES IN APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of 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 inVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:11 Jul 20, 2011 Jkt 067352 PO 00000 Frm 00139 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR151.XXX HR151

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
140 

stances these provisions have been included in prior appropriations 

Acts. 

The bill includes the following changes in application of existing 

law: 

OVERALL BILL

Providing that certain appropriations remain available until expended or extends the availability of funds beyond the fiscal year 

where programs or projects are continuing but for which legislation 

does not specifically authorize such extended availability. This authority tends to result in savings by preventing the practice of committing funds on low priority projects at the end of the fiscal year 

to avoid losing the funds. 

Limiting, in certain instances, the obligation of funds for particular functions or programs. These limitations include restrictions 

on the obligation of funds for administrative expenses, travel expenses, the use of consultants, and programmatic areas within the 

overall jurisdiction of a particular agency. 

Limiting official entertainment or reception and representation 

expenses for selected agencies in the bill. 

Continuing ongoing activities of those Federal agencies, which require annual authorization or additional legislation, which has not 

been enacted. 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

MANAGEMENT OF LANDS AND RESOURCES

Providing funds to the Bureau for the management of lands and 

resources. 

Providing funds to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

under certain conditions. 

Permitting the use of fees for processing applications for permit 

to drill. 

Permitting the use of fees for conducting oil and gas inspections. 

Permitting the use of mining fee collections for program operations. 

Permitting the use of fees from communication site rentals. 

CONSTRUCTION

Providing funds to the Bureau for construction. 

LAND ACQUISITION

Requiring that funding for the program is derived from the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund. 

OREGON AND CALIFORNIA GRANT LANDS

Providing funds for the Oregon and California Grant Lands. 

Authorizing the transfer of certain collections from the Oregon 

and California Land Grants Fund to the Treasury. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
141 

RANGE IMPROVEMENTS

Allowing certain funds to be transferred to the Department of the 

Interior for range improvements. 

SERVICE CHARGES, DEPOSITS, AND FORFEITURES

Allowing the use of certain collected funds for certain administrative costs and operation of termination of certain facilities. 

Allowing the use of funds on any damaged public lands. 

Authorizing the Secretary to use monies from forfeitures, compromises or settlements for improvement, protection and rehabilitation of public lands under certain conditions. 

MISCELLANEOUS TRUST FUNDS

Allowing certain contributed funds to be advanced for administrative costs and other activities of the Bureau. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Permitting the Bureau to enter into agreements with public and 

private entities, including States. 

Permitting the Bureau to manage improvements to which the 

United States has title. 

Permitting the payment of rewards for information on violations 

of law on Bureau lands. 

Providing for cost-sharing arrangements for printing services. 

Permitting the Bureau to conduct certain projects for State governments on a reimbursable basis. 

Prohibiting the use of funds for the destruction of wild horses 

and burros. 

UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Prohibiting funding for certain Endangered Species Act programs. 

Permitting payment for information or rewards in the law enforcement program. 

LAND ACQUISITION

Requiring that funding for the program is derived from the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund. 

COOPERATIVE ENDANGERED SPECIES CONSERVATION FUND

Requiring that funding for the program is derived from the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund. 

STATE AND TRIBAL WILDLIFE GRANTS

Specifying the State and tribal wildlife grants distribution formula, the planning and cost-sharing requirements, and limiting administrative costs. 

Providing that no State, Territory, or other jurisdiction shall receive a grant if its conservation plan is disapproved. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
142 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Providing that programs may be carried out by direct expenditure, contracts, grants, cooperative agreements and reimbursable 

agreements with public and private entities. 

Providing for repair of damage to public roads. 

Providing options for the purchase of land not to exceed $1. 

Permitting cost-shared arrangements for printing services. 

Permitting the acceptance of donated aircraft. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM

Designating funds for Everglades restoration. 

Providing for repair, rehabilitation and maintenance of National 

Park Service assets. 

NATIONAL RECREATION AND PRESERVATION

Providing for expenses not otherwise provided for. 

CONSTRUCTION

Providing funds for modified water deliveries to Everglades National Park with certain restrictions. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

Rescinding $30,000,000 in Land and Water Conservation Fund 

contract authority. 

LAND ACQUISITION AND STATE ASSISTANCE

Requiring that funding for the program is derived from the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Allowing certain franchise fees to be available for expenditure 

without further appropriation to extinguish or reduce liability for 

certain possessory interests. 

Providing for the retention of administrative costs under certain 

Land and Water Conservation Fund programs. 

Allows National Park Service funds to be transferred to the Federal Lands Highway Administration for purposes authorized under 

23 U.S.C. 204 for reasonable administrative support costs. 

UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

SURVEYS, INVESTIGATIONS, AND RESEARCH

Providing funds to perform surveys, investigations, and research 

covering topography, geology, hydrology, biology, and the mineral 

and water resources. 

Providing funds to classify lands as to their mineral and water 

resources. 

Funding engineering supervision to power permittees and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licensees. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
143 

Funding the administration of the minerals exploration program 

(30 U.S.C. 641) to conduct inquiries into the economic conditions affecting mining and materials processing industries. 

Providing certain funds only for cooperation with States and municipalities for water resources investigations. 

Prohibiting the conduct of new surveys on private property without permission. 

Requiring cost sharing for cooperative topographic mapping and 

water resource data collection activities. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Allowing funds to be used for certain security, contracting, technical services, construction, maintenance, acquisition, and representation expenses. 

Permitting the use of certain contracts, grants, and cooperative 

agreements. 

Recognizing students and recent graduates as Federal employees 

for the purposes of travel and work injury compensation. 

BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY, REGULATION AND ENFORCEMENT

BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY

Permitting funds for mineral leasing and environmental study; 

enforcing laws and contracts; and for matching grants. 

Permitting the use of certain excess receipts from Outer Continental Shelf leasing activities. 

Providing that hereafter the term ‘‘qualified Outer Continental 

Shelf revenues’’ as defined in section 102(9)(A) of Public Law 109– 

432 shall include only the portion of rental revenues that would 

have been collected at the rental rates in effect before August 5, 

1993. 

Providing for reasonable expenses related to volunteer beach and 

marine cleanup activities. 

Provides that funds may be used which shall be derived from 

non-refundable inspection fees collected in 2012. 

OIL SPILL RESEARCH

Providing that funds shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability 

Trust Fund. 

OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

REGULATION AND TECHNOLOGY

Permitting payment to State and tribal personnel for travel and 

per diem expenses for training. 

ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION FUND

Allowing the use of debt recovery to pay for debt collection. 

Allowing that certain funds made available under title IV of Public Law 95–87 may be used for any required non-Federal share of 

the cost of certain projects. 

Allowing funds to be used for travel expenses of State and tribal 

personnel while attending certain OSM training. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
144 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION

Permits the Secretary to transfer title for computer equipment to 

States and Tribes. 

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION

OPERATION OF INDIAN PROGRAMS

Allowing the use of certain funds for official reception and representation expenses. 

Limiting funds for welfare assistance payments, except for disaster relief. 

Limiting funds for contract support costs. 

Limiting the use of funds for school operations of Bureau-funded 

schools and other education programs. 

Providing that the Bureau shall fund the school operations costs 

of the Jones Academy under certain conditions. 

Permitting the use of tribal priority allocations for general assistance payments to individuals, for contract support costs, and school 

operations costs. 

Providing for an Indian self-determination fund. 

Limiting funds for administrative cost grants under certain circumstances. 

Allowing the transfer of certain forestry funds. 

Allows the use of funds to purchase uniforms or other identifying 

articles of clothing for personnel if it enhances the safety of Bureau 

field employees. 

CONSTRUCTION

Providing for the transfer of Navajo irrigation project funds to 

the Bureau of Reclamation. 

Providing that six percent of Federal Highway Trust Fund contract authority may be used for construction management costs. 

Providing Safety of Dams funds on a 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. 

Limiting the control of construction projects when certain time 

frames have not been met. 

Allowing reimbursement of construction costs from the Office of 

Special Trustee. 

INDIAN GUARANTEED LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Limiting funds for administrative expenses and for subsidizing 

total loan principal. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Allowing the use of funds for direct expenditure, contracts, cooperative agreements, compacts, and grants. 

Allowing contracting for the San Carlos Irrigation Project. 

Allowing the use of certain funds for expenses of exhibits. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
145 

Limiting the use of funds for certain contracts, grants and cooperative agreements. 

Allowing Tribes to return appropriated funds. 

Prohibiting funding of Alaska schools. 

Limiting the number of schools and the expansion of grade levels 

in individual schools. 

Specifying distribution of indirect and administrative costs for 

certain Tribes. 

DEPARTMENTAL OFFICES

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Allowing the use of certain funds for official reception and representation expenses. 

Permitting payments to former Bureau of Mines workers. 

Designating funds for consolidated appraisal services to be derived from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

Designating funds for mineral revenue management activities. 

Allowing certain payments authorized for the Payments in Lieu 

of Taxes Program to be retained for administrative expenses. 

Provides that no Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program payment be 

made to otherwise eligible units of local government if the computed amount of the payment is less than $100. 

Allowing certain refunds of overpayments in connection with certain Indian leases. 

Providing two percent deduction of State royalties to help cover 

Federal administrative costs. 

INSULAR AFFAIRS, ASSISTANCE TO TERRITORIES

Designating funds for various programs and for salaries and expenses of the Office of Insular Affairs and providing until expended 

for the former. 

Allowing audits of the financial transactions of the Territorial 

and Insular governments by the GAO. 

Providing grant funding under certain terms of the Agreement of 

the Special Representatives on Future United States Financial Assistance for the Northern Mariana Islands. 

Allowing grants for the Pacific Basin Development Council. 

Allowing a grant to the Close Up Foundation. 

Providing for capital infrastructure in various Territories. 

Allowing appropriations for disaster assistance to be used as nonFederal matching funds for hazard mitigation grants. 

COMPACT OF FREE ASSOCIATION

Providing grants to Palau, the Marshall Islands, and Micronesia. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS, INSULAR AFFAIRS

Allowing, at the request of the Governor of Guam, for certain discretionary and mandatory funds to be used to assist securing certain rural electrification loans through the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
146 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL TRUSTEE FOR AMERICAN INDIANS

FEDERAL TRUST PROGRAMS

Limiting the amount of funding available for the historical accounting of Indian trust fund accounts. 

Allowing transfers to other Department of the Interior accounts. 

Providing no-year funding for certain Indian Self Determination 

Act grants. 

Specifying that the statute of limitations shall not commence on 

any claim resulting from trust funds losses. 

Exempting quarterly statements for Indian trust accounts $15 or 

less. 

Requiring annual statements and records maintenance for Indian 

trust accounts. 

Limiting use of funds to correct administrative errors in Indian 

trust accounts. 

Permitting the use of recoveries from erroneous payments pursuant to Indian trust accounts. 

DEPARTMENT-WIDE PROGRAMS

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

Providing funds for wildland fire management. 

Limiting funds for renovation or construction of fire facilities. 

Permitting the repayments of funds transferred from other accounts for firefighting. 

Permitting the use of funds for lodging and subsistence of firefighters. 

Permitting the use of grants, contracts and cooperative agreements for hazardous fuels reduction, including cost-sharing and 

local assistance. 

Permitting cost-sharing of cooperative agreements with non-Federal entities under certain circumstances. 

Permitting reimbursement to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and the National Marine Fisheries Service for consultation activities under the Endangered Species Act. 

Providing certain terms for leases of real property with local governments. 

Providing funds for support of Federal emergency response actions. 

Requiring the use of emergency supplemental unobligated balances before obligating other funds. 

Providing for the transfer of funds between the Department of 

the Interior and the Department of Agriculture for wildland fire 

management. 

FLAME WILDFIRE SUPPRESSION RESERVE FUND

Providing funds for the FLAME fund. 

CENTRAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS FUND

Providing funds for response action, including associated activities, performed pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
147 

NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT FUND

Providing funds for activities to carry out the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, and 

Public Law 101–337. 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Allowing funds for the financial and business management system and information technology improvement. 

Prohibiting use of funds to establish reserves in the working capital fund with exceptions. 

Allowing assessments for reasonable charges for training services 

at the National Indian Program Center and use of these funds 

hereafter under certain conditions. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Allowing acquisition of aircraft. 

Allowing the sale of existing aircraft with proceeds used to offset 

the purchase price of replacement aircraft. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Allowing transfer of funds for certain reconstruction of facilities, 

aircraft or utilities in emergency situations. 

