[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.