```

[House Report 112-151]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

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
        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 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Committee bill
                        Activity                         Budget estimates,   Committee bill,     compared with
                                                          fiscal year 2012   fiscal year 2012   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 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
    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 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 far-reaching 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-benefit 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 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 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 agency 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 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 co-located, 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 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 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).
    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 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 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 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 additional 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 
management program, $10,617,000 above fiscal year 2011 enacted 
levels and $15,929,000 above the budget request. The program 
has been 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 Management 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.
    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.

                              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 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.

                          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 
management, $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 mountain-prairie 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 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 science-
based, landscape-level conservation of our nation's natural 
resources, including fish, wildlife, plants, and their 
habitats. The concept 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.

                            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.

               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 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 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 change-related 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.
    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 completion 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 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 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 recommends $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 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.

                    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 
endocrine-disrupting chemicals impacting fish and wildlife in 
the Chesapeake basin.
    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

    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.
    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 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.

                       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 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 update 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 Johnson-O'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.
    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
    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 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 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 justification 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.

           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
    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, 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 Department 
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 ineffective 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 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 re-assumption 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.
    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.
    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 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 long-term 
basic and near-term applied research to provide the scientific 
knowledge and technologies necessary for preventing, 
regulating, and abating pollution, and to anticipate emerging 
environmental issues.
 Appropriation enacted, 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 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 high-priority 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.
    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 Environmental 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 concentration 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 non-research 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 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 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 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 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. 
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 
implementation 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 
responsibilities 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 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 $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 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.
    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 
endocrine-relevant 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 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 substantial 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.

                        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.
    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.
    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 one-tenth 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 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 
Underground 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.

                   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 Committee, 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 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 
provided $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 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.

                       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 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.
    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 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-
specific 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 
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 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 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, 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 non-
street 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.
    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 large-scale 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.

                  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 
improvement 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 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 public school districts or public school authorities to 
provide for cash equalization of certain land exchanges can be 
appropriated to acquire similar lands suitable for national 
forest system purposes in the same State as the national forest 
lands conveyed in the exchanges.

                         RANGE BETTERMENT FUND
 Appropriation enacted, 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.

                        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 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.

               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.
    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 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 associated 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 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.

             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 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.
    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 establish 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 
supporting the 16,200 individual marble panels of the National 
Gallery's East Building exterior facade. 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 
mandate through its role as an international institute 
promoting policy-relevant 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 
congressional 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 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 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.
    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 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.
 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
    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 third-party 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 
Agriculture 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 non-profit 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 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 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.
    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:

         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                                   Account to which
               made                       Amount (000's)           transfer is made          Amount (000's)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of the Interior,         not specified.............  Department of          not specified
 National Park Service.                                          Transportation,
                                                                 Federal Highway
                                                                 Administration.
Department of the Interior,         not specified.............  Tribal trust forestry  not specified
 Operation of Indian Programs.                                   accounts.
Department of the Interior, Bureau  not specified.............  Bureau of Reclamation  not specified
 of Indian Affairs Construction.
Department of the Interior, Office  not specified.............  Secretary of           not specified
 of Insular Affairs.                                             Agriculture.
Department of the Interior, Office  not specified.............  Department of the      not specified
 of the Special Trustee for                                      Interior, Bureau of
 American Indians.                                               Indian Affairs,
                                                                 Office of the
                                                                 Solicitor and Office
                                                                 of the Secretary
                                                                 accounts.
Department of the Interior,         not specified.............  Department of the      not specified
 Wildland Fire Management.                                       Interior, for
                                                                 repayment of
                                                                 advances made during
                                                                 emergencies.
Department of the Interior,         up to $50,000.............  Department of          up to $50,000
 Wildland Fire Management.                                       Agriculture, Forest
                                                                 Service, Wildland
                                                                 Fire Management.
Department of the Interior, FLAME   not specified.............  Department of the      not specified
 Wildfire Suppression Reserve Fund.                              Interior, Wildland
                                                                 Fire Management.
Department of the Interior,         not specified.............  Department of the      not specified
 Working Capital Fund.                                           Interior, any
                                                                 account.
Environmental Protection Agency,    not specified.............  Other Federal          not specified
 Hazardous Substance Superfund.                                  Agencies.
Environmental Protection Agency,    $9,955....................  Environmental          $9,955
 Hazardous Substance Superfund.                                  Protection Agency,
                                                                 Office of Inspector
                                                                 General.
Environmental Protection Agency,    $23,016...................  Environmental          $23,016
 Hazardous Substance Superfund.                                  Protection Agency,
                                                                 Science and
                                                                 Technology.
Environmental Protection Agency,    up to $250,000............  Other Federal          up to $250,000
 Environmental Programs and                                      Department or Agency
 Management.                                                     for Great Lakes
                                                                 Initiative.
USDA, Forest Service, Capital       not specified.............  General Fund of the    not specified
 Improvement and Maintenance.                                    Treasury.
USDA, Forest Service, Capital       up to $9,000..............  National Forest        up to $9,000
 Improvement and Maintenance.                                    System.
USDA, Forest Service, Wildland      not specified.............  USDA, Forest Service,  not specified
 Fire Management.                                                for repayment of
                                                                 advances made during
                                                                 emergencies.
USDA, Forest Service, Wildland      not specified.............  USDA, Forest Service,  not specified
 Fire Management.                                                National Forest
                                                                 System.
USDA, Forest Service, Wildland      not specified.............  USDA, Forest Service,  not specified
 Fire Management.                                                Forest and Rangeland
                                                                 Research.