Allowing transfer of funds in certain emergency situations, including wildfires and oil spill response, if other funds provided in 

other accounts will be exhausted within 30 days and a supplemental appropriation is requested as promptly as possible. 

Permitting the Department to use limited funding for certain 

services. 

Permitting the transfer of funds between the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs and the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians and 

limiting amounts for historical accounting activities. 

Permitting the redistribution of certain Indian funds with limitations. 

Permitting the conveyance of the Twin Cities Research Center. 

Allowing payment of attorney fees for Federal employees related 

to the Cobell v. Salazar litigation. 

Providing authority to the National Park Service to implement 

modifications to the restoration of the Everglades ecosystem. 

Authorizing the acquisition of lands and leases for Ellis, Governors and Liberty Islands. 

Extending the authority to hire Indian Probate judges. 

Permitting the reorganization of the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Enforcement and Regulation. 

Permitting the Secretary of the Interior to enter into long-term 

agreements for wild horse and burro holding facilities. 

Permitting Bureau of Indian Affairs operated schools to rent or 

lease certain space and retain receipts. 

Requiring the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to mark hatchery 

salmon. 

Addressing a matter of jurisdiction between the National Park 

Service and the Coast Guard on the Yukon River within the 

Yukon-Charley National Preserve. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
148 

Providing the Secretary of the Interior authority to hire college 

and graduate students who have completed internship programs 

with a land management agency. 

Requiring the exhaustion of administrative review before litigants may file in Federal court. 

Providing that certain rules published by the Secretary shall not 

be subject to judicial review if certain conditions are met. 

Providing exemption for trailing livestock in fiscal years 2012, 

2013, and 2014. 

Requiring the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation 

and Enforcement to report to the Committee quarterly on permitting. 

Allowing the Department of the Interior to lease certain land 

within Fort Pulaski National Monument. 

Reinstating a demonstration program to allow certain tribes to 

maintain some autonomy from the Department of the Interior in 

the management of their trust funds and finances. 

Prohibiting the use of funds to implement, administer or enforce 

Secretarial Order 3310. 

TITLE II—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Providing for operating expenses in support of research and development. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS AND MANAGEMENT

Allowing hire and maintenance of passenger motor vehicles and 

operation of aircraft and purchase of reprints and library memberships in societies or associations which issue publications to members only or at a price to members lower than to subscribers who 

are not members. 

Limiting amounts for official representation and reception expenses. 

Providing two-year funding availability for administrative costs 

of Brownfields program. 

Designating funding for specific Geographic Programs as specified in the explanatory statement to this Act. 

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND

Allowing distribution of funds to purchase services from other 

agencies under certain circumstances. 

Providing for the transfer of funds within certain agency accounts. 

LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PROGRAM

Providing for grants to Federally-recognized Indian Tribes. 

STATE AND TRIBAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Limiting funding amounts for certain programs. 

Specifies funding for capitalization grants for the Clean Water 

and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds and allows certain 

amounts for additional subsidies. 

Designating funds for specific sections of law. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
149 

Providing certain grants under authority of section 103, Clean 

Air Act. 

Providing funding for environmental information exchange network initiatives grants, statistical surveys of water resources and 

enhancements to State monitoring programs, tribal grants, and underground storage tank projects. 

Providing waivers for certain uses of Clean Water and Drinking 

Water State Revolving Funds for State administrative costs for 

grants to Federally-recognized Indian Tribes and grants to specific 

Territories and Freely Associated States. 

Requiring that not less than 30 percent of Clean Water and 

Drinking Water funds shall be used by States for forgiveness of 

principal or negative interest loans. 

Prohibiting the use of funds for jurisdictions that permit development or construction of additional colonia areas. 

Providing that hereafter the Administrator may transfer funds 

between Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water State Revolving 

Funds for Tribes in a manner similar as provided to States. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Allowing awards of grants to Federally-recognized Indian Tribes. 

Authorizing the collection and obligation of pesticide registration 

service fees. 

Allows transfer of funds from the ‘‘Environmental Programs and 

Management’’ account to support the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and provides for certain interagency agreements and grants 

to various entities in support of this effort. 

Requiring that section 513 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act shall apply to certain construction projects. 

Requiring that section 1450(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act 

shall apply to certain construction projects. 

TITLE III—RELATED AGENCIES 

FOREST SERVICE

FOREST AND RANGELAND RESEARCH

Providing funds for forest and rangeland research. 

Designating funds for the forest inventory and analysis program 

and the forest products lab. 

STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY

Providing for forest health management, including treatments of 

certain pests or invasive plants, and for restoring damaged forests, 

and for cooperative forestry, education and land conservation activities, and conducting an international program. 

Deriving forest legacy funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM

Providing funds for the National Forest System. 

Designating funds for forest products. 

Depositing funds in the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Fund. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
150 

Designating funds in the Integrated Resource Restoration pilot 

program. 

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE

Providing funds for construction, reconstruction, and maintenance and acquisition of buildings and other facilities and infrastructure; and for construction, capital improvement, decommissioning, and maintenance of forest roads and trails. 

Designating funds for the Legacy Road and Trail Remediation 

program. 

Requiring that funds becoming available in fiscal year 2012 for 

the road and trails fund (16 U.S.C. 501) shall be transferred to the 

Treasury. 

Transferring funds to the Integrated Resource Restoration pilot 

program. 

LAND ACQUISITION

Deriving funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

RANGE BETTERMENT FUND

Providing that six percent of range betterment funds may be 

used for administrative expenses. 

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

Permitting the use of funds for emergency rehabilitation and restoration and hazardous fuels reduction to support emergency response and wildfire suppression. 

Providing for the use of funds on adjacent, non-Federal lands for 

hazard reduction. 

Allowing the use of wildland fire funds to repay advances from 

other accounts. 

Allowing reimbursement of States for certain wildfire emergency 

activities. 

Designating funds for State fire assistance, volunteer fire assistance and forest health on Federal and State and private lands. 

Providing for cost-shared cooperative agreements. 

Providing for the transfer of wildland fire funds between the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture. 

Providing for the use of hazardous fuels reduction funds to create 

incentives for increased use of biomass on National Forest lands 

and for the Forest Biomass for Energy Program. 

Depositing funds into the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Fund. 

Requiring the use of emergency supplemental unobligated balances before obligating other funds. 

FLAME WILDFIRE SUPPRESSION RESERVE FUND

Providing fund for the FLAME fund. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Permitting the purchase of passenger motor vehicles and proceeds from the sale of aircraft may be used to purchase replacement aircraft. 

Allowing funds for certain employment contracts. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
151 

Allowing funds to be used for purchase and alteration of buildings. 

Allowing for acquisition of certain lands and interests. 

Allowing expenses for certain volunteer activities. 

Providing for the cost of uniforms. 

Providing for debt collections on certain contracts. 

Allowing transfer of funds in certain emergency situations if all 

other funds provided for wildfire suppression will be exhausted 

within 30 days and the Secretary notifies the Committees 5 days 

in advance. 

Allowing funds to be used through the Agency for International 

Development for work in foreign countries and to support other forestry activities outside of the United States. 

Allowing the Forest Service, acting for the International Program, to sign certain funding agreements with foreign governments 

and institutions as well as with certain domestic agencies. 

Limiting funds to support the Youth Conservation Corps and 

Public Lands Corps. 

Limiting the use of funds for official reception and representation 

expenses. 

Providing for matching funds for the National Forest Foundation 

and matching funds for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. 

Allowing funds to be used for technical assistance for certain 

rural communities. 

Permitting funding assessments for facilities maintenance, rent, 

utilities, and other support services. 

Prohibiting the transfer of funds under the Department of Agriculture transfer authority under certain conditions and preventing 

reprogramming without advance approval of the Appropriations 

Committees. 

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICES

Providing that tribal contract and grant funding is deemed obligated at the time of grant or contract award and remains available 

until expended. 

Providing no-year funds for contract medical care including the 

Indian Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund. 

Providing for loan repayment under sections 104 and 108 of the 

Indian Health Care Improvement Act with certain conditions and 

making the funds available for certain other purposes. 

Providing funding and allocation direction for the methamphetamine, domestic violence, and substance abuse programs. 

Providing that certain contracts and grants may be performed in 

two fiscal years. 

Providing for use of collections and reporting of collections under 

Title IV of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. 

Providing no-year funding for scholarship funds. 

Exempting certain tribal funding from fiscal year constraints. 

Limiting contract support cost spending. 

Providing for the collection of individually identifiable health information relating to the Americans with Disabilities Act by the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
152 

Permitting the use of Indian Health Care Improvement Fund 

monies for facilities improvement and providing no-year funding 

availability. 

INDIAN HEALTH FACILITIES

Providing that facilities funds may be used to purchase land, 

modular buildings and trailers. 

Providing for TRANSAM equipment to be purchased from the 

Department of Defense. 

Prohibiting the use of funds for sanitation facilities for new 

homes funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

Allowing for the purchase of ambulances. 

Providing for a demolition fund. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Providing for per diem expenses for senior level positions. 

Providing for payments for telephone service in private residences in the field, purchase of motor vehicles, aircraft and reprints. 

Providing for purchase and erection of modular buildings. 

Providing funds for uniforms. 

Allowing funding to be used for attendance at professional meetings. 

Providing that health care may be extended to non-Indians at Indian Health Service facilities, subject to charges, and for the expenditure of collected funds. 

Providing for transfers of funds from the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development to the Indian Health Service. 

Prohibiting limitations on certain Federal travel and transportation expenses. 

Limiting the use of funds for assessments or charges by the Department of Health and Human Services except under certain conditions. 

Allowing de-obligation and re-obligation of funds applied to selfgovernance funding agreements. 

Prohibiting the expenditure of funds to implement new eligibility 

regulations. 

Permitting certain reimbursements for goods and services provided to Tribes. 

Providing that reimbursements for training, technical assistance, 

or services include total costs. 

Prohibiting changing the appropriations structure without approval of the Appropriations Committees. 

AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY

TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC HEALTH

Providing for the conduct of health studies, testing, and monitoring. 

Designating funds for Individual Learning Accounts and providing no-year funding. 

Providing deadlines for health assessments and studies. 

Limiting use of funds for administrative costs. 

Limiting the number of toxicological profiles. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
153 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND OFFICE OF

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Limiting the use of funds for official reception and representation 

expenses. 

Designating the appointment and duties of the chairman. 

CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD

Permitting use of funds for hire of passenger vehicles, uniforms 

or allowances, and limiting the use of funds for per diem expenses 

and the number of senior level positions. 

Providing for the appointment of the EPA, Inspector General to 

serve as Inspector General for the Board. 

OFFICE OF NAVAJO AND HOPI INDIAN RELOCATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Defining eligible relocatees. 

Prohibiting movement of any single Navajo or Navajo family unless a new or replacement home is available. 

Limiting re-locatees to one new or replacement home. 

Establishing a priority for relocation of Navajos to those certified 

eligible who have selected and received homesites on the Navajo 

reservation or selected a replacement residence off the Navajo reservation. 

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Limiting certain lease terms. 

Providing for purchase of passenger vehicles and certain rental, 

repair and cleaning of uniforms. 

Designating funds for certain programs including the National 

Museum of African American History and Culture and providing 

no-year funds. 

Providing that funds may be used to support American overseas 

research centers. 

Allowing for advance payments to independent contractors performing research services or participating in official Smithsonian 

presentations. 

FACILITIES CAPITAL

Designating funds for maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and 

construction and for consultant services. 

Providing that any future procurement for construction of the 

National Museum of African American History and Culture may 

cover the full scope of the project. 

Providing that any solicitation and contract for such procurement 

must contain a clause clarifying that any payment under the contract will be subject to the availability of funds. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
154 

NATIONAL GALLERY OF ART

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Allowing payment in advance for membership in library, museum, and art associations or societies. 

Allowing for purchase, repair, and cleaning of uniforms for 

guards and employees and allowances therefor. 

Allowing purchase or rental of devices for protecting buildings 

and contents thereof, and maintenance, alteration, improvement, 

and repair of buildings, approaches, and grounds. 

Providing for restoration and repair of works of art by contract 

under certain circumstances. 

Providing no-year funds for special exhibitions. 

REPAIR, RESTORATION, AND RENOVATION OF BUILDINGS

Providing lease agreements of no more than 10 years addressing 

space needs created by renovations under the Master Facilities 

Plan. 

Permitting the Gallery to perform work by contract under certain 

circumstances. 