USDA, Forest Service, Wildland      not specified.............  USDA, Forest Service,  not specified
 Fire Management.                                                State and Private
                                                                 Forestry.
USDA, Forest Service, Wildland      up to $10,000.............  Secretary of the       up to $10,000
 Fire Management.                                                Interior.
USDA, Forest Service, Wildland      up to $27,100.............  USDA, Forest Service,  up to $27,100
 Fire Management.                                                National Forest
                                                                 System.
USDA, Forest Service, Wildland      up to $50,000.............  Department of the      up to $50,000
 Fire Management.                                                Interior, Wildland
                                                                 Fire Management.
USDA, Forest Service, FLAME         not specified.............  USDA, Forest Service,  not specified
 Wildfire Suppression Reserve Fund.                              Wildland Fire
                                                                 Management.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   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.
                              ----------                              

 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, [2011] 2016.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

  SECTION 330 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

  Sec. 330. [In 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, 
[may 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 [September 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 management 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.
                          (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.
  [(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).
  [(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 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.--[For 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, [shall 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
          (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 instances these provisions 
have been included in prior appropriations Acts.
    The bill includes the following changes in application of 
existing law:

                              OVERALL BILL

    Providing that certain appropriations remain available 
until expended or extends the availability of funds beyond the 
fiscal year where programs or projects are continuing but for 
which legislation does not specifically authorize such extended 
availability. This authority tends to result in savings by 
preventing the practice of committing funds on low priority 
projects at the end of the fiscal year to avoid losing the 
funds.
    Limiting, in certain instances, the obligation of funds for 
particular functions or programs. These limitations include 
restrictions on the obligation of funds for administrative 
expenses, travel expenses, the use of consultants, and 
programmatic areas within the overall jurisdiction of a 
particular agency.
    Limiting official entertainment or reception and 
representation expenses for selected agencies in the bill.
    Continuing ongoing activities of those Federal agencies, 
which require annual authorization or additional legislation, 
which has not been enacted.

                  TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                       Bureau of Land Management

                   MANAGEMENT OF LANDS AND RESOURCES

    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.

                           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.

                       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.
    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.

                        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.
    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 non-Federal 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.

             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.

                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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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 self-governance 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.

                   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.

                        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.
    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 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.
    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 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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Appropriations in
                                     Last year of   Authorization level      last year of      Appropriations in
                                    authorization                            authorization         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              1992   41,500..............  42,373..............            141,561
         Amendments of 1988.
        Nonindigenous Aquatic               2002   6,000...............  6,000...............              8,244
         Nuisance Species
         Prevention and Control.
        Marine Mammal Protection            1999   14,768..............  2,008...............              5,810
         Act Amendments of 1994.
        Klamath River Basin                 2006   21,000..............  3,350...............                718
         Fishery Resources
         Restoration Act.
        Great Ape Conservation....          2010   5,000...............  2,500...............              1,969
        Marine Turtle Conservation          2009   5,000...............  2,000...............                983
         Act.
        Coastal Wetlands Planning,          2011   % based on prior-     73,482..............             75,388
         Protection, and                            year exercise taxes
         Restoration Act; the                       collected.
         Safe, Accountable.
         Flexible, Efficient
         Transportation Equity Act.
        Coastal Barrier Resources           2010   2,000...............  2,000...............                390
         Act of 1982; amended by
         Improvement Act of 2000 &
         Reauthorization Act of
         2005.
        Junior Duck Stamp                   2010   350.................  250.................                250
         Conservation and Design
         Program Act.
        National Fish and Wildlife          2010   25,000..............  7,537...............              7,537
         Foundation Establishment
         Act; amended by
         Reauthorization Act of
         2006.
        Partners for Fish and               2011   75,000..............  60,134..............             39,400
         Wildlife Act.
National Park Service:
    Chesapeake Bay Gateways and             2011   3,000...............  1,000...............                525
     Water Trails.
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             1997   30,000..............  26,116..............             33,879
     Family Violence Prevention
     Act.
    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             1991   130,000.............  51,000..............            150,505
     Program.
    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--             1988   80,000..............  75,000..............            112,643
     General Authorization.
    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              2006   50,000..............  49,000..............             50,000
         Grant.
        Drinking Water SRF........          2003   1,000,000...........  963,000.............            829,000
        Grants for State Public             2003   100,000.............  93,000..............            105,489
         Water.
        Lead Containment Control            1992   Such sums...........  Not available.......             14,535
         Act of 1988.
        Pollution Prevention Act..          1993   8,000...............  6,800...............              4,930
        Radon Abatement Act.......          1991   10,000..............  9,000...............              8,058
        State Hazardous Waste               1988   60,000..............  67,000..............            103,139
         Program Grants.
        Toxic Substances Control            1983   1,500...............  5,100...............              5,089
         Act.
        Underground Injection               2003   15,000..............  11,000..............             10,869
         Control Grants.
USDA Forest Service, National               1997   Such sums...........  2,000...............              3,000
 Forest Foundation.
National Endowment for the Arts...          1993   Such sums...........  174,460.............            135,000
National Endowment for the                  1993   Such sums...........  177,403.............            135,000
 Humanities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   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  Amount of   Committee  Amount of
                                                                    allocation     bill    allocation     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  Amount of   Committee  Amount of
                                                                    allocation     bill    allocation     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  Amount of   Committee  Amount of
                                                                    allocation     bill    allocation     bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Financial assistance to State and local governments for 2012......          NA      5,288          NA     2,588
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NA: Not applicable.

                        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.

                            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 attacks 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 short-sighted 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.
    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.'' 
    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.

                                  

```