JOHN F. KENNEDY CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

Providing funds to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts Kennedy Center for operational and maintenance 

costs. 

CAPITAL REPAIR AND RESTORATION

Providing funds to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts Kennedy Center for facility repair. 

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS

GRANTS AND ADMINISTRATION

Provides funds for the support of projects and productions in the 

arts, including arts education and public outreach activities. 

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES

GRANTS AND ADMINISTRATION

Specifies funds to carry out the matching grants program. 

Allowing obligation of National Endowment for the Humanities 

current and prior year funds from gifts, bequests, and devises of 

money for which equal amounts have not previously been appropriated. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS, NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS

AND THE HUMANITIES

Prohibiting the use of funds for grants and contracts which do 

not include the text of 18 U.S.C. 1913. 

Prohibiting the use of appropriated funds and permitting the use 

of non-appropriated funds for reception expenses. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
155 

Allowing the chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts 

to approve small grants under certain circumstances. 

COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Permitting the charging and use of fees for its publications and 

accepting gifts related to the history of the Nation’s Capital. 

UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM

Designating funds for equipment replacement and for repair, rehabilitation and for exhibition design and production and providing 

no year availability for these funds. 

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER MEMORIAL COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Provides funds for salaries and expenses associated with construction of a memorial dedicated to Dwight D. Eisenhower. 

CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION

Provides funds for construction of a memorial dedicated to 

Dwight D. Eisenhower. 

TITLE IV—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Providing for public availability of information on consulting 

services contracts. 

Prohibiting the use of funds to promote or oppose legislative proposals on which Congressional action is incomplete. 

Providing for annual appropriations unless expressly provided 

otherwise in this Act. 

Prohibiting the use of funds to provide personal cooks, chauffeurs 

or other personal servants to any office or employee. 

Limiting assessments against programs funded in this bill. 

Limiting funds for sale of giant sequoia trees in a manner different from the past. 

Continuing a limitation on accepting and processing applications 

for patents and on the patenting of Federal lands; permitting processing of grandfathered applications; and permitting third-party 

contractors to process grandfathered applications. 

Limiting the use of funds for contract support costs on Indian 

contracts. 

Limiting funds for completing or issuing the five-year program 

under the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning 

Act. 

Limiting leasing and preleasing activities within National Monuments. 

Providing the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture the authority through fiscal year 2013 to enter into reciprocal agreements with foreign firefighting organizations concerning 

the tort liability of firefighters. 

Permitting consideration, when awarding contracts to local contractors who provide employment and training for dislocated and 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
156 

displaced workers in economically disadvantaged rural communities, through fiscal year 2013. 

Limiting takings for acquisition of lands except under certain 

conditions. 

Modifying a provision addressing timber sales involving Alaskan 

Red Cedar. 

Modifying a provision continuing certain authorities to renew 

grazing permits or leases administered by the Forest Service or Department of the Interior through 2016. 

Providing that none of the funds made available by this Act may 

be distributed to the Association of Community Organizations for 

Reform Now (ACORN). 

Prohibiting funds to enter into certain no-bid contracts except 

under certain conditions. 

Requiring reports to Congress to be posted on public agency 

websites. 

Continuing a provision that delineates grant guideline for the 

National Endowment for the Arts. 

Continuing a provision that delineates the program priorities for 

the programs managed by the National Endowment for the Arts. 

Amending existing law to allow for the use of certain competitive 

grants funds. 

Extending the Forest Service Realignment and Enhancement Act 

of 2005 authority through 2016. 

Modifying a provision allowing Department of the Interior bureaus and the Forest Service to conduct joint programs. 

Allowing the State of Utah, through contracts or cooperative 

agreements with the Forest Service, to perform certain activities. 

Requiring that the Department of the Interior, the EPA, the Forest Service, and the Indian Health Service provide the Committees 

on Appropriations a quarterly report on the status of balances of 

appropriations. 

Requiring a government-wide report regarding expenditures on 

climate change. 

Extending a provision allowing the Forest Service and Bureau of 

Land Management to enter into stewardship contracts. 

Continuing a provision prohibiting the use of funds to promulgate or implement any regulation requiring the issuance of permits 

under title V of the Clean Air Act for carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, 

water vapor, or methane emissions. 

Continuing a provision prohibiting the use of funds to implement 

any provision in a rule if that provision requires mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from manure management systems. 

Allowing Indian Tribes and tribal organizations to consolidate 

funds supplied by any Federal department or agency to carry out 

the Indian Employment, Training and Related Services Demonstration Act. 

Providing a one year stay for actions related to greenhouse gas 

emissions from stationary sources. 

Prohibiting the use of funds to develop, carry out, implement, or 

enforce proposed regulations published on June 18, 2010. 

Prohibiting the use of funds to carry out, implement, administer 

or enforce proposed enhanced coordination procedures issued on 

June 11, 2009 or guidance dated April 1, 2010. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
157 

Prohibiting the use of funds to develop, propose, finalize, implement, administer or enforce any regulation that identifies fossil 

fuel combustion waste as hazardous waste. 

Prohibiting the use of funds to develop, adopt, implement, administer, or enforce a change or supplement to a rule or guidance 

documents pertaining to the definition of waters under the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act. 

Prohibiting the use of funds to further develop, finalize, implement or enforce the proposed regulatory requirements published on 

April 20, 2011, or to develop or enforce any other new regulations 

or requirements designed to implement section 316(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. 

Providing the Forest Service the authority to use a pre-decisional 

objection process in place of post-decisional appeals. 

Clarifying Silvicultural Operations under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. 

Prohibiting the use of funds to expand the stormwater discharge 

program under section 402(p) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act until certain criteria are met. 

Modifying claim maintenance structure for placer claims held by 

two or more persons, known as association placer claims. 

Recognizing the authority of States to implement flexible air permitting programs. 

Maintaining current management of bighorn sheep as it relates 

to domestic sheep management for both the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. 

Clarifying current permitting activities for the outer continental 

shelf and setting parameters for the approval of exploration permits by the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Providing direction to the Environmental Protection Agency and 

the National Academy of Sciences on review of the IRIS process. 

Prohibiting the withdrawal of certain lands in the State of Arizona from the Mining Law of 1872 without the expressed consent 

of the Congress. 

Prohibiting implementation of travel management rules in Region Five of the Forest Service. 

Prohibiting EPA from taking action against registered pesticides 

in a response to a final biological opinion under the Endangered 

Species Act. 

Prohibiting EPA from using funds to implement, administer or 

enforce the 2010 Portland Cement rule. 

Prohibiting the government from entering into contracts or 

agreements with any corporation that was convicted of a felony 

criminal violation under any Federal law within the preceding 24 

months. 

Prohibiting EPA from using funds to implement, administer or 

enforce the lead renovation rule until EPA has approved a commercially-available lead test kit. 

Prohibiting funds for contracts or agreements with entities with 

unpaid Federal tax liabilities that have not entered into payment 

agreements to remedy the liability. 

Prohibiting EPA from using funds to implement, administer or 

enforce the 2010 water quality rule for the State of Florida. 

Prohibiting EPA from using funds to prepare, propose, promulgate, finalize, implement, or enforce regulations for greenhouse gas 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
158 

emissions from new motor vehicles or motor engines after model 

year 2016, and to grant a waiver to a State or political subdivision 

thereof to adopt or enforce standards for greenhouse gas emissions 

from new motor vehicles or motor engines after model year 2016. 

Prohibiting EPA from using funds to modify the primary or secondary air standard for coarse particulate matter under the Clean 

Air Act. 

Prohibiting EPA from using funds to develop, propose, finalize, 

implement, enforce or administer any regulation that would establish new financial responsibility requirements under CERCLA. 

Prohibiting EPA from using funds to delineate new wetlands 

under the Clean Water Act in any county included in a major disaster declaration as a result of flooding in 2011. 

Requiring the Indian Health Service to disburse funds to Alaska 

Native regional health entities instead of individual villages when 

such villages reside within areas served by regional health entities. 

Requiring written notification to land owners adjacent to public 

and Federal land to be exchanged by the Bureau of Land Management or the Forest Service. 

Prohibiting EPA from providing funds to any Great Lakes state 

that, as determined by the Commandant of the Coast Guard, has 

a more stringent performance standard or ballast water exchange 

standard than either a revised Coast Guard standard or the standard adopted by the International Maritime Organization. 

Prohibiting EPA from using funds to finalize proposed guidance 

on false or misleading pesticide labels. Prohibiting EPA from using 

funds to regulate ammonia or ammonium under the secondary air 

quality standard for nitrogen and sulfur oxides pursuant to the 

Clean Air Act. 

Directing EPA to study the cumulative impacts of certain rules, 

guidelines and actions within 12 months, and prohibiting EPA from 

taking final actions with respect to two rules. 

TITLE V—REDUCING REGULATORY BURDENS ACT OF 2011 

Provides clarity regarding the process for permitting the use of 

pesticides near and around water bodies. 

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations in 

the accompanying bill which are not authorized by law: 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Last year of 

authorization Authorization level Appropriations in last year of authorization 

Appropriations in this 

bill 

Bureau of Land Management: 

All discretionary programs ........................ 2002 Such sums ........ 1,681,437 ............ 1,025,422 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: 

Resource Management: 

Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1988.1992 41,500 .............. 42,373 ................. 141,561 

Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance 

Species Prevention and Control.

2002 6,000 ................ 6,000 ................... 8,244 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

Amendments of 1994.

1999 14,768 .............. 2,008 ................... 5,810 

Klamath River Basin Fishery Resources Restoration Act.

2006 21,000 .............. 3,350 ................... 718 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
159 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Last year of 

authorization Authorization level Appropriations in last year of authorization 

Appropriations in this 

bill 

Great Ape Conservation ................... 2010 5,000 ................ 2,500 ................... 1,969 

Marine Turtle Conservation Act ....... 2009 5,000 ................ 2,000 ................... 983 

Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act; the 

Safe, Accountable. Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act.

2011 % based on 

prior-year exercise taxes 

collected.

73,482 ................. 75,388 

Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 

1982; amended by Improvement 

Act of 2000 & Reauthorization 

Act of 2005.

2010 2,000 ................ 2,000 ................... 390 

Junior Duck Stamp Conservation 

and Design Program Act.

2010 350 ................... 250 ...................... 250 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act; amended 

by Reauthorization Act of 2006.

2010 25,000 .............. 7,537 ................... 7,537 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Act ... 2011 75,000 .............. 60,134 ................. 39,400 

National Park Service: 

Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Water 

Trails.

2011 3,000 ................ 1,000 ................... 525 

U.S. Geological Survey: 

Earthquake Hazards Program ................... 2010 88,900 .............. 88,900 ................. 55,979 

Bureau of Indian Affairs: 

The No Child Left Behind Act ................... 2007 Such sums ........ 549,293 ............... 670,853 

Indian Tribal Justice .................................. 2007 Such sums ........ 12,013 ................. 23,445 

Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act.1997 30,000 .............. 26,116 ................. 33,879 

Transportation Equity Act .......................... 2009 27,000 .............. 26,046 ................. 25,431 

Environmental Protection Agency: 

Hazardous Substance Superfund .............. 1994 5,100,000 ......... 1,480,853 ............ 1,224,295 

Clean Air Act ............................................. 1997 Such sums ........ 450,000 ............... 618,821 

Clean Water Act ........................................ 1990 135,000 ............ .............................. 312,073 

National Estuary Program ......................... 2010 35,000 .............. 33,000 ................. 26,748 

Great Lakes ............................................... 2008 79,000 .............. 60,000 ................. 250,000 

Lake Champlain Basin .............................. 2008 11,000 .............. 3,000 ................... 1,399 

Long Island Sound Restoration ................. 2010 40,000 .............. 7,000 ................... 2,962 

Lake Pontchartrain .................................... 2011 20,000 .............. 1,000 ................... 955 

Non-Point Source Management Program .. 1991 130,000 ............ 51,000 ................. 150,505 

Chesapeake Bay Restoration ..................... 2005 40,000 .............. 23,000 ................. 50,000 

FIFRA .......................................................... 1991 95,000 .............. 112,000 ............... 110,523 

Toxic Substances Control Act ................... 1983 62,000 .............. 69,000 ................. 100,123 

State Programs ................................. 1983 2,000 ................ 0 .......................... 15,000 

Resource Conservation Act—General Authorization.1988 80,000 .............. 75,000 ................. 112,643 

Environmental Education .......................... 1996 9,000 ................ 9,000 ................... 0 

State and Tribal Assistance Grants.

Alaska Native Villages ..................... 1979 2,000 ................ Not available ....... 0 

BEACH Act ........................................ 2005 30,000 .............. 9,920 ................... 9,880 

Brownfields Projects ......................... 2006 200,000 ............ 89,000 ................. 49,495 

Clean Water SRF .............................. 1992 1,800,000 ......... 2,400,000 ............ 689,000 

CERCLA/Brownfields Cat Grant ........ 2006 50,000 .............. 49,000 ................. 50,000 

Drinking Water SRF .......................... 2003 1,000,000 ......... 963,000 ............... 829,000 

Grants for State Public Water ......... 2003 100,000 ............ 93,000 ................. 105,489 

Lead Containment Control Act of 

1988.

1992 Such sums ........ Not available ....... 14,535 

Pollution Prevention Act ................... 1993 8,000 ................ 6,800 ................... 4,930 

Radon Abatement Act ...................... 1991 10,000 .............. 9,000 ................... 8,058 

State Hazardous Waste Program 

Grants.

1988 60,000 .............. 67,000 ................. 103,139 

Toxic Substances Control Act .......... 1983 1,500 ................ 5,100 ................... 5,089 

Underground Injection Control 

Grants.

2003 15,000 .............. 11,000 ................. 10,869 

USDA Forest Service, National Forest Foundation.1997 Such sums ........ 2,000 ................... 3,000 

National Endowment for the Arts ...................... 1993 Such sums ........ 174,460 ............... 135,000 

National Endowment for the Humanities .......... 1993 Such sums ........ 177,403 ............... 135,000 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
160 

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] 

Budget authority Outlays 

Committee 

allocation 

Amount of 

bill 

Committee 

allocation 

Amount of 

bill 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations to its subcommittees of amounts in the First Concurrent Resolution for 2012: 

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies 

General purpose discretionary .............................................................. 27,473 27,465 30,766 1 30,439 

Mandatory ............................................................................................. 456 442 456 456 

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

Five-Year Outlay Projections 

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: 

BUDGET AUTHORITY (DISCRETIONARY) 

[In millions of dollars] 

Budget authority Outlays 

Committee 

allocation 

Amount of 

bill 

Committee 

allocation 

Amount of 

bill 

Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2012 ...................................................................................................... ................ ................ ................ 2 18,958 

2013 ...................................................................................................... ................ ................ ................ 5,551 

2014 ...................................................................................................... ................ ................ ................ 2,178 

2015 ...................................................................................................... ................ ................ ................ 871 

2016 and future years .......................................................................... ................ ................ ................ 115 

2 Excludes outlays from prior-year authority. 

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 of dollars] 

Budget authority Outlays 

Committee 

allocation 

Amount of 

bill 

Committee 

allocation 

Amount of 

bill 

Financial assistance to State and local governments for 2012 .................. NA 5,288 NA 2,588 

NA: Not applicable. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
161 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

Pursuant to section 6(e) of the rules of the Committee on Appropriations, the following statement is submitted regarding the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the 

accompanying bill: 

The principal constitutional authority for this legislation is 

clause 7 of section 9 of article I of the Constitution of the United 

States 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. 

DETAILED TABLE OF FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS

The following table provides the amounts recommended by the 

Committee compared with the budget estimates by activity and 

sub-activity. The reprogramming guidelines apply to levels outlined 

below. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
162 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 187 here HR151.015
163 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 188 here HR151.016
164 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 189 here HR151.017
165 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 190 here HR151.018
166 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 191 here HR151.019
167 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 192 here HR151.020
168 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 193 here HR151.021
169 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 194 here HR151.022
170 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 195 here HR151.023
171 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 196 here HR151.024
172 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 197 here HR151.025
173 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 198 here HR151.026
174 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 199 here HR151.027
175 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 200 here HR151.028
176 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 201 here HR151.029
177 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 202 here HR151.030
178 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 203 here HR151.031
179 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 204 here HR151.032
180 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 205 here HR151.033
181 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 206 here HR151.034
182 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 207 here HR151.035
183 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 208 here HR151.036
184 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 209 here HR151.037
185 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 210 here HR151.038
186 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 211 here HR151.039
187 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 212 here HR151.040
188 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 213 here HR151.041
189 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 214 here HR151.042
190 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 215 here HR151.043
191 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 216 here HR151.044
192 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 217 here HR151.045
193 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 218 here HR151.046
194 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 219 here HR151.047
195 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 220 here HR151.048
196 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 221 here HR151.049
197 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 222 here HR151.050
198 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 223 here HR151.051
199 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 224 here HR151.052
200 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 225 here HR151.053
201 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 226 here HR151.054
202 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 227 here HR151.055
203 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 228 here HR151.056
204 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 229 here HR151.057
205 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 230 here HR151.058
206 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 231 here HR151.059
207 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 232 here HR151.060
208 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 233 here HR151.061
209 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 234 here HR151.062
210 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 235 here HR151.063
211 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 236 here HR151.064
212 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 237 here HR151.065
213 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 238 here HR151.066
214 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 239 here HR151.067
215 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 240 here HR151.068
216 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 241 here HR151.069
217 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 242 here HR151.070
(218) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

We take no pleasure in opposing the FY 2012 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, but the deep cuts 

in important environmental and natural resource programs and the 

breathtaking array of special interest legislative riders and funding 

limitations leave us no choice. 

To begin with, this bill was saddled with an exceedingly low 

302(b) allocation. The bill is $2.086 billion, or 7 percent, below the 

FY 2011 appropriations level and $3.818 billion, or 12.7 percent, 

below the President’s request. While some in the majority may 

wear these cuts as a badge of honor, the harm to the environment 

and our efforts to preserve America’s natural heritage are too great 

to ignore. 

We do note and commend the work Chairman Simpson did in 

chairing 22 hearings and receiving testimony from numerous agency and public witnesses. We appreciate the inclusive stance taken 

in developing this bill and recognize the difficulties in crafting a 

bill within the Subcommittee’s allocation. We acknowledge Chairman Simpson’s efforts to protect funding for programs serving 

American Indians. We only wish that this protection could have 

been extended to other important portions of this bill. 

There is perhaps no greater example of the majority’s misplaced 

funding decisions than the cuts that would be imposed on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). After the EPA budget was cut 

by 16 percent in the current fiscal year, the majority is now proposing a further reduction of 18 percent in the agency’s budget for 

next year. These cuts are meant to diminish clean air and water 

programs at both the Federal and State level. 

The Washington Post reported on June 20, 2011 that ‘‘because 

the EPA passes the vast majority of its money through to the 

states, it has meant that these governments—not Washington—are 

taking the biggest hits.’’ The cuts proposed in this bill would substantially diminish the ability of the states to carry out their responsibilities under the law. 

The air we breathe and the water we drink are endangered by 

the funding and policy decisions made in this bill. The consequences of these decisions will be felt in communities across the 

nation, especially with the ever-growing backlog of clean water and 

safe drinking water infrastructure projects. Cuts of nearly 40 percent to the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water grant programs 

will only increase the backlog and leave many local communities at 

risk from aging or underdeveloped water and sewer systems. 

We are extremely disappointed at the majority’s decision to prohibit funds for Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings and critical 

habitat designations. These are the vital first steps needed to begin 

the recovery process for species at risk of extinction. Under the 

guise of sending a signal to the authorizing committee, this bill atVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:11 Jul 20, 2011 Jkt 067352 PO 00000 Frm 00218 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR151.XXX HR151

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
219 

tacks the very heart of the Endangered Species Act. In fact, the bill 

includes funding for a multitude of expired authorizations and in 

addition it contains numerous legislative authorizations. But when 

it comes to endangered species, the ESA’s expired authorization is 

singled out as an excuse to do nothing. 

During full committee consideration, we offered an amendment 

to restore the language and funding for ESA listings and critical 

habitat designations that have been included in the bill for many 

years. Unfortunately, this amendment was defeated by a vote of 

23–26. Ironically, the bill does allow funds to be used to downgrade 

species protection through de-listing or reclassification from endangered to threatened species. 

Wildlife programs in general are underfunded by the bill; there 

are deep cuts in programs that assist in the recovery of endangered 

species or help prevent their listing in the first place. This shortsighted approach undercuts the protection of species that not only 

have significant environmental value but also great economic 

value. In reality, the protection of species boosts tourism in many 

areas; spending by hunters and fishermen brings millions of dollars 

to local economies. 

The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) has been one 

of the great conservation success stories of the past 50 years, but 

funding in this bill for LWCF activities would be the lowest since 

the program was created in 1965 and it would represent a 78 percent cut from the current fiscal year. Many park and recreation 

areas exist today because of the funds provided by the LWCF. We 

owe it to present and future generations to keep faith with the 

original promise of the LWCF—as we deplete the oil and gas resources of the Outer Continental Shelf, we committed to use a portion of the proceeds to invest in the future of America’s natural, 

scenic, and recreational resources. 

We are blessed in this country with great natural beauty and a 

wealth of natural resources; we have established a conservation 

system for some of the best of these resources that are the envy 

of the world. Our national parks and forests, wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, and other conservation units deserve better than 

what this bill provides. 

Funding for the National Landscape Conservation System 

(NLCS) exemplifies the majority’s lack of appreciation for our natural heritage. The conservation system on our public lands includes 

national monuments, wild and scenic rivers, and national trails. 

Under the bill, the NLCS would be cut by one-third below the current year appropriation and 50 percent below the Obama Administration’s request. 

Cultural activities and institutions, while a small portion of the 

bill, are a vital part of our communities and they enhance our quality of life. The disproportionate size of the cuts to these programs 

in relation to the overall funding in the bill is deeply disconcerting. 

For example, in the span of three years, appropriations for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for 

the Humanities would be reduced from $167 million in each account in FY 2010, to $155 million in FY 2011 and, under the majority’s proposal for FY 2012, to $135 million. This level is significantly below the amounts these agencies received 20 years ago. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
220 

Also during full committee consideration, we attempted to restore 

funding to three of the many programs cut by the bill. The amendment would have provided needed funding for the Superfund, 

Brownfields, and Indian Sanitary Facilities programs. To pay for 

these increases the amendment would have required highly profitable oil and gas companies to pay a greater share of the Federal 

Oil and Gas Leasing Program. 

If our national budget is truly about shared sacrifice, we can 

start by asking the oil and gas companies to pay their fair share; 

they have profited so handsomely from the resources owned by the 

American public. Unfortunately, the Moran amendment failed. We 

regret that there are Members who would rather side with the oil 

and gas companies than provide potable water for Native American 

homes or clean up polluted sites. 

The only thing more disappointing than the funding cuts is the 

scope and extent to which the majority has filled this bill with legislative riders and funding limitations. This is not so much a 

spending bill as it is a wish list for special interests. A large portion of this bill has nothing to do with deficit reduction and everything to do with carrying out an ideological agenda. 

The list of special interest provisions is long: NEPA waivers, limitations on judicial review, the blocking of pollution controls, even 

the exposure of the Grand Canyon to the well-known hazards of 

uranium mining. The bill even has funding limitations on actions 

not being proposed by the Administration. It seems to us that special interest riders have become the new earmarks. Whole texts of 

legislative proposals have been included in the bill. We are struck 

by the sheer volume of these proposals as well as the majority’s inconsistency on this matter. On one hand, they reject certain funding and authorizations for programs such as endangered species, 

saying the authorizing committees need to do this work; yet they 

turn around and add substantial legislative text claiming the Appropriations Committee needed to do this work for the authorizers. 

The Appropriations Committee has now become the ‘‘go-to place’’ 

for special interest provisions. 

The numerous attacks on the environment in this bill are misplaced. There are those who want to make these controversies into 

a made-up struggle between humans and the environment. But it 

is a false dichotomy because we are all part of the environment and 

attacks on the environment are attacks on us all. 

Clean air and clean water, as well as thriving plant and animal 

populations, are vital components of the infrastructure of our communities. Just as we need to invest in the physical infrastructure 

of our communities, so must we invest in our natural infrastructure. 

We protect nature, not for nature’s sake, but for our own sake. 

As the late distinguished Member of the House, Morris K. Udall, 

once noted: ‘‘The more we exploit nature, the more our options are 

reduced, until we have only one: to fight for survival.’’ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
221 

Our constituents and, more importantly, our environment deserve better than what this bill is offering. We oppose the FY 2012 

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill 

and recommend our colleagues do likewise. 

NORM DICKS. 

JIM MORAN. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS