Order Code RL32893
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Interior and Related Agencies:
FY2006 Appropriations
Updated May 16, 2005
Carol Hardy Vincent, Co-coordinator
Specialist in Natural Resources
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Susan Boren, Co-coordinator
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

The annual consideration of appropriations bills (regular, continuing, and
supplemental) by Congress is part of a complex set of budget processes that also
encompasses the consideration of budget resolutions, revenue and debt-limit
legislation, other spending measures, and reconciliation bills. In addition, the
operation of programs and the spending of appropriated funds are subject to
constraints established in authorizing statutes. Congressional action on the budget
for a fiscal year usually begins following the submission of the President’s budget at
the beginning of the session. Congressional practices governing the consideration
of appropriations and other budgetary measures are rooted in the Constitution, the
standing rules of the House and Senate, and statutes, such as the Congressional
Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
This report is a guide to one of the regular appropriations bills that Congress
considers each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the
House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
and the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies. It
summarizes the status of the Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bill, its
scope, major issues, funding levels, and related congressional activity, and is updated
as events warrant. The report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered
and related CRS products.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with active links is
available to congressional staff at
[http://www.crs.gov/products/appropriations/apppage.shtml].

---

Interior and Related Agencies:
FY2006 Appropriations
Summary
The FY2006 Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bill includes funding
for the Department of the Interior (DOI), except for the Bureau of Reclamation, and
for two agencies within other departments — the Forest Service within the
Department of Agriculture and the Indian Health Service within the Department of
Health and Human Services. It also includes funding for arts and cultural agencies;
the Environmental Protection Agency, which was newly-transferred to the
Appropriations subcommittees that deal with Interior and Related Agencies; and
numerous other entities and agencies.
On May 13, 2005, the House Appropriations Committee reported $26.16 billion
for Interior and Related Agencies for FY2006 (H.R. 2361, H.Rept. 109-80). The
reported level would be a 3% decrease from the FY2005 enacted level of $26.98
billion but a 2% increase over the President’s request for FY2006 of $25.72 billion.
Among the proposed increases in the Committee bill for FY2006, over FY2005, are
the following:
! $118.0 million (4%) for the Indian Health Service;
! $38.1 million (4%) for the U.S. Geological Survey;
! $22.3 million (1%) for the Bureau of Indian Affairs;
! $10.6 million (10%) for the National Gallery of Art; and
! $3.7 million (74%) for the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian
Relocation.
Among the proposed decreases for FY2006 are the following:
! $-498.9 million (11%) for the Forest Service;
! $-318.5 million (4%) for the Environmental Protection Agency;
! $-136.7 million (6%) for the National Park Service;
! $-61.8 million (3%) for the Bureau of Land Management;
! $-26.4 million (2%) for the Fish and Wildlife Service; and
! $-14.1 million (8%) for the Minerals Management Service
Congress is debating a variety of controversial issues during consideration of
FY2006 funding for Interior and Related Agencies. They include the appropriate
funding level for wildland fire fighting, land acquisition, the arts, certain Fish and
Wildlife Service programs, Bureau of Indian Affairs schools, Indian Health Service
hospitals, the Superfund program, and state and local wastewater and drinking water
needs. Other areas of debate involve agency competitive sourcing activities, agency
maintenance backlogs, Indian trust fund management, Outer Continental Shelf
leasing, and the Abandoned Mine Lands fund.
The House is tentatively scheduled to consider H.R. 2361 as early as May 18,
2005. This report will be updated following major congressional action.

---

Key Policy Staff
CRS
Area of Expertise
Name
Divisiona
Telephone
E-mail
Interior Budget
Carol Hardy Vincent
RSI
7-8651
chvincent@crs.loc.gov
Data/Coordinators
and Susan Boren
DSP
7-6899
sboren@crs.loc.gov
Art, Humanities,
Susan Boren
DSP
7-6899
sboren@crs.loc.gov
Cultural Affairs and
Historic Preservation
Bureau of Land
Carol Hardy Vincent
RSI
7-8651
chvincent@crs.loc.gov
Management
Conservation Spending
Jeffrey Zinn
RSI
7-7257
jzinn@crs.loc.gov
Category
Environmental
Robert Esworthy
RSI
7-7236
resworthy@crs.loc.gov
Protection Agency
Everglades Restoration
Pervaze Sheikh
RSI
7-6070
psheikh@crs.loc.gov
Fish and Wildlife
M. Lynne Corn
RSI
7-7267
lcorn@crs.loc.gov
Service
Forest Service
Ross W. Gorte
RSI
7-7266
rgorte@crs.loc.gov
Indian Affairs
Roger Walke
DSP
7-8641
rwalke@crs.loc.gov
Indian Health Service
Donna Vogt
DSP
7-7285
dvogt@crs.loc.gov
Insular Affairs
Keith Bea
G&F
7-8672
kbea@crs.loc.gov
Land Acquisition
Kyna Powers
RSI
7-6881
kpowers@crs.loc.gov
Minerals Management
Marc Humphries
RSI
7-7264
mhumphries@crs.loc.gov
Service
National Park Service
David Whiteman
RSI
7-7786
dwhiteman@crs.loc.gov
Surface Mining and
Robert Bamberger
RSI
7-7240
rbamberger@crs.loc.gov
Reclamation
U.S. Geological Survey
Pervaze Sheikh
RSI
7-6070
psheikh@crs.loc.gov
a. Division abbreviations: DSP = Domestic Social Policy; G&F = Government and Finance; RSI =
Resources, Science, and Industry.

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
FY2006 Budget and Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Current Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Major Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Status of Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Title I: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Bureau of Land Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Management of Lands and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Wildland Fire Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Land Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Oregon and California (O&C) Grant Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Endangered Species Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
National Wildlife Refuge System and Law Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . 11
Land Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Wildlife Refuge Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
National Park Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Operation of the National Park System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
United States Park Police (USPP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
National Recreation and Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Construction and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Land Acquisition and State Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Recreation Fee Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Historic Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
U.S. Geological Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Enterprise Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
National Mapping Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Water Resources Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Biological Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Science Support and Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Minerals Management Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Budget and Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Oil and Gas Leasing Offshore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Bureau of Indian Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
BIA Reorganization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
BIA School System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Departmental Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

---

Insular Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Office of Special Trustee for American Indians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
National Indian Gaming Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Title II: Environmental Protection Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
EPA Appropriation Accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Water Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Scientific Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Superfund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Brownfields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Title III: Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Forest Fires and Forest Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
State and Private Forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Land Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Other Accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service . . . . . . 51
Health Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Diabetes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Smithsonian Institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
FY2006 Budget and Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Facilities Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
National Museum of African American History and Culture . . . . . . . 57
National Zoo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Trust Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
National Endowment for the Arts andNational Endowment for the
Humanities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
NEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
NEH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Cross-Cutting Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
FY2006 Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Conservation Spending Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Everglades Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Overview of Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
FY2006 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Concerns Over Phosphorus Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Competitive Sourcing of Government Jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Title I: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Land Management Agencies Generally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Title II: Environmental Protection Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

---

Title III: Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
List of Tables
Table 1. Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2004 to FY2006 . . . 3
Table 2. Status of Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations, FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 3. Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management,
FY2005-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 4. Appropriations for Endangered Species and Related Programs,
FY2005-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 5. Appropriations for FWS Land Acquisition Program,
FY2005-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 6. Appropriations for Multinational Species Conservation Fund and
Migratory Bird Fund, FY2005-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 7. Appropriations for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants,
FY2005-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 8. Appropriations for the National Park Service, FY2005-FY2006 . . . . . 15
Table 9. Appropriations for the Historic Preservation Fund,
FY2005-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Table 10. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey, FY2005-FY2006 . . 24
Table 11. Appropriations for the Minerals Management Service,
FY2005-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Table 12. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, FY2005-FY2006 . . 29
Table 13. Appropriations for the Office of Special Trustee for
American Indians, FY2005-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Table 14. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency,
FY2005-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Table 15. Appropriations for the National Fire Plan, FY2001-FY2006 . . . . . . . 46
Table 16. Appropriations for FS State & Private Forestry, FY2005-FY2006 . . 49
Table 17. Appropriations for the Indian Health Service, FY2005-FY2006 . . . . 51
Table 18. Appropriations for the Smithsonian Institution, FY2005-FY2006 . . . 58
Table 19. Appropriations for Arts and Humanities, FY2005-FY2006 . . . . . . . . 60
Table 20. Appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation Fund,
FY2003-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Table 21. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration in the DOI Budget,
FY2005-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Table 22. Appropriations for Department of the Interior and Related
Agencies, FY2004-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

---

Interior and Related Agencies:
FY2006 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
On May 13, 2005, the House Appropriations Committee reported a bill
containing $26.16 billion for FY2006 for Interior and Related Agencies (H.R. 2361,
H.Rept. 109-80). The President had requested $25.72 billion.
Introduction
The FY2006 Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bill includes funding
for agencies and programs in three separate federal departments, as well as numerous
related agencies and bureaus. The bill provides funding for Department of the
Interior (DOI) agencies (except for the Bureau of Reclamation, funded in Energy and
Water Development appropriations laws), many of which manage land and other
natural resource or regulatory programs. The bill also provides funds for agencies
in two other departments: for the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture,
and the Indian Health Service in the Department of Health and Human Services.
Funds for the Environmental Protection Agency, which is newly-transferred to the
jurisdiction of the House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees that deal with
Interior and Related Agencies, are included in the bill.1 Further, the FY2006 bill
includes funding for arts and cultural agencies, such as the Smithsonian Institution,
National Gallery of Art, National Endowment for the Arts, and National Endowment
for the Humanities, and for numerous other entities and agencies.
In recent years, the appropriations laws for Interior and Related Agencies
provided funds for several activities within the Department of Energy (DOE),
including research, development, and conservation programs; the Naval Petroleum
Reserves; and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. However, at the outset of the 109th
Congress, these DOE programs were transferred to the House and Senate
Appropriations subcommittees covering energy and water, to consolidate jurisdiction
over DOE.2 At the same time, jurisdiction over the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), and several smaller entities, was moved to the House and Senate
1 In the 109th Congress, the House Appropriations panel is called the Subcommittee on
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, while the Senate panel is entitled the
Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies.
2 In the 109th Congress, the House Appropriations panel is called the Subcommittee on
Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies and the Senate panel is entitled the
Subcommittee on Energy and Water.

---

CRS-2
Appropriations subcommittees covering Interior and Related Agencies. This change
resulted from the abolition of the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees
on Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies,
which previously had jurisdiction over EPA.
In the recent past, Interior and Related Agencies appropriations acts typically
contained two primary titles providing funding. Title I provided funds for Interior
agencies, and Title II contained funds for other agencies, programs, and entities. The
FY2006 Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bill reported by the House
Appropriations Committee contains three primary titles providing funding. This
report is organized along the lines of this bill. Accordingly, the first section (Title I)
provides information on Interior agencies; the second section (Title II) discusses
EPA; and the third section (Title III) addresses other agencies, programs, and entities
funded in the FY2006 bill. A fourth section of this report discusses cross-cutting
topics that encompass more than one agency.
In general, in this report the term appropriations represents total funds
available, including regular annual and supplemental appropriations, as well as
rescissions, transfers, and deferrals, but excludes permanent budget authorities.
Increases and decreases generally are calculated on comparisons between the funding
levels recommended by Congress for FY2006, requested by the President for
FY2006, and appropriated for FY2005. The House Committee on Appropriations
is the primary source of the funding figures used throughout the report. Other
sources of information include the Senate Committee on Appropriations, agency
budget justifications, and the Congressional Record. In the tables throughout this
report, some columns of funding figures do not add to the precise totals provided due
to rounding. Finally, some of the DOI websites provided throughout the report have
not been consistently operational due to a court order regarding Indian trust funds
litigation. Nevertheless, they are included herein for reference when the websites are
operational.
FY2006 Budget and Appropriations
Current Overview
On May 13, 2005, the House Appropriations Committee reported a bill
containing $26.16 billion for Interior and Related Agencies for FY2006 (H.R. 2361,
H.Rept. 109-80). The bill would constitute a 3% decrease from the FY2005 enacted
level of $26.98 billion but a 2% increase over the President’s request for FY2006 of
$25.72 billion. The President had sought $25.72 billion, a 5% decrease from the
FY2005 enacted level of $26.98 billion and a 6% decrease from the FY2004 enacted
level of $27.33 billion. The FY2005 total reflects two across-the-board rescissions
in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2005 (P.L. 108-447) of 0.594% and
0.80%.3 Table 1 below shows the budget authority for Interior and Related Agencies
3 The 0.594% rescission applied to agencies and programs funded in the Interior and Related
Agencies portion of the consolidated law, thus the EPA and several smaller entities that
(continued...)

---

CRS-3
for FY2004 and FY2005, and the President’s request for FY2006. See Table 22
below for a budgetary history of each agency, bureau, and program for FY2004 and
FY2005 and the President’s request for FY2006.
Table 1. Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2004 to FY2006
(budget authority in billions of current dollars)
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
$27.33
$26.98
$25.72
Note: These figures exclude permanent budget authorities, and generally do not reflect scorekeeping
adjustments. However, they do reflect rescissions and supplemental appropriations to date.
The President’s FY2006 budget had recommended depositing, into the general
fund of the Treasury, 70% of receipts from BLM land sales under the Southern
Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA). This issue is covered briefly in
the “Bureau of Land Management” section below. For more information, see CRS
Issue Brief IB10076, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lands and National
Forests, coordinated by Ross W. Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent. The budget also
assumed enactment of legislation to open part of the Coastal Plain in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration and development. This issue is
covered briefly in the “Fish and Wildlife Service” section below. For more
information, see CRS Issue Brief IB10136, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR):
Controversies for the 109th Congress, by M. Lynne Corn, Bernard A. Gelb, and
Pamela Baldwin.
H.R. 2361, as reported by the House Appropriations Committee, contained
significant increases for some agencies and programs over FY2005, while calling for
sizeable decreases or level funding in other areas. Among the proposed increases are
the following:
! $118.0 million (4%) for the Indian Health Service;
! $38.1 million (4%) for the U.S. Geological Survey;
! $22.3 million (1%) for the Bureau of Indian Affairs;
! $10.6 million (10%) for the National Gallery of Art; and
! $3.7 million (74%) for the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian
Relocation.
Among the proposed decreases for FY2006 are the following:
! $-498.9 million (11%) for the Forest Service;
! $-318.5 million (4%) for the Environmental Protection Agency;
! $-136.7 million (6%) for the National Park Service;
! $-61.8 million (3%) for the Bureau of Land Management;
! $-26.4 million (2%) for the Fish and Wildlife Service; and
3 (...continued)
were transferred to the Interior Subcommittees in the 109th Congress were not affected by
this cut.

---

CRS-4
! $-14.1 million (8%) for the Minerals Management Service
The House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Interior have held
hearings on the President’s budget request for Interior and Related Agencies.
Hearings have examined the requests for individual agencies and programs as well
as cross-cutting issues. The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies marked up an FY2006 funding bill on May 4,
2005. The full House Appropriations Committee reported a slightly amended version
on May 13, 2005 (H.R. 2361, H.Rept. 109-80), and House consideration of that bill
may occur as early as May 18, 2005.
Major Issues
Controversial policy and funding issues typically have been debated during
consideration of the annual Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bills.
Current debate on FY2006 funding levels encompasses a variety of issues, many of
which have been controversial in the past, including the issues listed below.

! Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) Fund, including whether, as part of
AML reauthorization, to change the program as sought by the
Administration to address state and regional concerns, including a
change to return unobligated state share balances in the fund to the
states. (For more information, see the “Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement” section in this report.)
! Arts and Humanities, including whether funding for the arts and
humanities is an appropriate federal responsibility, and, if so, what
should be the proper level of federal support for cultural activities.
(For more information, see the “Smithsonian Institution” and
“National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the
Humanities” sections in this report.)
! BIA Schools and IHS Hospitals, particularly whether to enact
funding cuts proposed in the President’s FY2006 budget. (For more
information, see the “Bureau of Indian Affairs” and the “Indian
Health Service” sections in this report.)
! Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, especially
the adequacy of funding to meet state and local wastewater and
drinking water needs. These state revolving funds provide seed
monies for state loans to communities for wastewater and drinking
water infrastructure projects. (For more information, see the
“Environmental Protection Agency” section in this report.)
! Competitive Sourcing, namely the extent to which government
functions should be privatized, agency funds can and should be used
for such efforts, and agencies are communicating appropriately with
Congress on their competitive sourcing activities. (For more
information, see the “Competitive Sourcing of Government Jobs”
section in this report.)

---

CRS-5
! Fish and Wildlife Service Programs, including the appropriate levels
of funding for the endangered species program, state and tribal
wildlife grants, and the multinational species conservation fund, and
whether changes to the endangered species program are warranted.
(For more information, see the “Fish and Wildlife Service” section
in this report.)
! Indian Trust Funds, especially the method by which an historical
accounting will be conducted of Individual Indian Money (IIM)
accounts to determine correct balances in the class-action lawsuit
against the government involving tribal and IIM accounts. (For
more information, see the “Office of Special Trustee for American
Indians” section in this report.)
! Land Acquisition, including the appropriate level of funding for the
Land and Water Conservation Fund for federal land acquisition and
the state grant program, and extent to which the fund should be used
for activities not involving land acquisition. (For more information,
see “The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)” section in
this report.)

! Maintenance Backlogs, primarily the adequacy of agency activities
to determine the extent of their maintenance backlogs, the priority
of the backlog relative to other agency responsibilities, and the
appropriate level of funds to reduce the backlog. (For more
information on the backlog of the National Park Service, which has
been the focus of the Bush Administration, see the “National Park
Service” section in this report.)
! Outer Continental Shelf Leasing, particularly the moratoria on
preleasing and leasing activities in offshore areas, and oil and gas
leases in offshore California. (For more information, see the
“Minerals Management Service” section in this report.)
! Superfund, notably the adequacy of proposed funding to meet
hazardous waste cleanup needs, and whether to continue using
general Treasury revenues to fund the account or reinstate a tax on
industry that originally paid for most of the program. (For more
information, see the “Environmental Protection Agency” section in
this report.)
! Wildland Fire Fighting, involving questions about the appropriate
level of funding to fight fires on agency lands; advisability of
borrowing funds from other agency programs to fight wildfires;
implementation of a new program for wildland fire protection and
locations for fire protection treatments; and impact of environmental
analysis, public involvement, and challenges to agency decisions on
fuel reduction activities. (For more information, see the “Bureau of
Land Management” and “Forest Service” sections in this report.)

---

CRS-6
Status of Bill
Table 2 below contains information on congressional consideration of the
FY2006 Interior appropriations bill.
Table 2. Status of Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations, FY2006
Subcommittee
Conference
Markup
Report Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
House
Senate
Report
Passage
Report
Passage Report
House
Senate
Law
H.R.
2361,
H.Rept.
5-4-05
109-80
5/13/05
Note: Information will be added as legislative action occurs.
Title I: Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Overview. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages approximately
261 million acres of public land for diverse and sometimes conflicting uses, such as
energy and minerals development, livestock grazing, recreation, and preservation.
The agency also is responsible for about 700 million acres of federal subsurface
mineral resources throughout the nation, and supervises the mineral operations on an
estimated 56 million acres of Indian Trust lands. Another key BLM function is
wildland fire management on about 370 million acres of DOI, other federal, and
certain nonfederal land.
For FY2006, the House Appropriations Committee approved $1.76 billion for
the BLM, a decrease of $61.8 million (3%) from the FY2005 enacted level of $1.82
billion and of 7% from the FY2004 enacted level. The Committee level was a slight
reduction ($3.9 million) from the Administration’s request. See Table 3 below.
The Administration’s FY2006 budget supported amending the Southern Nevada
Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA) to change the allocation of proceeds of
BLM land sales in Nevada. Under current law, none of the funds are deposited in the
general fund of the Treasury. The President supported depositing 70% of the receipts
there, instead of using the money in Nevada, for instance, to buy environmentally
sensitive lands. The House Committee bill would require the Secretary of the
Interior to report to the House Appropriations Committee on expenditures under
SNPLMA during FY2003 and FY2004. For information on this issue, see CRS Issue

---

CRS-7
Brief IB10076, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lands and National Forests,
coordinated by Ross W. Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent.
Management of Lands and Resources. For Management of Lands and
Resources, the House Appropriations Committee approved $845.8 million for
FY2006, an increase of 1% over the FY2005 enacted level of $836.8 million and a
slight decrease (0.5%) from the President’s request. This line item includes funds for
an array of BLM land programs, including protection, recreational use, improvement,
development, disposal, and general BLM administration. Some programs would
receive increases over FY2005, including resource protection and law enforcement,
and management of forests, recreation, wildlife, and oil and gas. The House
Committee did not support the Administration’s request for an 89% increase in the
Challenge Cost Share Program, instead recommending level funding of $7.4 million.
Through this program, BLM and local communities and citizens jointly fund and
carry out conservation programs. The Committee also did not support the
Administration’s request of $6.0 million for restoration and conservation projects
under the Cooperative Conservation Initiative, which Congress did not fund in
FY2005. Some other programs would be decreased from FY2005, including Alaska
minerals, wild horses and burros, deferred maintenance, and realty and ownership
management.
The FY2006 House Committee bill would continue to bar funds from being
used for energy leasing activities within the boundaries of national monuments, as
they were on January 20, 2001, except where allowed by the presidential
proclamations that created the monuments. The bill also would continue the
moratorium on accepting and processing applications for patents for mining and mill
site claims on federal lands. However, applications meeting certain requirements that
were filed on or before September 30, 1994, would be allowed to proceed, and third
party contractors would be authorized to process the mineral examinations on those
applications. In report language, the Committee directed BLM to report by
December 31, 2005, on the steps that may be needed to proceed with oil shale
development.
Wildland Fire Management. For Wildland Fire Management for FY2006,
the House Appropriations Committee recommended $761.6 million, a decrease of
8% from the FY2005 enacted level of $831.3 million but a slight increase (nearly
1%) over the President’s request. The FY2005 level includes $98.6 million for
emergency firefighting that would become available if certain conditions are met.
These contingent funds were intended to preclude borrowing from other BLM
programs to fight wildfires; such borrowing has been typical in recent years.
For FY2006, the House Committee recommended $272.9 million for fire
preparedness — 5% over the FY2005 enacted level of $258.9 million. The increase
would cover aviation support contracts and firefighter training, among other costs.
For fire suppression, the House Committee recommended $234.2 million, a 26%
decrease from the FY2005 enacted level of $317.1 million (including emergency
funds) and a 40% decrease from FY2004. While the average annual cost of fire
suppression has increased overall over the past decade, the FY2006 request
represents the ten-year average cost of fire suppression, according to the
Administration. In report language, the House Committee expressed continued

---

CRS-8
concern with the high costs of fire suppression, and directed DOI and the FS to
examine fires with suppression costs exceeding $10.0 million.
For other fire operations during FY2006, the House Committee recommended
$254.5 million, essentially the same as the FY2005 enacted level. Included in this
line item is an increase of 5% for hazardous fuels reduction, for an FY2006 House
Committee recommendation of $211.2 million. The Administration sought to zero
out funds for state and local fire assistance, on the grounds that the fire assistance
programs of the Forest Service (FS) and Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) address the needs of local fire departments. The Committee recommended
$5.0 million, about half as much as the FY2005 appropriation ($9.9 million). (For
additional information on wildland fires, see the “Forest Service” section in this
report.)

The wildland fire funds appropriated to BLM are used for fire fighting on all
Interior Department lands. Interior appropriations laws also provide funds for
wildland fire management to the Forest Service (Department of Agriculture) for fire
programs primarily on its lands. A focus of both departments is implementing the
Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148) and the National Fire Plan,
which emphasize reducing hazardous fuels which can contribute to catastrophic fires.

Construction. For FY2006, the House Appropriations Committee
recommended $11.5 million for BLM construction, nearly the same as the FY2005
enacted level. The President had sought a reduction of 43% from FY2005. In their
report on the FY2005 appropriations bill, conferees expressed concern about the low
level of funding for BLM construction relative to other agencies. They urged the
Administration to put more emphasis on funding for deferred maintenance
construction projects on BLM lands.
Land Acquisition. For Land Acquisition for FY2006, the House Committee
recommended $3.8 million, 66% less than the FY2005 enacted level and 71% less
than the President requested for FY2006. The Committee did not include funds for
specific new acquisitions, but rather for management of the acquisition program and
emergencies. The appropriation for BLM acquisitions fell steadily from $49.9
million in FY2002 through the FY2005 enacted level. During consideration of
FY2005 acquisition funding, the House did not support funding new acquisitions by
the BLM. By contrast, the Senate Committee on Appropriations had recommended
funding for new acquisitions. Money for land acquisition is appropriated from the
Land and Water Conservation Fund. (For more information, see the “Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)” section in this report.)
Oregon and California (O&C) Grant Lands. For the O&C Lands, which
include highly productive timber lands, the House Committee supported the
Administration’s request of $110.1 million for FY2006, an increase of 2% over the
FY2005 enacted level of $107.5 million and of 4% over the FY2004 level. This
activity funds programs related to revested Oregon and California Railroad grant
lands and related areas, including for land improvements and for managing,
protecting, and developing resources on these lands.

---

CRS-9
Table 3. Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management,
FY2005-FY2006

($ in millions)
FY2006
FY2005
FY2006
Bureau of Land Management
House
Approp.
Request
Comm.
Management of Lands and Resources
$836.8
$850.2
$845.8
Wildland Fire Management
831.3
756.6
761.6
Central Hazardous Materials Fund
9.9b
— d
— d
Construction
11.3
6.5
11.5
Land Acquisition
11.2
13.4
3.8
Oregon and California Grant Lands
107.5
110.1
110.1
Range Improvements
10.0
10.0
10.0
Service Charges, Deposits, and
Forfeitures a
0.0
0.0
0.0
Miscellaneous Trust Funds
12.4
12.4
12.4
Total Appropriations
$1,816.9c
$1,759.0
$1,755.1
a. The figures of “0” are a result of an appropriation matched by offsetting fees.
b. A rescission of $-13.5 million is not reflected, but is included in the column total.
c. Includes $98.6 million for emergency firefighting in FY2005, and a rescission of $-13.5 million
for the Central Hazardous Materials Fund.
d. The President’s FY2006 budget proposes transferring this Fund to the Departmental Offices within
the Department of the Interior, and accordingly includes $9.9 million for the Fund under DOI’s
Departmental Offices. The House Appropriations Committee agreed with this approach.
For further information on the Department of the Interior, see its website at
[http://www.doi.gov].
For further information on the Bureau of Land Management, see its website at
[http://www.blm.gov/nhp/index.htm].
CRS Report RS21402. Federal Lands, “Disclaimers of Interest,”and R.S. 2477, by
Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Report RL32244. Grazing Regulations and Policies: Changes by the Bureau
of Land Management, by Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report RS20902. National Monument Issues, by Carol Hardy Vincent.

CRS Report RL32315. Oil and Gas Exploration and Development on Public Lands,
by Marc Humphries.
CRS Issue Brief IB10076. Public (BLM) Lands and National Forests, by Ross W.
Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent, coordinators.

---

CRS-10
Fish and Wildlife Service
For FY2006, the President requested $1.32 billion for the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), slightly less (0.7%) than the enacted level for FY2005 ($1.33
billion). The House Appropriations Committee approved $1.31 billion. By far the
largest portion of the FWS annual appropriation is for the Resources Management
account. The President’s FY2006 request was $985.6 million, a 2% increase from
the FY2005 level of $962.9 million. The House Committee approved $1.01 billion,
a 4% increase over FY2005. Among the programs included in Resources
Management are the Endangered Species program, the Refuge System, and Law
Enforcement.
The President’s FY2006 budget proposed enacting legislation to open part of
the Coastal Plain in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration
and development.4 The budget proposed that the first lease sale would be held in
2007. Under the proposal, this and subsequent sales are expected to generate an
estimated $2.4 billion in federal revenues from bonus bids over the next five years.
For information on the debate over whether to approve energy development in the
refuge, see CRS Issue Brief IB10136, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR):
Controversies for the 109th Congress, by M. Lynne Corn, Bernard A. Gelb, and
Pamela Baldwin.
Endangered Species Funding. Funding for the Endangered Species
program is one of the perennially controversial portions of the FWS budget. The
Administration proposed to reduce the program (by 2%) from $143.2 million in
FY2005 to $140.1 million in FY2006. The House Committee approved $146.9
million, a 3% increase over FY2005. See Table 4 below.
A number of other related programs also benefit conservation of species that are
listed, or proposed for listing, under the Endangered Species Act. The President’s
request would increase the Landowner Incentive Program from $21.7 million in
FY2005 to $40.0 million in FY2006. Stewardship Grants would rise from $6.9
million in FY2005 to $10.0 million. The Cooperative Endangered Species
Conservation Fund (for grants to states and territories to conserve threatened and
endangered species) would fall from $80.5 million in FY2005 to $80.0 million for
FY2006. The House Appropriations Committee recommended funding these
programs at $23.7 million, $7.4 million, and $84.4 million, respectively. See Table
4 below.
Under the President’s request, total FY2006 funding for the Endangered Species
program and related programs would increase from FY2005 by $17.8 million. The
House Committee would provide a smaller increase of $10.1 million.
4 The proposed authorization is not a part of the Interior appropriations bill. Development
supporters anticipate an authorization either as a part of an energy bill, or as part of a
possible reconciliation measure later in the session. H.R. 6, an omnibus energy bill passed
by the House, would open the Refuge to development.

---

CRS-11
Table 4. Appropriations for Endangered Species and Related Programs,
FY2005-FY2006
($ in thousands)
FY2006
Endangered Species and Related
FY2005
FY2006
House
Programs
Approp.
Request
Comm.
Endangered Species Program
— Candidate Conservation
$9,255
$8,252
$8,852
— Listing
$15,960
$18,130
$18,130
— Consultation
48,129
49,484
49,484
— Recovery
69,870
64,243
70,443
Subtotal, Endangered Species
143,214
140,109
146,909
Program
Related Programs
— Landowner Incentive Program
21,694
40,000
23,700
— Private Stewardship Grants
6,903
10,000
7,386
— Cooperative Endangered Species
80,462
80,000
84,400
Conservation Funda
Subtotal, Related Programs
109,059
130,000
115,486
Total Appropriations
$252,273
$270,109
$262,395
a. The FY2006 request called for $49.4 million to be derived from LWCF. The House
Appropriations Committee recommended deriving the portions for species recovery land acquisition
and habitat conservation plan land acquisition ($64.2 million) from LWCF.
National Wildlife Refuge System and Law Enforcement. For refuge
operations and maintenance in FY2006, the President proposed $393.9 million, an
increase from $381.0 million in FY2005. The President’s request restructured the
account, dividing it into several new subaccounts. The House Committee approved
$394.4 million. President proposed $57.6 million for Law Enforcement — an
increase of $2.0 million from the FY2005 level ($55.6 million). The House
Appropriations Committee approved $57.8 million.
Land Acquisition. For FY2006, the Administration proposed $41.0 million
for Land Acquisition, an 11% increase over FY2005, but a 5% decrease from the
FY2004 level of $43.1 million. (See Table 5.) This program is funded from
appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In the past, the bulk of
this FWS program had been for acquisition of federal refuge land, but a portion was
used for closely related functions such as acquisition management, land exchanges,
emergency acquisitions, purchase of inholdings, general overhead (“Cost Allocation
Methodology”). In recent years, less of the funding has been reserved for traditional
land acquisition. The House Appropriations Committee continued this trend for
FY2006, zeroing out funds for specified acquisitions, and funding the remainder of
the program at $14.9 million. (For more information, see the “Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF)” section in this report.)

---

CRS-12
Table 5. Appropriations for FWS Land Acquisition Program,
FY2005-FY2006
($ in thousands)
FWS Land Acquisition
FY2005
FY2006
FY2006
Approp.
Request
House
Comm.
Acquisitions — Federal Refuge Lands
$22,593
$26,029
$0
Inholdings
1,479
1,750
1,750
Emergencies & Hardships
986
1,750
1,750
Exchanges
1,726
1,750
1,724
Acquisition Management
8,249
7,893
7,893
Cost Allocation Methodology
1,972
1,820
1,820
Total Appropriations
$37,005
$40,992
$14,937
Wildlife Refuge Fund. The National Wildlife Refuge Fund (also called the
Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund) compensates counties for the presence of the non-
taxable federal lands of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). A portion
of the fund is supported by the permanent appropriation of receipts from various
activities carried out on the NWRS. However, these receipts are not sufficient for
full funding of authorized amounts, and county governments have long urged
additional appropriations to make up the difference. Congress generally provides
additional funding. The President requested, and the House Appropriations
Committee approved, $14.4 million for FY2006; the FY2005 level was $14.2
million. This request, combined with expected receipts, would provide about 41%
of the authorized full payment, down from 44% in FY2005 and 47% in FY2004.
Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF). The MSCF has
generated considerable constituent interest despite the small size of the program. It
benefits Asian and African elephants, tigers, rhinoceroses, great apes, and marine
turtles. The President’s FY2006 budget again proposed to move funding for the
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund (NMBCF) into the MSCF. Congress
has rejected the proposed transfer annually from FY2002 to FY2005. For FY2006,
the President proposed $8.3 million for the MSCF (including the proposed transfer
of the NMBCF to this program). The proposal included cuts in programs for great
apes, rhinos, tigers, and African and Asian elephants, in contrast to increases in
programs for marine turtles and neotropical migratory birds. The House
Appropriations Committee provided modest increases over FY2005 for most of the
subprograms, except for a small decrease in funding for tiger and rhinoceros
conservation; it again rejected the transfer of NMBCF. (See Table 6 below.)

---

CRS-13
Table 6. Appropriations for Multinational Species Conservation
Fund and Migratory Bird Fund, FY2005-FY2006
($ in thousands)
FY2006
Multinational Species
FY2005
FY2006
House
Conservation Fund
Approp.
Request
Comm.
African elephant
$1,381
$1,000
$1,400
Tiger and Rhinos
1,477
1,100
1,400
Asian elephant
1,381
1,000
1,400
Great Apes
1,381
900
1,400
Marine turtles
99
300
300
[Neotropical Migratory Birds]
[3,944]
[4,000]
[4,000]
Total Appropriations
$5,719
$4,300
$5,900
Note: The Neotropical Migratory Bird program was first authorized in FY2002, and is not part of
the MSCF, although the transfer has been proposed in the President’s budgets from FY2002-FY2006.
Congress has rejected the proposal four times, and the program is not included in the column totals.
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants. The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
program helps fund efforts to conserve species (including non-game species) of
concern to states and tribes. The program was created in the FY2001 Interior
appropriations law (P.L. 106-291) and further detailed in subsequent Interior
appropriations bills. (It lacks any separate authorizing statute.) Funds may be used
to develop conservation plans as well as to support specific practical conservation
projects. A portion of the funding is set aside for competitive grants to tribal
governments or tribal wildlife agencies. The remaining state portion is for matching
grants to states. A state’s allocation is determined by formula. The President
proposed $74.0 million, an increase from $69.0 million in FY2005. The House
Committee approved a decrease to $65.0 million. See Table 7 below.
Table 7. Appropriations for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants,
FY2005-FY2006
($ in thousands)
State and Tribal Wildlife
FY2005
FY2006
FY2006
Grants
Approp.
Request
House
Comm.
State Grants
$61,040
$65,437
$59,000
Tribal Grants
5,917
6,343
6,000
Administration
1,947
2,092
— a
Cost allocation methodology
124
128
— a
Total Appropriations
$69,028
$74,000
$65,000

---

CRS-14
a. Administrative costs are limited to 3%, after the $6.0 million for tribal grants is deducted from the
total. The Committee did not specify how much was to be allocated to Administration and how much
to the cost allocation methodology.
For further information on the Fish and Wildlife Service, see its website at
[http://www.fws.gov/].
CRS Issue Brief IB10136. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies
for the 109th Congress, by M. Lynne Corn, Bernard A. Gelb, and Pamela
Baldwin.
CRS Issue Brief IB10144. Endangered Species Act in the 109th Congress:
Conflicting Values and Difficult Choices, by Eugene H. Buck, M. Lynne Corn,
Pervaze Sheikh, Pamela Baldwin, and Robert Meltz.
CRS Report RS21157. Multinational Species Conservation Fund, by M. Lynne Corn
and Pervaze A. Sheikh.
National Park Service
The National Park Service (NPS) is responsible for the National Park System,
currently comprising 388 separate and very diverse units with more than 84 million
acres. The NPS and its 20,000 employees protect, interpret, and administer the park
system’s diverse natural and historic areas representing the cultural identity of the
American people. The park system has some 20 types of area designations, including
national parks, monuments, memorials, historic sites, battlefields, seashores,
recreational areas, and other classifications.
The FY2006 NPS appropriations request totaled $2.25 billion, $116.4 million
(5%) less than the FY2005 enacted level ($2.37 billion). See Table 8 below. The
request had sought increases for the operations line item, but most other line items
would face cuts or level funding. This year, enhanced security and infrastructure
upgrades are planned for certain parks. The House Appropriations Committee
recommended $2.23 billion, $136.7 million (6%) less than the FY2005 enacted level
and $20.3 million (1%) below the request.
The House Appropriations Committee supported provisions affecting the NPS
but not tied to specific funding accounts. The Committee approved report language
urging the NPS to complete the management plan for Cedar Creek and Belle Grove
National Historical Park (VA) by September 1, 2007. An amendment concerning
bison management at Yellowstone National Park was withdrawn. The Committee
approved a provision that would extend the controversial rule to allow individual
snowmobiles into Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks for another year
(covering the upcoming winter season of 2005-2006). Congress enacted a similar
provision as part of the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447) to
prevent lawsuits from blocking snowmobile access to those parks last winter.
Operation of the National Park System. The park operations line-item
accounts for more than two-thirds of the total NPS budget, and supports the
activities, programs, and services essential to the day-to-day operations of the Park

---

CRS-15
System. It covers resource protection, visitors’ services, facility operations, facility
maintenance, and park support programs, as well as employee pay, benefits, and
other fixed costs. The majority of operations funding is provided directly to park
managers. The FY2006 request for NPS operations was $1.73 billion, $50.5 million
(3%) more than the FY2005 enacted level of $1.68 billion and 8% more than the
FY2004 enacted level. The House Appropriations Committee recommended $1.75
billion, or $70.6 million more than the FY2005 enacted and $20.1 million above the
request. Park advocacy groups have estimated that, in recent years, the national parks
operate, on average, with two-thirds of needed funding. The condition, care, and
operation of the national parks continue to be controversial.
Table 8. Appropriations for the National Park Service,
FY2005-FY2006
($ in millions)
FY2006
FY2005
FY2006
National Park Service
House
Approp.
Request
Comm.
Operation of the National Park System
$1,683.6
$1,734.1
$1,754.2
U.S. Park Police
80.1
80.4
82.4
National Recreation and Preservation
61.0
36.8
49.0
Urban Park and Recreation Fund
0.0
0.0
0.0
Historic Preservation Fund
71.7
66.2
72.7
Construction a
353.0
307.4
291.2
Land and Water Conservation Fund b
-30.0
-30.0
-30.0
Land Acquisition and State Assistance
— Assistance to States
91.2
1.6
1.6
— NPS Acquisition
55.1
52.9
7.8
Subtotal, Land Acquisition and State
146.3
54.5
9.4
Assistance
Total Appropriations
$2,365.7
$2,249.3
$2,229.0
a. Includes $50.8 million of emergency funding for FY2005 enacted in P.L. 108-324, and a proposed
reduction of $17.0 million for FY2006, using prior year balances,
b. Figures reflect a rescission of contract authority.

United States Park Police (USPP). This budget item supports law
enforcement programs of the U.S. Park Police, a force with primary jurisdiction at
park sites within metropolitan areas of Washington, DC, New York City, and San
Francisco. The USPP also provides specialized law enforcement services to other
park units when requested, through deployment of professional police officers to
support law enforcement trained and commissioned park rangers working in park
units system-wide. The President’s request for the USPP in FY2006 was $80.4
million; the enacted level for FY2005 was $80.1 million. The House Appropriations
Committee recommended $82.4 million, $2.0 million more than the request. An
internal review concluded in December 2004 addressed long-standing fiscal and
management problems and redefined USPP priorities to be: 1) protection of “iconic,”

---

CRS-16
symbols of democracy park units, 2) patrol of the National Mall and adjacent parks,
3) special events and crowd management, 4) criminal investigations, and 5) traffic
control and parkway patrol.
National Recreation and Preservation. This line item funds a variety of
park recreation and resource protection programs, as well as programs connected
with state and local community efforts to preserve natural, cultural, and heritage
resources. The FY2006 request was $36.8 million, a decrease of $24.2 million (40%)
from the FY2005 appropriation of $61.0 million. The request did not seek funds for
statutory or contractual aid. The Administration has previously proposed
discontinuing these programs, requesting no funds for FY2005, but Congress
provided $11.2 million. For FY2006, the House Committee provided a total of $49.0
million for National Recreation and Preservation, but no funds for statutory or
contractual aid.
The FY2006 request proposed $5.0 million for funding the 27 existing National
Heritage Areas (NHAs), a reduction of $9.6 million (66%) from the FY2005 enacted
level ($14.6 million). In recent years, the Administration’s requests for heritage area
partnerships have been significantly lower than the previous year’s appropriation, but
Congress has maintained or increased NHA funding. The House Appropriations
Committee recommended $15.0 million for Heritage Partnership Programs for
FY2006, $10.0 million more than the request. DOI officials testified in 2005 that the
$12.5 million requested for FY2006 for Preserve America, a proposed program that
was not funded in FY2005, could be used in part to fund NHAs. The House
Appropriations Committee did not recommend FY2006 funding for Preserve
America.
Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR). This once-popular
matching grant program, created in 1978, provided direct federal assistance to urban
localities to rehabilitate recreational facilities. In FY2001 and FY2002, Congress
appropriated $30.0 million annually for UPARR. Since then, no money has been
provided for new grants. The President did not request funds for FY2006 for new
grants, and the House Appropriations Committee recommended no FY2006 funding
for the program. The grant administration portion of the program was transferred to
the National Recreation and Preservation line item in FY2005. Administration of
more than 100 active grants approved in FY2000-FY2002 continues. The enabling
legislation, the Urban Park and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625, title X; 16
U.S.C. §§2501-2514), requires that grant-assisted sites remain recreation facilities
and ongoing NPS stewardship and protection activities continue for the 1,528
recreation sites.
Construction and Maintenance. The construction line item funds new
construction, as well as rehabilitation and replacement of park facilities. The
FY2006 budget proposed $307.4 million for NPS construction, comprised of $324.4
million for high priority health, safety, and resource protection needs, less $17.0
million transferred from prior year balances. This was a decrease of $45.6 million
from the FY2005 enacted appropriation of $353.0 million (including $50.8 million
in emergency funding for disaster response). The House Appropriations Committee
recommended $291.2 million, $61.8 million less than FY2005 and $16.1 million
below the request.

---

CRS-17
According to the Administration, more than $1.1 billion is proposed for FY2006
to address the NPS maintenance backlog. Under the budget request, facility
maintenance (in the NPS operations line item) and construction would receive a
combined appropriation of $699.6 million, a decrease of $38.8 million from FY2005.
These figures reflect total appropriations for line items for which deferred
maintenance is only a part. Another $108 million for the facility maintenance
backlog is anticipated from recreation fee program receipts. Finally, the
Administration’s transportation reauthorization proposal includes $320 million for
park roads and parkways, nearly double the current funding of $165 million annually.
According to the Administration, this total funding, if enacted, fulfills the President’s
campaign commitment to provide $4.9 billion over five years to reduce the backlog.
The National Parks Conservation Association and other critics contend that the NPS
maintenance backlog has continued to grow because the Administration has not
allocated $1 billion annually in new money, and has rearranged accounts to give the
appearance of addressing the problem.
The House Appropriations Committee report for FY2006 acknowledged NPS
progress in addressing building and facility condition and developing an asset
management program designed to prevent a future deferred maintenance backlog
from recurring.
Congress has expressed concerns about partnership construction projects —
those undertaken by friends’ groups or corporate or foundation sponsors. Concerns
include that these are often expensive, low-priority projects funded outside the
regular budget process and that they increase the need for operations and
maintenance funding, possibly compounding operational shortfalls and delaying
backlog projects and other agency priorities. In response, the NPS has begun an
inventory of partnership construction projects of more than $1 million, and has
implemented a comprehensive review process seeking to ensure that projects are
essential and achievable.
Land Acquisition and State Assistance. For FY2006, appropriations
requested for the NPS under the Land and Conservation Fund (LWCF) totaled $54.5
million, a $91.9 million (63%) decrease from the FY2005 enacted level ($146.3
million). The House Appropriations Committee recommended $9.4 million —
$136.9 million less than the FY2005 enacted level and $45.0 below the request.
The sizable reduction in the House Committee’s recommendation in part
stemmed from the lack of funds for new LWCF State Assistance Grants, as had been
recommended by the President. However, the House Committee did include $1.6
million to administer existing grants. FY2005 funding for state assistance was $91.2
million. State assistance is for park land acquisition and recreation planning and
development by the states, with the funds allocated by a formula and states
determining their spending priorities. Administration representatives have testified
that state project grants are more appropriately funded through other means, and that
in a period of budgetary constraint, such programs have a lower priority than other
NPS activities. (For more information, see the “Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF)” section in this report.)

---

CRS-18
The sizeable reduction in the House Committee’s recommendation is due also
to a reduction for federal land acquisition. These funds are used to acquire lands, or
interests in lands, for inclusion within the National Park System. The FY2006
budget request was $52.9 million, $2.3 million below the FY2005 enacted level
($55.1 million). The House Appropriations Committee recommended $7.8 million
for NPS land acquisition management activities (plus $9.9 million of prior year
appropriations), but did not include money for specified acquisitions. This was $47.3
million less than FY2005 enacted and $45.0 million below the request.
Recreation Fee Program. The FY2005 Interior appropriations law
established a new 10-year recreation fee program to replace the recreational fee
demonstration program. The law authorizes the four major federal land management
agencies — the NPS, BLM, FWS, and FS — plus the Bureau of Reclamation, to
retain and spend receipts from entrance and user fees without further appropriation,
primarily at the site where the fees are collected. A portion of fee receipts is
distributed to other agency sites. The NPS estimates fee receipts of $124.7 million
for FY2004 and $122.8 million for FY2005. The fee demo program was created and
extended in appropriations laws and had been controversial, as was the creation of
the new 10-year program.
Historic Preservation. The Historic Preservation Fund (HPF), administered
by the NPS, provides grants-in-aid to states (primarily through State Historic
Preservation Offices), territories, the Federated States of Micronesia, and certified
local governments, for activities specified in the National Historic Preservation Act
(P.L. 89-665; 16 U.S.C. §470). These activities include protecting cultural resources
and enhancing economic development by restoring historic districts, sites, buildings,
and objects significant in American history and culture. Preservation grants are
normally funded on a 60% federal/40% state matching share basis. In addition, the
Historic Preservation Fund provides funding for cultural heritage projects for Indian
tribes, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians.
For FY2006, the House Appropriations Committee recommended $72.7 million
for the Historic Preservation Fund, including $36.0 million for grants-in-aid to states,
$3.2 million for tribal grants, $30.0 million for Save America’s Treasures and $3.5
million for Historically Black Colleges and Universities. This represents a $6.5
million increase over the FY2006 Administration request of $66.2 million for the
HPF, and a $1.0 million increase over the FY2005 enacted level ($71.7 million).
The House Committee provided $30.0 million for Save America’s Treasures,
which the President had proposed to cut in half. However, the Committee did not
fund a proposed “Preserve America” program. See Table 9 below. These grants-in-
aid, recommended by the President for FY2006 and previously proposed in FY2005,
would supplement Save America’s Treasures in supporting community efforts to
develop resource management strategies and to encourage heritage tourism. Under
the President’s proposal, Preserve America grants would be competitively awarded
on a 50/50 matching basis, as one-time seed money grants. The FY2005
appropriation’s law did not fund these grants.


The Save America’s Treasures program preserves nationally significant
intellectual and cultural artifacts and historic structures. Due to concerns that the

---

CRS-19
program did not reflect geographic diversity, annual appropriations laws have
required that project recommendations be subject to approval by the Appropriations
Committees prior to distribution of funds. Approximately half of the FY2005
appropriation is specified by Congress for designated projects. In addition, the
FY2005 appropriations law gives the National Endowment for the Arts the authority
to award Save America’s Treasures grants.
An issue that is often considered during the appropriations process is whether
historic preservation programs should be funded by private money rather than the
federal government. Congress eliminated permanent federal funding for the National
Trust for Historic Preservation, but has funded on a temporary basis the Trust’s
endowment fund for endangered properties. Also, HPF previously included funds
for preserving and restoring historic buildings and structures on Historically Black
Colleges and Universities (HBCU) campuses. An appropriation in FY2001 of $7.2
million represented the unused authorization remaining under law. There was no
funding for HBCUs under HPF for FY2002 or FY2003. The FY2004 appropriations
law provided $3.0 million through competitive grants administered by the NPS, and
the FY2005 law provided $3.4 million. For FY2006, the Administration did not
propose funding for HBCUs under HPF, but the House Appropriations Committee
would provide $3.5 million.
Table 9. Appropriations for the Historic Preservation Fund,
FY2005-FY2006
($ in thousands)
FY2006
FY2005
FY2006
Historic Preservation
House
Approp.
Request
Comm.
Grants-in-Aid to States and Territoriesa
$35,500
$35,500
$36,000
Tribal Grants
3,205
3,205
3,205
Save America’s Treasures
29,583
15,000
30,000
Preserve America Grants-In-Aid
0
12,500
0
HBCUs
3,451
0
3,500
National Historic Trust Endowment

0 0 0
Grant/Historic Sites Fund
Total Appropriations
$71,739
$66,205
$72,705
a. The term “Grants-in-Aid to States and Territories” is used in conjunction with the budget and refers
to the same program as Grants-in-Aid to State Historic Preservation Offices.
For further information on the National Park Service, see its website at
[http://www.nps.gov/].
For further information on Historic Preservation, see its website at
[http://www2.cr.nps.gov/].

---

CRS-20
CRS Report 96-123. Historic Preservation: Background and Funding, by Susan
Boren.
CRS Issue Brief IB10145. National Park Management, coordinated by Carol Hardy
Vincent.
CRS Issue Brief IB10141, Recreation on Federal Lands, coordinated by Kori Calvert
and Carol Hardy Vincent.
U.S. Geological Survey
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the nation’s premier science agency in
providing physical and biological information related to natural hazards; certain
aspects of the environment; and energy, mineral, water, and biological sciences. In
addition, it is the federal government’s principal civilian mapping agency and a
primary source of data on the quality of the nation’s water resources.
Funds for the USGS are provided in the line item Surveys, Investigations, and
Research, for seven activities: the National Mapping Program; Geologic Hazards,
Resources, and Processes; Water Resources Investigations; Biological Research;
Enterprise Information; Science Support; and Facilities. For FY2006, the House
Appropriations Committee recommended $974.6 million for the USGS, an increase
of $41.1 million (4%) over the Administration’s request of $933.5 million, and an
increase of $38.1 million (4%) over the FY2005 enacted level of $936.5 million. See
Table 10 below. The House Committee recommended $133.2 million for the
National Mapping Program; $239.2 million for Geologic Hazards, Resource, and
Processes; $211.8 million for Water Resources Investigations; $174.8 million for
Biological Research; $47.1 million for Enterprise Information; $72.3 million for
Science Support; and $96.2 million for Facilities.
In this past year, more than 27 major disasters were declared in the United States
from earthquakes to landslides, hurricanes, fires, and floods. Further, the United
States and its territories have 169 volcanoes considered to be active, more than any
other country in the world. USGS has the lead federal responsibility under the
Disaster Relief Act (P.L. 93-288, popularly known as the Stafford Act) to provide
notification for earthquakes, volcanoes, and landslides and reduce losses through
effective forecasts and warnings based on the best possible scientific information.
The FY2006 budget request seeks to address these responsibilities by proposing
funding increases to assist in the development and use of tsunami monitoring
systems, seismic activity monitoring, and geothermal assessments.
Of the proposed reductions in the FY2006 budget, the largest would be for
$28.3 million in the Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes line item due to
cuts in programs related to mineral resources. The House Committee would restore
this funding in its entirety. The FY2006 request also proposed to eliminate funding
for the Water Resources Research Institutes, which the Administration claims have
been generally self-supporting. The Institutes were funded at $6.4 million in
FY2005. The House Committee provided funding to these institutes of $6.5 million
for FY2006.

---

CRS-21
Enterprise Information. In FY2005, the Administration proposed a new line
item for funding within the USGS called Enterprise Information. This program
consolidates funding of all USGS information needs including information
technology, security, services, and resources management, as well as capital asset
planning. Funding for these functions previously was distributed among several
different USGS offices and budget subactivities. The House Appropriations
Committee recommended $47.1 million for this subactivity, $0.7 million below the
Administration’s request of $47.8 million and $2.7 million above the FY2005
enacted level of $44.4 million.
There are three primary programs within Enterprise Information: (1) Enterprise
Information Security and Technology, which supports management and operations
of USGS telecommunications (e.g., computing infrastructure and email); (2)
Enterprise Information Resources, which provides policy support, information
management, and oversight over information services; and (3) Federal Geographic
Data Coordination, which provides operational support and management for the
Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). The FGDC is an interagency,
intergovernmental committee that encourages collaboration to make geospatial data
available to state, local, and tribal governments, as well as communities.
National Mapping Program. The National Mapping Program aims to
provide access to high quality geospatial information to the public. The House
Appropriations Committee recommends $133.2 million, which is $0.3 million below
the Administration’s request of $133.5 million, and $14.5 million above the FY2005
enacted level of $118.8 million.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended $46.4 million for the Land
Remote Sensing subactivity, an increase of $13.7 million over the FY2005 enacted
level and the same as the Administration’s request. This recommendation reflects
an increase of $19.5 million to support land remote sensing archives and capability.
This increase is anticipated to allow the continued availability of Landsat data and
provide the necessary resources for data reception, processing, and archiving. As part
of the budget response to a funding shortfall in Landsat 7, due to fewer purchases of
the data, the USGS is seeking $6.0 million in FY2006 for the Landsat Program.
Landsat 7 is a satellite that takes remotely-sensed images of the Earth’s land surface
and surrounding coastal areas primarily for environmental monitoring. Last year,
approximately 25% of the data from the Landsat 7 Satellite began showing signs of
degradation. Nevertheless, an interagency panel concluded that the Landsat 7
Satellite data “continues to provide a unique, cost-effective solution to operational
and scientific problems.”5 In report language, the House Appropriations Committee
commended the Administration and the USGS for providing a proposal to continue
Landsat operations.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended $71.9 million for the
Cooperative Topographic activity, the same as the Administration’s request. This
activity aims to provide geospatial data to natural resources decision-makers and to
5 U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey, Budget Justification and Performance
Information: Fiscal Year 2005 (Reston, VA: 2004).

---

CRS-22
build the National Map. The National Map consists of geospatial information, such
as elevation, hydrography, and orthoimagery, compiled from multiple partners. Of
this amount, $58.3 million is to maintain map-related databases and to respond to
data needs.
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes. For Geologic Hazards,
Resources, and Processes activities, the House Appropriations Committee
recommended $239.2 million, which is $31.1 million above the Administration’s
request of $208.1 million for FY2006, and $10.0 million below the FY2005 enacted
level of $229.2 million. This line item covers programs in three activities: Hazard
Assessments, Landscape and Coastal Assessments, and Resource Assessments.
The House Committee would maintain funding for the Resource Assessments
line item at $78.3 million, although the Administration had sought a reduction of
$28.3 million for FY2006. According to the Administration, proposed cuts in the
mineral resources program would terminate the collection of basic geologic and
mineral deposit data for the nation, the internationally-coordinated global mineral
resource assessment, and many mineral commodity reports. The approximately $25
million the Administration had sought for the minerals program was to continue
funding minerals surveys and studies relevant to ongoing federal land management,
regulatory, and remediation activities. The House Committee, in report language,
asserted that minerals and mineral products are important to the U.S. economy, and
that minerals resources research and assessments are a core responsibility of the
USGS. The House Committee further stated that objective data on mineral
commodities cannot be generated by the private sector.

The Geologic Hazards Assessments program would receive $82.2 million from
the House Appropriations Committee, as recommended by the Administration, an
increase of $6.2 million over the FY2005 enacted level. This reflects increased
attention to monitoring natural hazards and mitigating their effects. The
Administration sought $8.1 million in emergency supplemental funding for FY2005
to begin procuring and installing additional seismic monitoring stations and to
enhance the existing seismic monitoring network for tsunami detection.
Water Resources Investigations. For Water Resources Investigations, the
House Appropriations Committee recommended $211.8 million for FY2006, which
is $7.6 million above the Administration’s request of $204.2 million, and $0.6
million above the FY2005 enacted level of $211.2 million. The Hydrologic
Monitoring, Assessments and Research activity would receive $141.5 million for
FY2006, $1.1 million above the Administration’s request and nearly $1.0 million
below the FY2005 enacted level. As with the Bush Administration’s FY2002-
FY2005 budget requests, the FY2006 request sought to discontinue USGS support
for Water Resources Research Institutes because, the Administration alleges, most
institutes have succeeded in leveraging sufficient funding for program activities from
non-USGS sources. However, Congress provided funding for the institutes from
FY2002 to FY2005. The House Appropriations Committee recommended funding
the institutes at $6.5 million.
The National Assessment of Water Availability and Use is a program under
Water Resources that is being implemented this year. This program aims to provide

---

CRS-23
a better understanding of the nation’s water resources, trends in water use, and
forecasting water availability. In FY2005, the program began a $1.2 million pilot
study in the Great Lakes Basin to evaluate water resources and use. The FY2006
budget proposed to extend the program to the western United States through a pilot
effort that would provide and analyze information to characterize changes in ground-
water availability in large regional aquifer systems. In report language, the House
Appropriations Committee stated an expectation that USGS continue this project,
implement a second pilot project, and continue to expand this program to other parts
of the country.
In other report language, the House Appropriations Committee expressed
concern that the Water Resource Division of the USGS is providing or seeking to
provide a variety of commercial services to federal and non-federal entities, in
competition with the private sector. The House Committee discouraged this activity
and requested a report by the end of 2005 that described the Division’s past, present,
and future efforts to avoid competing with the private sector.
Biological Research. The Biological Research Program under the USGS
generates and distributes information related to the conservation and management of
the nation’s biological resources. The House Appropriations Committee
recommended $174.8 million for this activity, $1.8 million above the
Administration’s request of $172.9 million, and $3.1 million over the FY2005
enacted level of $171.7 million. The activities under Biological Research include
Biological Research and Monitoring, Biological Information Management and
Delivery, and Cooperative Research Units. The FY2006 request proposed increases
for projects and research in deepwater fisheries in the Great Lakes, freshwater
fisheries in the western United States, and control of invasive species, such as the
tamarisk in the Rio Grande Basin. The House Appropriations Committee
recommended certain increases, including $1.4 million for the Great Lakes Science
Center for safety needs associated with its research vessel.
Science Support and Facilities. Science Support focuses on those costs
associated with modernizing the infrastructure for managing and disseminating
scientific information. The House Appropriations Committee and the Administration
sought $72.3 million for Science Support for FY2006, an increase of $6.8 million
from the FY2005 enacted level of $65.6 million. This included a $750,000 increase
for science on DOI lands, which will provide funds for earth and biological science
activities for bureaus within DOI. Activities will focus on coal bed methane and
Mancos shale landscapes in the Rockies; geologic and hydrologic processes in the
Lower Colorado River basin; habitat assessment for the North Slope region of
Alaska; and ecosystem studies in the eastern United States.
Facilities focuses on the costs for maintenance and repair of facilities. The
House Appropriations Committee recommended $96.2 million for this subactivity,
$1.6 million over the Administration request of $94.7 million, and $1.6 million over
the FY2005 enacted level of $94.6 million.

---

CRS-24
Table 10. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey,
FY2005-FY2006
($ in millions)
FY2006
FY2005
FY2006
U.S. Geological Survey
House
Approp.
Request
Comm.
Enterprise Information
$44.4
$47.8
$47.1
National Mapping Program
118.8
133.5
133.2
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and
Processes
229.2
208.1
239.2
Water Resources Investigations
211.2
204.2
211.7
Biological Research
171.7
172.9
174.8
Science Support
65.6
72.3
72.3
Facilities
94.6
94.7
96.2
Total Appropriations
$936.5 a
$933.5
$974.6
a. The total includes an emergency appropriation of $1.0 million provided in P.L. 108-324.
For further information on the U.S. Geological Survey, see its website at
[http://www.usgs.gov/].
Minerals Management Service
The Minerals Management Service (MMS) administers two programs: the
Offshore Minerals Management (OMM) Program and the Minerals Revenue
Management (MRM) Program. OMM administers competitive leasing on Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) lands and oversees production of offshore oil, gas, and other
minerals. MRM collects and disburses bonuses, rents, and royalties paid on federal
onshore and OCS leases and Indian mineral leases. Revenues from onshore leases
are distributed to states in which they were collected, the general fund of the U.S.
Treasury, and designated programs. Revenues from the offshore leases are allocated
among the coastal states, Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Historic
Preservation Fund, and the U.S. Treasury.
Budget and Appropriations. The Administration sought an FY2006 total
MMS budget of $290.2 million. This included $7.0 million for Oil Spill Research
and $283.1 million for Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management. The Royalty
and Offshore Minerals Management total budget would be comprised of $148.3
million for OMM, $87.3 million for MRM, and $47.5 million for general
administration. The total FY2006 budget of $290.2 million would be derived from
$167.4 million in appropriations and $122.7 million from offsetting collections
which MMS has been retaining since 1994. The Administration’s total budget was
5% above the $277.6 million provided for FY2005. The appropriations portion
would decrease by 4%, from $173.8 million enacted for FY2005 to $167.4 million
for FY2006.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended a total of $282.4 million
for MMS programs (including Oil Spill Research). The major differences between

---

CRS-25
the Administration request and the recommendation of the Committee are in two
Royalty Management programs: the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Royalty-in-Kind
(RIK) conversion and the Compliance and Asset Management initiative. The
Committee considered the $9.8 million in the budget request to fund these programs
unnecessary, because the Committee included a provision to allow the RIK program
to recover its costs directly. See Table 11 below.
The MMS estimates that it collects and disburses over $6 billion in revenue
annually. This amount fluctuates based primarily on the prices of oil and natural gas.
Over the past decade, royalties from natural gas production have accounted for 40%
to 45% of annual MMS receipts, while oil royalties were not more than 25%.
Table 11. Appropriations for the Minerals Management Service,
FY2005-FY2006
($ in millions)
FY2006
FY2005
FY2006
Minerals Management Service
House
Approp.
Request
Comm.
Royalty and Offshore Minerals
Management
— OCS Lands (OMM)
$148.3
$148.3
$149.5
— Royalty Management (MRM)
75.4
87.3
77.5
— General Administration
46.9
47.5
48.3
— Gross, Royalty and Offshore Minerals
Management
270.6
283.1
275.4
— Use of Receipts
-103.7
-122.7
-122.7
Total, Royalty and Offshore Minerals
Management Appropriations
166.8
160.4
152.7
Oil Spill Research
7.0
7.0
7.0
Total Appropriations
$173.8
$167.4
$159.7
Oil and Gas Leasing Offshore. Issues not directly tied to specific funding
accounts are being considered as part of the FY2006 appropriations process, as they
were in recent years. Oil and gas development moratoria along the Atlantic and
Pacific Coasts, parts of Alaska, and the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) have been in place
since 1982, as a result of public laws and executive orders of the President. The
FY2005 appropriations law continued the moratorium on funding preleasing and
leasing activities in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico (GOM). Sales in the Eastern GOM
have been especially controversial. There are several blocks that were removed by
the Administration from Eastern GOM sale 181 that could become available for
release after 2007, as part of the Administration’s new five-year leasing program.
Industry groups contend that Eastern GOM sales are too limited, given what they say
is an enormous resource potential, while environmental groups and some state
officials argue that the risks of development to the environment and local economies
are too great. The FY2005 law continued leasing moratoria in other areas, including
the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts.

---

CRS-26
However, the FY2005 law (P.L. 108-447) did not include language to prohibit
funding for preleasing and leasing activity in the North Aleutian Basin Planning
Area. The FY2004 law (P.L. 108-108) similarly omitted this language, and the issue
has been controversial. There is some industry interest in eventually opening the area
to oil and gas development as an offset to the depressed fishing industry in the Bristol
Bay area. Environmentalists and others oppose this effort. The North Aleutian Basin
Planning Area, containing Bristol Bay, is not in the MMS current five-year (2002-
2007) leasing plan. Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (OCSLA,
43 U.S.C. §1331), the Secretary of the Interior submits five-year leasing programs
that specify the time, location, and size of lease sales to be held during that period.
Industry groups are seeking legislation to allow natural-gas-only drilling in areas
currently under the moratoria. The industry proposal would allow state governors to
veto any proposal within 60 miles of their shores and would extend states’ coastal
boundaries up to 12 miles to increase the potential of generating more revenue for the
states.
During the FY2006 House Appropriations Committee markup, an amendment
that would lift the moratoria in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico if U.S. oil imports reach
two-thirds of consumption was withdrawn. Another amendment, also withdrawn,
would have allocated $50.0 million to inventory offshore natural gas.
Another issue that might arise during debate on FY2006 Interior appropriations
involves MMS oil and gas leases in offshore California. In past years this issue has
been controversial. Under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C.
§1451), development of federal offshore leases must be consistent with state coastal
zone management plans. In 1999, MMS extended 36 of the 40 leases at issue in
offshore California by granting lease suspensions, but the State of California
contended that it should have first reviewed the suspensions for consistency with the
state’s coastal zone management plan. In June 2001, the U.S. Court for the Northern
District of California agreed with the State of California and struck down the MMS
suspensions.
The Bush Administration appealed this decision January 9, 2002, to the U.S.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, after the state rejected a more limited lease
development plan that involved 20 leases using existing drilling platforms. However,
on December 2, 2002, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld the District
Court decision.6 The Department of the Interior did not appeal this decision and is
currently working with lessees to resolve the issue. The breach-of-contract lawsuit
that was filed against MMS by nine oil companies seeking $1.2 billion in
compensation for their undeveloped leases is pending further action.
Several oil and gas lessees submitted a new round of suspension requests to
prevent lease termination and loss of development rights. The MMS has prepared
six environmental assessments and found no significant impact for processing the
applications for Suspension of Production or Operations. Under the Coastal Zone
6 Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, California v. Norton, 01-16637.

---

CRS-27
Management Act, a consistency review by MMS and the state’s response to that
review will occur before a decision is made to grant or deny the requests.
For further information on the Minerals Management Service, see its website
at [http://www.mms.gov].
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA, P.L. 95-
87; 30 U.S.C. §1201 note) established the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement (OSM) to ensure that land mined for coal would be returned to a
condition capable of supporting its pre-mining land use. SMCRA also established
an Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) fund, with fees levied on coal production, to
reclaim abandoned sites that pose serious health or safety hazards. The law provided
that individual states and Indian tribes would develop their own regulatory programs
incorporating minimum standards established by law and regulations. Fee collections
have been broken up into federal and state shares. Grants are awarded to the states
after applying a distribution formula to the annual appropriation and drawing upon
both the federal and state shares. In instances where states have no approved
program, OSM directs reclamation.
Several states have been pressing in recent years for increases in the AML
appropriations, with an eye on the unappropriated balances in the state-share accounts
that now exceed $1 billion. The total unappropriated balance — including both
federal and state share accounts in the AML fund — was nearly $1.7 billion by the
end of FY2004. Western states are additionally critical of the program because, as
coal production has shifted westward, these states are paying more into the fund.
They argue that they are shouldering a disproportionate share of the reclamation
burden as more of the sites requiring remediation are in the East.
The Administration submitted legislation in the 108th Congress that would have
reauthorized fee collections and made a number of changes to the program to address
state and regional concerns. Other legislative proposals for reauthorization of AML
collections were introduced in the House and Senate. The 108th Congress was unable
to reach a resolution of the issues surrounding the structure of the program. In light
of the narrowing prospects that a bill would be enacted, the Senate Committee on
Appropriations added a short-term extension — to May 31, 2005 — during its
markup of the FY2005 Interior appropriations bill. The House version of the bill had
no comparable language. However, authorization for collection of AML fees was
extended to the end of June 2005 by the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2005
(P.L. 108-447). Pending a longer-term settlement of unresolved issues about the
structure of the AML program, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for
FY2005 (P.L. 109-13), signed by the President on May 11, 2005, extended
authorization for collection of the fees that are deposited to the AML reclamation
fund to the end of FY2005.

The FY2005 budget request, which included a proposal to restructure the
program to return the unobligated balances to the states, totaled $243.9 million for
the AML fund However, neither the House or Senate embraced the Administration’s
plan. The final appropriation for the fund for FY2005 was $188.2 million. The

---

CRS-28
FY2006 request again sought to return unobligated state-share balances to the states
over ten years. This part of the request accounted for $58.0 million of the
Administration’s total FY2006 AML request of $246.0 million. The House
Appropriations Committee did not include the $58.0 million in its FY2006
recommendation. With that exception, the House Committee agreed to all the
amounts in the FY2006 request — totaling $188.0 million for the AML Fund.
In its FY2006 budget, the Administration requested $1.5 million for minimum
program states. These states have significant AML problems, but insufficient levels
of current coal production to generate significant fees to the AML fund. Currently,
grants to the states from the AML fund are based on states’ current and historic coal
production. The minimum funding level for each of these states was increased to $2.0
million in 1992. However, over the objection of those states who would have
preferred the full authorization, Congress has appropriated $1.5 million to minimum
program states since FY1996. While the Administration sought $2.0 million for
minimum program states in its FY2005 request, it returned to $1.5 million for
FY2006, to which the House Appropriations Committee agreed. Also, SMCRA
includes a provision for a $10.0 million allocation from the AML collections for the
Small Operators Assistance Program (SOAP). However, as the Administration
proposal would end allocations to this program, no appropriation was requested for
FY2006, and none has been recommended by the House Committee.

The other component of the OSM budget is for regulation and technology
programs. For regulation and technology, Congress provided $108.4 million in
FY2005. The House Appropriations Committee agreed to the Administration request
for $110.5 million for FY2006. Included in the FY2006 request is $10.0 million for
the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative (ACSI), the same level as in FY2002-
FY2005. In total, the Administration requested $356.5 million for OSM, a 20%
increase over the FY2005 level of $296.6 million, and the total recommended by the
House Committee is $298.5 million.
For further information on the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement, see its website at [http://www.osmre.gov/osm.htm].
CRS Report RL32373. Abandoned Mine Land Fund Reauthorization: Selected
Issues, by Robert L. Bamberger.

Bureau of Indian Affairs
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) provides a variety of services to federally-
recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and their members, and
historically has been the lead agency in federal dealings with tribes. Programs
provided or funded through the BIA include government operations, courts, law
enforcement, fire protection, social programs, education, roads, economic
development, employment assistance, housing repair, dams, Indian rights protection,
implementation of land and water settlements, management of trust assets (real estate
and natural resources), and partial gaming oversight.
BIA’s FY2005 direct appropriations are $2.30 billion. For FY2006, the
Administration proposed $2.19 billion, a decrease of $108.2 million (5%) below

---

CRS-29
FY2005. The House Appropriations Committee recommended $2.32 billion, an
increase of $22.3 million (1%) over FY2005 and of $130.5 million (6%) over the
Administration’s proposal. For the BIA, its major budget components, and selected
BIA programs (shown in italics), Table 12 below presents FY2005 appropriations,
the Administration’s FY2006 proposal, the House Committee FY2006
recommendation, and the percentages of change from FY2005 to the Committee’s
recommendation. Decreases are shown with minuses.
Key issues for the BIA, discussed below, include the reorganization of the
Bureau, especially its trust asset management functions, and problems in the BIA
school system.
Table 12. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
FY2005-FY2006
($ in thousands)
Percent
Change
FY2006
Bureau of Indian
FY2005
FY2006
FY2005-
House
Affairs
Approp.
Request
FY2006
Comm.
House
Comm.
Operation of Indian Programs
— Tribal Priority
$769,543
$760,149
$778,069
1%
Allocations
——Contract Support
134,420
134,609
134,609
<1%
Costs
— Other Recurring
612,919
602,301
636,337
4%
Programs
——School Operations
517,647
521,633
544,993
5%
——Tribally-
53,141
43,375
43,375
-18%
Controlled Colleges
— Non-Recurring
75,985
65,325
67,691
-11%
Programs
— Central Office
140,021
151,534
151,534
8%
Operations
——Office of Federal
1,280
1,280
1,280
0%
Acknowledgment
——Trust Services
19,071
27,169
27,169
42%
——Information
58,092
58,288
58,288
<1%
Resources Technology
— Regional Office
41,362
41,590
41,590
1%
Operations
— Special Programs
286,261
303,331
317,516
11%
and Pooled Overhead
——Public Safety and
180,063
192,265
200,765
11%
Justice

---

CRS-30
Percent
Change
FY2006
Bureau of Indian
FY2005
FY2006
FY2005-
House
Affairs
Approp.
Request
FY2006
Comm.
House
Comm.
——Tribal Vocational
5,177
0
5,177
0%
Colleges
Subtotal, Operation of
1,926,091
1,924,230
1,992,737
3%
Indian Programs
Construction
319,129
232,137
284,137
–11%
— Education
263,372
173,875
225,875
-14%
Construction
——Replacement
105,550
43,494
75,494
-28%
School Construction
——Education
142,531
128,381
147,381
3%
Facilities Improvement
and Repair
— Law Enforcement
3,833
8,223
8,223
115%
Facilities Improvement
and Repair
Land and Water Claim
44,150
24,754
34,754
-21%
Settlements and
Miscellaneous
Payments
Indian Guaranteed
6,332
6,348
6,348
<1%
Loan Program
Total Appropriations
$2,295,702
$2,187,469
$2,317,976
1%
BIA Reorganization. In April 2003, Secretary of the Interior Norton began
implementing a reorganization of the BIA, the Office of Assistant Secretary-Indian
Affairs (AS-IA), and the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians (OST) in the
Office of the Interior Secretary (see “Office of Special Trustee” section below). The
reorganization arises from issues and events related to trust funds and trust assets
management, and is integrally related to the reform and improvement of trust
management. Historically, the BIA has been responsible for managing Indian tribes’
and individuals’ trust funds and trust assets. Trust assets include trust lands and the
lands’ surface and subsurface economic resources (e.g., timber, grazing, or minerals),
and cover about 45 million acres of tribal trust land and 10 million acres of individual
Indian trust land. Trust assets management includes real estate services, processing
of transactions (e.g., sales and leases), surveys, appraisals, probate functions, land
title records activities, and other functions.
The BIA, however, has been frequently charged with mismanaging Indian trust
funds and trust assets. Investigations and audits in the 1980s and after supported
these criticisms, especially in the areas of accounting, linkage of owners to assets,
and retention of records. This led to a trust reform act in 1994 and the filing of an
extensive court case in 1996. (See “Office of Special Trustee” section below.) The

---

CRS-31
1994 act created the OST, assigning it responsibility for oversight of trust
management reform. In 1996, trust fund management was transferred to the OST
from the BIA, but the BIA retained management of trust assets.
Unsuccessful efforts at trust management reform in the 1990s led DOI to
contract in 2001 with a management consultant firm. The firm’s recommendations
included both improvements in trust management and reorganization of the DOI
agencies carrying out trust management and improvement.7 Following nearly a year
of DOI consultation on reorganization with Indian tribes and individuals, DOI
announced the reorganization in December 2002, even though the department and
tribal leaders had not reached agreement on all aspects of reorganization. DOI,
however, faced a deadline in the court case to file a plan for overall trust management
reform, and reorganization was part of DOI’s plan.
The current reorganization plan of BIA, AS-IA, and OST — which DOI expects
to complete in FY2005 — chiefly involves trust management structures and
functions. Under the plan, the BIA’s trust operations at regional and agency levels
remains in those offices but is split off from other BIA services. The OST adds trust
officers to BIA regional and agency offices to oversee trust management and provide
information to Indian trust beneficiaries. Certain tribes, however, that had been
operating trust management reform pilot projects with their regional BIA offices
under self-governance compacts were excluded from the reorganization, under the
FY2004 and FY2005 appropriations acts. The BIA, OST, and AS-IA, together with
the Office of Historical Trust Accounting in the Secretary’s office, also are
implementing a separate trust management improvement project, announced in
March 2003, which includes improvements in trust asset systems, policies, and
procedures, historical accounting for trust accounts, reduction of backlogs,
modernization of computer technology (the court case led in 2001 to a continuing
shutdown of BIA’s World-Wide-Web connections), and maintenance of the
improved system.

Many Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and the plaintiffs in the court case,
have been critical of the new reorganization and have urgently asked that it be
suspended. Tribes argue that the reorganization is premature, because new trust
procedures and policies are still being developed; that it insufficiently defines new
OST duties; and that other major BIA service programs are being limited or cut to
pay for the reorganization. For FY2004-FY2005, Congress responded to tribal
concerns by excluding from BIA reorganization certain tribes that have been
operating trust management reform pilot projects with their regional BIA offices.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended retaining this exclusion for
FY2006. Congress has not, however, suspended or stopped the reorganization, and
the House Committee agreed with the Administration’s proposed funding for BIA
Central Office trust reform and reorganization.
BIA School System. The BIA funds 185 elementary and secondary schools
and peripheral dormitories, with over 2,000 structures, educating about 48,000
7 The report is available on the DOI website at [http://www.doi.gov/indiantrust/
pdf/roadmap.pdf].

---

CRS-32
students in 23 states. Tribes and tribal organizations, under self-determination
contracts and other grants, operate 120 of these institutions; the BIA operates the
remainder. BIA-funded schools’ key problems are low student achievement and,
especially, a large number of inadequate school facilities.
Some observers feel tribal operation of schools will improve student
achievement. To encourage tribal boards to take over operation of current BIA-
operated schools, for FY2004-FY2005, Congress created an administrative cost fund
to pay tribal school boards’ start-up administrative costs. The fund’s FY2005
appropriation is $986,000. The Administration’s proposal would reduce this fund for
FY2006 to $500,000.
Many BIA school facilities are old and dilapidated, with health and safety
deficiencies. BIA education construction covers both construction of new school
facilities to replace facilities that cannot be repaired, and improvement and repair of
existing facilities. Schools are replaced or repaired according to priority lists. The
BIA has estimated the current backlog in education facility repairs at $942 million,
but this figure changes as new repair needs appear each year. Table 12 above shows
FY2005 education construction funds, the Administration’s FY2006 proposal, and
the House Appropriations Committee’s FY2006 recommendation. The
Administration proposed reducing the total FY2006 appropriation for education
construction by $89.5 million (34%). Included in the proposal was a reduction for
replacement-school construction of $62.1 million (59%); the Administration argued
that a majority of school replacement projects funded in previous years are still under
construction and asserted that BIA needed to focus on completing them. The House
Committee disagreed with the Administration’s argument and recommended partly
restoring the Administration’s cuts, reducing FY2006 total education construction by
$37.5 million (14%) and replacement-school construction by $31.1 million (28%)
from the FY2005 enacted levels. In response to the Administration’s position that
some projects under self-determination contracts have been too slow in commencing,
the FY2005 appropriations act authorized the BIA to reassume management of
school construction projects that are under tribal self-determination contracts if the
construction does not begin within 18 months of funding availability. In FY2006
action, the House Appropriations Committee recommended retaining this provision.

Because construction appropriations are, in some tribes’ views, not reducing
construction needs fast enough, Indian tribes have urged Congress to explore
additional sources of construction financing. In the FY2001-FY2005 Interior
appropriations acts, Congress authorized a demonstration program that allows tribes
to help fund construction of BIA-funded, tribally-controlled schools. For FY2005,
Congress funded the program at $12.3 million (earmarking all the funding for three
projects). For FY2006, the Administration proposed no funding for this program.
For further information on education programs of the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
see its website at [http://www.oiep.bia.edu].
CRS Report RS22056. Major Indian Issues in the 109th Congress, by Roger Walke.

---

CRS-33
Departmental Offices
Insular Affairs. The Office of Insular Affairs (OIA) provides financial
assistance to four insular areas — American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands — as well as three
former insular areas — the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Palau, and the
Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI). OIA staff also manages relations between
these jurisdictions and the federal government and works to build the fiscal and
governmental capacity of units of local government.
Funding for the OIA consists of two parts: (1) permanent and indefinite
appropriations and (2) discretionary and current mandatory funding subject to the
appropriations process. The total FY2006 budget request for FY2006 was $392
million; of this total, $345.5 million (88%) is mandated through statutes. A total of
$313 million in permanent funding would be provided in FY2006 as follows:
! $198 million to three freely associated states (RMI, FSM, and Palau)
under conditions set forth in the respective Compacts of Free
Association;8 and,
! $115 million in fiscal assistance, divided between the U.S. Virgin
Islands for estimated rum excise and income tax collections and
Guam for income tax collections.
Discretionary and current mandatory funds that require annual appropriations
constitute the balance of the OIA budget. Two accounts — Assistance to Territories
(AT) and the Compact of Free Association (CFA) — comprise discretionary and
current mandatory funding. AT funding is used to provide grants for the operation
of the government of American Samoa, infrastructure improvement projects on many
of the insular area islands, and specified natural resource initiatives. The CFA
account provides federal assistance to the freely associated states pursuant to compact
agreements negotiated with the federal government. The FY2006 request sought to
reduce AT funding to $74.3 million, and CFA assistance to $4.9 million, for a total
of $79.1 million. The House Committee on Appropriations approved amounts higher
than requested for AT ($76.6 million) and CFA ($5.4 million), resulting in total
recommended discretionary and mandatory funding of $81.9 million. Appropriations
for FY2005 totaled $81.0 million, with AT funded at $75.6 million and CFA at $5.5
million.
Little debate has occurred in recent years on funding for the territories and the
OIA. In general, Congress continues to monitor economic development and fiscal
management by government officials in the insular areas. For example, the recently
negotiated compacts with the FSM and RMI include accountability measures and
performance review requirements.
8 Legislation to approve the amended compacts was enacted in the 108th Congress (P.L. 108-
188). For background, see CRS Report RL31737, The Marshall Islands and Micronesia:
Amendments to the Compact of Free Association with the United States, by Thomas Lum.
The Compact with the Republic of Palau began in FY1994 and will terminate in FY2009.

---

CRS-34
For further information on Insular Affairs, see its website at
[http://www.doi.gov/oia/index.html].
Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT). For FY2006, the House
Appropriations Committee recommended $230.0 million for PILT, an increase of
1% over the FY2005 level ($226.8 million) and of 15% over the Administration’s
request ($200.0 million). The Administration had recommended the cut as part of
the President’s effort to reduce the deficit and to provide funding at a level that is
more consistent with historical appropriations levels.
The PILT program compensates local governments for federal land within their
jurisdictions because federal land is not taxed. Since the beginning of the program
in 1976, payments of more than $3 billion have been made. The PILT program has
been controversial, because in recent years appropriations have been substantially
less than authorized amounts, ranging from 42% to 68% of authorized levels between
FY2000 and FY2004 (the most recent year available). County governments claim
that rural areas in particular need additional PILT funds to provide the kinds of
services that counties with more private land are able to provide.
Beginning in FY2004, the Administration proposed, and Congress agreed, to
shift the program from the BLM to Departmental Management in DOI. The shift was
supported because PILT payments are made for lands of the Fish and Wildlife
Service, National Park Service, Forest Service, and certain other federal lands, in
addition to BLM lands.
For further information on the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program, see the BLM
website at [http://www.blm.gov/pilt/].
CRS Report RL31392, PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified, by
M. Lynne Corn.

Office of Special Trustee for American Indians. The Office of Special
Trustee for American Indians (OST), in the Secretary of the Interior’s office, was
authorized by Title III of the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act
of 1994 (P.L. 103-412; 25 U.S.C. §§4001 et seq). The OST generally oversees the
reform of Interior Department management of Indian trust assets, the direct
management of Indian trust funds, establishment of an adequate trust fund
management system, and support of department claims settlement activities related
to the trust funds. Indian trust funds formerly were managed by the BIA, but in 1996,
as authorized by P.L. 103-412, the Secretary of the Interior transferred trust fund
management from the BIA to the OST. (See “Bureau of Indian Affairs” section
above.)
Indian trust funds managed by the OST comprise two sets of funds: (1) tribal
funds owned by about 300 tribes in approximately 1,400 accounts, with a total asset
value of about $3 billion; and (2) individual Indians’ funds, known as Individual
Indian Money (IIM) accounts, in about 245,000 accounts with a current total asset
value of about $400 million. (Figures are from the OST FY2006 budget
justifications.) The funds include monies received from claims awards, land or water

---

CRS-35
rights settlements, and other one-time payments, and from income from land-based
trust assets (e.g., land, timber, minerals), as well as from investment income.
OST’s FY2005 appropriation was $228.1 million. The Administration proposed
$303.9 million for FY2006, an increase of $75.9 million (33%). The House
Appropriations Committee recommended $226.1 million, a decrease of $1.9 million
(1%) from FY2005 and of $77.8 million (26%) from the Administration’s proposal.
Table 13 below presents figures for FY2005-FY2006 for the OST. Key issues for
the OST are its current reorganization, an historical accounting for tribal and IIM
accounts, and litigation involving tribal and IIM accounts.
Table 13. Appropriations for the Office of Special Trustee for
American Indians, FY2005-FY2006
($ in thousands)
Percent
Change
FY2006
Office of Special Trustee
FY2005
FY2006
FY2005-
House
for American Indians
Approp.
Request
FY2006
Comm.
House
Comm.
Federal Trust Programs
$193,540
$269,397
$191,593
-1%
— Historical Accounting
57,194
135,000
58,000
<1%
Indian Land Consolidation
34,514
34,514
34,514
0%
Total Appropriations
$228,054
$303,911
$226,107
-1%
Reorganization. Both OST and BIA began a reorganization in 2003 (see
“Bureau of Indian Affairs” section above), one aspect of which is the creation of OST
field operations. OST is installing fiduciary trust officers and administrators at the
level of BIA agency and regional offices. OST and BIA plan on completing the
reorganization in FY2005. Many Indian tribes disagree with parts of the OST and
BIA reorganization and have asked Congress to put it on hold so that OST and BIA
can conduct further consultation with the tribes.
Historical Accounting. The historical accounting effort seeks to assign
correct balances to all tribal and IIM accounts, especially because of litigation.
Because of the long historical period to be covered (some accounts date from the 19th
century), the large number of IIM accounts, and the large number of missing account
documents, an historical accounting based on actual account transactions is expected
to be large and time-consuming. The Interior Department in 2003 proposed an
extensive, five-year, $335 million project to reconcile IIM accounts. OST continues
to follow this historical accounting plan for IIM accounts, subject to court rulings
(see “Litigation” below) or congressional actions. All of the increase that the
Administration proposed for the OST for FY2006 was for historical accounting,
which would increase from $57.2 million in FY2005 to $135.0 million in FY2006.
Of the proposed $135.0 million total for historical accounting, $95.0 million was for
IIM accounts and $40.0 million for tribal accounts. The House Appropriations
Committee recommended capping FY2006 historical accounting funds at the

---

CRS-36
FY2005 pre-rescission level of $58.0 million, rather than support the
Administration’s proposed $77-million increase for historical accounting. The
Committee recommended using the $77 million to restore proposed cuts in BIA
education and Indian Health Service funding.
Litigation. An IIM trust funds class-action lawsuit (Cobell v. Norton) was
filed in 1996, in the federal district court for the District of Columbia, against the
federal government by IIM account holders.9 Many OST activities are related to the
Cobell case, including litigation support activities, but the most significant issue for
appropriations concerns the method by which the historical accounting will be
conducted to estimate IIM accounts’ proper balances. The DOI estimated its
proposed method would cost $335 million over five years and produce a total owed
to IIM accounts in the low millions; the plaintiffs’ method, the cost of which is
uncertain, was estimated to produce a total owed to IIM accounts over $100 billion.
In 2003, the district court conducted a lengthy trial to decide which historical
accounting method to use in estimating the IIM accounts’ proper balances. The
court’s decision on historical accounting was delivered on September 25, 2003. The
court rejected both the plaintiffs’ and DOI’s proposed historical accounting plans and
instead ordered DOI to account for all trust fund and asset transactions since 1887,
without using statistical sampling. The Interior Department estimated that the court’s
choice for historical accounting would cost $6-12 billion.
In the FY2004 Interior appropriations act, Congress enacted a controversial
provision aimed at the court’s September 25, 2003 decision. The provision directed
that no statute or trust law principle should be construed to require the Interior
Department to conduct the historical accounting until either Congress had delineated
the department’s specific historical accounting obligations or December 31, 2004,
whichever was earlier. Based on this provision, the DOI appealed the court’s
September 25, 2003 order. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
temporarily stayed the September 25 order. During the stay, on April 5, 2004, the
IIM plaintiffs and the federal government announced agreement on two mediators in
their case and mediation commenced. Meanwhile, no bill was introduced in the 108th
Congress to delineate the government’s historical accounting obligation. On
December 10, 2004, the Appeals Court overturned much of the September 25 order,
finding among other things that the congressional provision prevented the district
court from requiring DOI to follow its directions for a historical accounting. The
Appeals Court noted that the provision expired on December 31, 2004, but did not
discuss the district court’s possible reissue of the order. On February 23, 2005, the
district court issued an order on historical accounting very similar to its September
2003 order, requiring that an accounting cover all trust fund and asset transactions
since 1887 and not use statistical sampling. The DOI, which estimates that
9 Cobell v. Norton (Civil No. 96-1285) (D.D.C.). Updated information is available on the
websites of the plaintiffs at [http://www.indiantrust.com], the DOI at [http://www.doi.gov/
indiantrust/], and the Justice Department at [http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/cases/cobell/
index.htm].

---

CRS-37
compliance with the new order would cost $12-13 billion,10 appealed the order. The
district court did not stay its order during the appeal, however, so various deadlines
that DOI must meet are still in effect. One news story suggests DOI is seeking
congressional action to delay the court-ordered accounting, similar to the provision
in the FY2004 Interior appropriations act.11
Congress has long been concerned that the current and potential costs of the
Cobell lawsuit may jeopardize DOI trust reform implementation, reduce spending on
other Indian programs, and be difficult to fund. Besides the ongoing expenses of the
litigation, possible costs include $12-13 billion for the court-ordered historical
accounting, a Cobell settlement that might cost as much as the court-ordered
historical accounting, or the over-$100 billion that Cobell plaintiffs estimate their
IIM accounts are owed. Among the funding sources for these large costs discussed
in a recent House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee hearing were discretionary
appropriations and the Treasury Department’s “Judgment Fund,”12 but some senior
appropriators consider the Fund insufficient for a $6-$13 billion dollar settlement.13
Among other options, Congress may await a stay, reversal, or other appeals court
action, or it may enact another delay to the court-ordered accounting, or may take
other actions such as directing a settlement or delineating the department’s historical
accounting obligations. In report language for FY2006, the House Appropriations
Committee stated that it rejects the position that Congress intended in the 1994 Act
to order an historical accounting on the scale of that ordered by the district court, and
noted that House and Senate authorizing committees are committed to developing a
legislative solution.
For further information on the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians,
see its website at [http://www.ost.doi.gov/].
CRS Report RS21738. The Indian Trust Fund Litigation: An Overview of Cobell v.
Norton, by Nathan Brooks.
CRS Report RS22056. Major Indian Issues in the 109th Congress, by Roger Walke.
National Indian Gaming Commission. The National Indian Gaming
Commission (NIGC) was established by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA)
of 1988 (P.L. 100-497; 25 U.S.C. §§2701 et seq) to oversee Indian tribal regulation
of tribal bingo and other Class II operations, as well as aspects of Class III gaming
10 Recent testimony from the Interior Department estimated the cost at $12-13 billion (James
Cason, Associate Deputy Secretary, Department of the Interior, Statement before the House
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, March 17, 2005). Previous Interior estimates of the cost were $6-12 billion.
11 Spangler, Matt, “Senator Says Government Cannot Afford to Settle 9-Year-Old Indian
Trust Case,” Inside Energy with Federal Lands (March 14, 2005), p. 10.
12 The Judgment Fund is a permanent, indefinite appropriation for paying judgments against,
and settlements by, the U.S. Government.
13 Spangler, Matt, “Treasury Fund May Be Short of Cash Needed to Settle Indian royalty
Case,” Inside Energy with Federal Lands (March 21, 2005), p. 6.

---

CRS-38
(e.g., casinos and racing).14 The primary appropriations issue for NIGC is whether
its funding is adequate for its regulatory responsibilities.
The NIGC is authorized to receive annual appropriations of $2 million, but its
budget authority consists chiefly of annual fees assessed on tribes’ Class II and III
operations. IGRA currently caps NIGC fees at $8 million per year. The NIGC in
recent years has requested additional funding because it has experienced increased
demand for its oversight resources, especially audits and field investigations.
Congress, in the FY2003-FY2005 appropriations acts, increased the NIGC’s fee
ceiling to $12 million, but only for FY2004-FY2006. The FY2006 NIGC budget
proposal requested that this increased fee ceiling be continued. The House
Appropriations Committee recommended extending the $12-million ceiling to
FY2007.
In the FY2006 budget, as in its FY2005 request, the Administration proposed
language amending IGRA to create an adjustable, formula-based ceiling for fees
instead of the current fixed ceiling. The Administration contends that a formula-
based fee ceiling would allow NIGC funding to grow as the Indian gaming industry
grows. Gaming tribes do not support the increased fee ceiling or the proposed
amendment of IGRA’s fee ceiling, arguing that NIGC’s budget should first be
reviewed in the context of extensive tribal and state expenditures on regulation of
Indian gaming, and that changes in NIGC’s fees should be developed in consultation
with tribes. Congress did not agree to the Administration’s proposed amendment to
IGRA in the FY2005 appropriations law. The House Appropriations Committee
made no comment on this proposal.
During FY1999-FY2005, all NIGC activities have been funded from fees, with
no direct appropriations. The Administration did not propose a direct appropriation
for the NIGC for FY2006, nor did the House Appropriations Committee recommend
one.
For further information on the National Indian Gaming Commission, see its
website at [http://www.nigc.gov/].
Title II: Environmental Protection Agency
Historically, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) funding had been
provided through appropriations laws for Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban
Development (VA-HUD), and independent agencies. The reorganization of the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees, approved early in the 109th Congress,
eliminated the VA-HUD and Independent Agencies Subcommittees. Beginning with
the FY2006 appropriation, EPA’s funding is incorporated within the jurisdiction of
the Interior subcommittees.
14 Classes were established by the IGRA, and NIGC has different but overlapping regulatory
responsibilities for each class.

---

CRS-39
EPA was established in 1970 to consolidate federal pollution control
responsibilities that had been divided among several agencies. EPA’s responsibilities
have grown as Congress has enacted an increasing number of environmental laws,
as well as major amendments to these statutes, over three decades. Among its
primary responsibilities are the regulation of air quality, water quality, pesticides, and
toxic substances; the management and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes; and
the cleanup of environmental contamination. EPA also awards grants to assist state
and local areas in controlling pollution.
EPA’s funding over time generally reflects an increase in overall appropriations
to fulfill a rising number of statutory responsibilities. Without adjusting for inflation,
the agency’s appropriation has risen from $1.0 billion when the agency was
established in FY1970 to $8.03 billion in FY2005. For FY2006, the House
Appropriations Committee recommended $7.71 billion for EPA, $187.4 million (2%)
more than the President’s request of $7.52 billion, but $318.5 million (4%) less than
FY2005 funding. In addition, the House Appropriations Committee has
recommended making an additional $100.0 million available from “rescissions” of
past EPA appropriations. In effect, the House Committee is redirecting previously
appropriated funds that EPA has not obligated to grants, contracts, and interagency
agreements for various program activities. The $100.0 million, which would bring
EPA's FY2006 total budget authority up to $7.81 billion, is to be redirected to
support the clean water State Revolving Fund (SRF) under the State and Tribal
Assistance Grants Account. (See the discussion under “Water Infrastructure” in this
section of the report.)

EPA Appropriation Accounts. Traditionally, EPA’s annual appropriation
has been requested and enacted according to various line-item appropriations
accounts, of which there currently are eight:
! Science and Technology;
! Environmental Programs and Management;
! Office of Inspector General;
! Buildings and Facilities;
! Hazardous Substance Superfund;
! Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program;
! Oil Spill Response; and
! State and Tribal Assistance Grants.
Table 14 presents a breakdown of appropriations for EPA by account for FY2005
enacted, the President’s FY2006 request, and the House Appropriations Committee’s
recommendations for FY2006. Figure 1 displays the portion of the President’s
FY2006 requested allocations for each account.

---

CRS-40
Table 14. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection
Agency, FY2005-FY2006
($ in millions)
FY2006
FY2005
FY2006
Environmental Protection Agency
House
Approp.
Request
Comm.
Science & Technology
— Direct Appropriations
$744.1
$760.6
$765.3
— Transfer in from Superfund
35.8
30.6
30.6
Subtotal, Science & Technology
779.9
791.2
795.9
Environmental Programs and Management
2,294.9
2,353.8b
2,389.5b
Office of Inspector General
— Direct Appropriations
37.7
37.0
38.0
— Transfer in from Superfund
12.9
13.5
13.5
Subtotal, Office of Inspector General
50.6
50.5
51.5
Buildings and Facilities
41.7
40.2
40.2
Hazardous Substance Superfund
— Direct Appropriations
1,247.5
1,279.3
1,258.3
— Transfers out from Superfund
-48.7
-44.1
-44.1
Subtotal, Hazardous Substance Superfund
1,198.8
1,235.2
1,214.2
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program
69.4
73.0
73.0
Oil Spill Response
15.9
15.9
15.9
Pesticide Registration Fund
19.2
12.0
15.0
Pesticide Registration Fees
-19.2
-12.0
-15.0
State & Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
—
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
1,091.2
730.0
850.0 c
— Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
843.2
850.0
850.0
— Categorical and Other Grants
1,640.9
1,380.8
1,527.8
— Funds Previously Appropriated to EPA
—
—
-100.0c
Subtotal, State & Tribal Assistance Grants
(STAG) 3,575.3
2,960.8
3,127.8
Total Appropriations
$8,026.5a
$7,520.6
$7,708.0
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on amounts from the House
Appropriations Committee.
a. The FY2005 total includes a supplemental emergency appropriation (P.L. 108-324) of $3.0 million
provided in the Buildings and Facilities account.
b. The FY2006 request includes $50.0 million in revenues to be derived from two user-fee legislative
proposals which have not been enacted, and are reflected in the House Appropriations Committee
information as a deduction in the form of offsetting receipts. EPA estimated $4.0 million would

---

CRS-41
come from an increase to existing fee levels for Pre-manufacturer Notices (PMNs) under the Toxic
Substances Control Act, and $46.0 million from implementing Pesticide Registration Fee authority
promulgated in 1988 but prohibited by Congress. The Administration’s FY2006 Budget
Justification for EPA does not appear to distinguish an offset for other user-fee revenue estimates.
c. Per the House Appropriations Committee’s recommendation, the total for the clean water State
Revolving Fund (CWSRF) includes $100.0 million from expired contracts, grants, and inter-
agency agreements rescinded from previously appropriated funds.
Figure 1. The President’s FY2006 Budget by
EPA Appropriations Account
(includes transfers between accounts)
Total Requested FY2006 Funding Level = $7.52 billion
Leaking Underground
State & Tribal
Storage Tanks Program
Assistance Grants
$73.0 million
$2.96 billion
1.0%
39.1%
Hazardous Substances
Inspector General
Superfund
$50.5 million
$1.24 billion
16.3%
0.7%
10.5%
0.5%
Science & Technology
Building & Facilities
$791.2 million
$40.2 million
0.2%
31.8%
Oil Spill Response
$15.9 million
Environmental Programs
& Management
$2.35 billion
Source: Prepared by the Congressional R esearch Service (C RS) based on
inform ation from the House Appropriations Comm ittee.
Overview. The House Appropriations Committee’s recommendations for EPA
in FY2006 reflected decreases and increases for a number of programs throughout
the various appropriations accounts when compared to the President’s FY2006
request and the FY2005 funding levels. The largest single decrease from FY2005
would be for grants to states for wastewater infrastructure within the State and Tribal
Assistance Grants (STAG) account.
Funding for water infrastructure, scientific research, cleanup of hazardous waste
sites under the Superfund program, and the Brownfields program are expected to be
among the prominent issues of debate. Other areas likely to be debated include
funding for EPA’s homeland security activities, and congressional general research
and water infrastructure project priorities. The extent to which funding should be
earmarked for certain activities has been an ongoing issue. As is typically the case,
the President's FY2006 request did not include appropriations within various
accounts in FY2005 for congressionally mandated projects that were not requested.

---

CRS-42
More than half of these appropriated funds were for water infrastructure projects in
specific communities.
Water Infrastructure. Although the House Appropriations Committee’s
recommendation of $850.0 million for the clean water SRF for FY2006 was $120.0
million more than requested, it was $241.2 (22%) less than the FY2005 funding
level. As noted above, the House Appropriations Committee increase above the
requested amount included $100.0 million in unobligated balances from past
appropriations. The President’s FY2006 budget would have reduced funding for the
clean water SRF by $361.2 million (33%), from $1.09 billion in FY2005 to $730.0
million in FY2006. The House Committee recommendation for the drinking water
SRF was $850.0 million, the same as the President’s request and $6.8 million (1%)
more than the $843.2 million appropriated for FY2005. Together, these funds
provide seed monies for state loans to communities for wastewater and drinking
water infrastructure projects.
Reducing funding in the clean water SRF has been contentious, as there is
disagreement over the adequacy of funding to meet these needs. In recent years,
Congress has appropriated significantly more funding than the Administration has
requested for the clean water SRF. In agreeing to the FY2006 budget resolution
(S.Con.Res. 18), the Senate agreed to a floor amendment recommending $1.35
billion for the clean water SRF in FY2006, $620 million more than the request. The
amendment was not included in the final FY2006 budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 95).
There has been less disagreement between Congress and the Administration about
the appropriate funding level for the drinking water SRF, although some Members
support higher funding to meet local needs, such as assistance to help communities
comply with new standards for drinking water contaminants (e.g., arsenic and
radium).
The House Appropriations Committee’s recommendations included $200.0
million for congressional priority STAG water infrastructure grants for FY2006. In
past years, the House and Senate Committees have proposed designated funding to
specific projects. The House Appropriations Committee’s recommendations for
FY2006 did not specify the allocation of the $200.0 million among projects in
individual communities, but rather such grants will be funded in accordance with the
terms and conditions specified in the joint explanatory statement of the conference
report. Congress appropriated $309.5 million within the STAG account to more than
650 projects for FY2005. The President’s FY2006 budget did not include funding
for these projects. Communities compete for loan funds provided through the SRFs
which must be repaid, but earmarked funding is awarded noncompetitively as grants
that require matching funds but not repayment. As the overall amount of funding
directed to specific water infrastructure projects has risen in recent years, whether
these needs should be met with SRF loan monies or grant assistance has become
controversial.
Scientific Research. For FY2006, the House Committee recommended
$795.9 million for the Science and Technology (S&T) account, including direct
appropriations of $765.3 million and a transfer of $30.6 million (the same as
requested) from the Superfund account to support research related to cleanup of
hazardous substances.

---

CRS-43
During deliberations of recent EPA appropriations, some scientists and
environmental organizations have advocated greater funding for scientific research,
citing the need for more knowledge about human health effects to determine whether
pollution control regulations are protective enough. The President's budget requests
for S&T for FY2006 and FY2005 were below appropriations for FY2003 and
FY2004. The Administration countered that many of the reductions since FY2003
were the result of cost-savings from consolidating certain research areas, and that the
funding it has proposed for specific research activities is sufficient to assess the
adequacy of EPA's regulations to protect human health.
The House Appropriations Committee’s recommendation for the S&T account
was $16.0 million more than the FY2005 appropriation of $779.9 million, which
included a transfer of $35.8 million from the Superfund account. Relative to the
President’s FY2006 request, the House Committee’s recommendation reflected a
$4.7 million increase, although individual increases and decreases were of widely
varying amounts.
For example, the House Appropriations Committee’s recommendation of $50.8
million for homeland security activities within the S&T account was a reduction of
$43.0 million below the FY2006 request, consisting of a decrease of $35.0 million
for the proposed Water Sentinel pilot and $8.0 million in the preparedness, response
and recovery decontamination program. In report language, the House Committee
commented on its reduction below the FY2006 request, recommending that EPA
develop clear goals and milestones for the Water Sentinel program and justify the
request for the program more clearly for FY2007. Overall, the Committee’s
recommendation was an $18.0 million increase above FY2005 funding for homeland
security activities within the S&T account.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended an increase above the
FY2006 request of $12.4 million for human health and ecosystem research, including
increases of $1.9 million for endocrine disruptor research, $3.7 million for
fellowships through the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Program, and $2.9
million for ecosystem research. Funding for several research activities for clean
water, clean air, indoor air, pesticide registration, and land protection programs
within the S&T account were the same as requested.
The House Appropriations Committee also recommended $40.0 million in
congressional research priorities for programs of national and regional significance
that have been funded in at least three of the last four years, according to report
language. The House Committee also commented that it expects EPA to conduct
competitive solicitation for these programs that have been added by Congress in past
appropriations, so as to ensure that the highest priority national and regional
programs continue to be funded. According to the House Committee tables, $65.7
million had been appropriated for these types of projects specified by Congress in
FY2005. The President’s FY2006 request did not include funding for
congressionally mandated projects provided within the S&T account in the FY2005
appropriations.
Superfund. Another prominent issue is the adequacy of funding for the
Superfund program to clean up the nation’s most hazardous waste sites. Some have

---

CRS-44
asserted that more funds are necessary to speed the pace of remediation at
contaminated sites, while others contend that steady funding allows a pace of cleanup
that protects human health and the environment. The House Appropriations
Committee recommended $1.21 billion for the Hazardous Substance Superfund
account after total transfers of $44.1 million to the S&T account and to the Office of
the Inspector General. Although the House Committee recommendation after
transfers was $21.0 million less than the President’s FY2006 request, it was $15.4
million more than FY2005 funding.
The House Appropriations Committee’s recommendation included $599.4
million for remediation of contamination and $198.0 million for emergency response
and removal of hazardous substances, both the same as requested, and a combined
$1.76 million above FY2005. The House Committee recommended an $8.0 million
reduction below the FY2006 request for Superfund enforcement, from $190.2 million
requested to $182.2 million. However, the House Committee recommendation for
enforcement is a $4.4 million increase above FY2005. The $39.4 million
recommended by the House Committee for homeland security is a reduction of $11.5
million from the FY2006 request, but is $2.5 million above the FY2005 level. The
remainder of the House Committee recommended funding in the Superfund account
would be for other program activities, such as management and support,
reimbursement for related activities performed by other federal agencies, and
emergency preparedness.

The source of funding for the Superfund program also has been an ongoing
issue. The House Appropriations Committee recommendation and the President’s
request for the program would be provided from general Treasury revenues.
Historically, three dedicated taxes (on petroleum, chemical feedstocks, and corporate
income) provided the majority of funding for the Superfund program. However, the
taxes expired at the end of 1995, and the remaining revenues were essentially
expended by the end of FY2003. Although cost recoveries from responsible parties
continue to contribute some revenue to the trust fund, these amounts are relatively
small, and have been declining. As a result, beginning in FY2004, Congress has
funded the program entirely with general Treasury revenues.
Some Members advocate reinstating the Superfund taxes and contend that the
use of general Treasury revenues undermines the “polluter pays” principle. Other
Members and the Administration counter that viable parties are still required to pay
for the cleanup of contamination and that polluters are therefore not escaping their
responsibility. According to EPA, responsible parties pay for the cleanup at more
than 70% of Superfund sites.
Brownfields. The House Appropriations Committee recommended a
combined $172.1 million for EPA's Brownfields Program, $9.0 million more than the
appropriation of $163.2 million for FY2005, but $38.0 million less than the FY2006
request. This program provides assistance to states and tribes for the cleanup and
redevelopment of abandoned, idled, or underutilized commercial and industrial sites.
Funding for the program is allocated within the Environmental Programs and
Management (EPM) account and the STAG account. The $24.6 million
recommended by the House Committee in the EPM account for administrative

---

CRS-45
expenses was $0.3 million more than FY2005, and $5.0 million less than requested.
Of the $147.5 million included within the STAG account by the Committee, $95.5
million was recommended for grants to perform brownfield assessments, establish
revolving loan funds, clean up sites, and create job training programs. The amount
for these activities recommended by the Committee was $6.2 million more than the
FY2005 level and $25.0 million below the FY2006 request. The remaining
recommended allocation of $52.0 million within the STAG account would be for
categorical grants to states and Indian tribes to establish or enhance their voluntary
response (cleanup) programs — $2.4 million more than FY2005 and $8.0 million
less than requested.
For further information on the Environmental Protection Agency and its budget,
see its websites [http://www.epa.gov] and [http://epa.gov/ocfo/budget/].
CRS Report RL30798. Environmental Laws: Summaries of Statutes Administered
by the Environmental Protection Agency, coordinated by Susan Fletcher.
CRS Report RL32856. Environmental Protection Agency: Appropriations for
FY2006, by Robert Esworthy and David Bearden.
CRS Report RL32441. Environmental Protection Agency: Appropriations for
FY2005, by David Bearden and Robert Esworthy.
CRS Report RS22064. Environmental Protection Agency: Highlights of the
President’s FY2006 Request, by David Bearden and Robert Esworthy.
CRS Issue Brief IB10146. Environmental Protection Issues in the 109th Congress,
coordinated by Susan Fletcher and Margaret Isler.

Title III: Related Agencies
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service
The House Appropriations Committee recommended an FY2006 budget for the
Forest Service (FS) of $4.25 billion. This is $182.4 million (4%) more than the
President requested, and $498.9 million (11%) less than the FY2005 appropriation
of $4.75 billion. The House Committee recommended restoring some of the
programs proposed to be cut, with proposed cuts in other programs, as discussed
below.
Forest Fires and Forest Health. Fire funding and fire protection programs
have been controversial. The ongoing discussion includes questions about funding
levels and locations for various fire protection treatments, such as thinning and
prescribed burning to reduce fuel loads and clearing around structures to protect them
during fires. Another focus is whether, and to what extent, environmental analysis,
public involvement, and challenges to decisions hinder fuel reduction activities. (For
historical background and descriptions of funded activities, see CRS Report
RS21544, Wildfire Protection Funding, by Ross W. Gorte.)

---

CRS-46
The National Fire Plan comprises the FS wildland fire program (including fire
programs funded under other line items) and fire fighting on DOI lands; the DOI
wildland fire monies are appropriated to the BLM. Congress does not fund the
National Fire Plan in any one place in Interior appropriations acts. The total can be
derived by combining the several accounts which the agencies identify as National
Fire Plan funding. The House Appropriations Committee recommended total
FY2006 funding of $2.59 billion, $84.8 million (3%) more than requested and $405.1
million (14%) less than appropriated for FY2005 (including $524.1 million in
emergency and supplemental appropriations enacted in FY2005). See Table 15
below.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended BLM funding for FY2006
of $761.6 million, $5.0 million (1%) more than the request and $69.7 million (8%)
less than the FY2005 appropriation (including $98.6 million in emergency and
supplemental funding). The FS recommendation was $1.83 billion, including $286.0
million in fuel reduction which the FS proposed to fund under the National Forest
System line item; this is $79.8 million (5%) more than the request and $335.4 million
(15%) less than FY2005 funding. The lower recommendation for both agencies’
wildfire budgets was due to the emergency funding enacted for FY2005. The FS and
BLM wildfire line items include funds for fire suppression (fighting fires),
preparedness (equipment, training, baseline personnel, prevention, and detection),
and other operations (rehabilitation, fuel reduction, research, and state and private
assistance).
Table 15. Appropriations for the National Fire Plan, FY2001-FY2006
($ in millions)
FY2006
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003b
FY2004c
FY2005d
FY2006
National Fire Plan
House
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Comm.
Forest Service
— Wildfire Suppression
$319.3
$255.3
$418.0
$597.1
$648.9
$700.5
$700.5
— Emergency Funding a
425.1
266.0
919.0
748.9
425.5
0.0
0.0
— Preparedness
611.1
622.6
612.0
671.6
676.5
676.0
691.0
— Other Operations e
557.2
446.8
371.5
392.6
416.5
375.6
440.4
Subtotal, Forest Service
1,912.7
1,590.7
2,320.5
2,410.3
2,167.3
1,752.1
1,831.9
BLM
— Wildfire Suppression
153.1
127.4
159.3
192.9
218.4
234.2
234.2
— Emergency Funding a
199.6
54.0
225.0
198.4
98.6
0.0
0.0
— Preparedness f
314.7
280.8
275.4
254.2
258.9
272.9
272.9
— Other Operations
309.7
216.2
215.4
238.1
255.3
249.6
254.5
Subtotal, BLM
977.1
678.4
875.2
883.6
831.3
756.6
761.6
Total National Fire Plan
— Wildfire Suppression
472.4
382.7
577.3
790.0
867.3
934.7
934.7
— Emergency Funding a
624.6
320.0
1,144.0
947.3
524.1
0.0
0.0

---

CRS-47
— Preparedness
925.9
903.4
887.4
925.8
935.4
948.9
963.9
— Other Operations
866.9
663.0
586.9
630.7
671.8
625.1
695.0
Total Appropriations
$2,889.8
$2,269.1
$3,195.6
$3,293.9
$2,998.6
$2,508.7
$2,593.5
Notes: Includes funding from BLM and FS Wildland Fire Management accounts, from FS State and Private Forestry
(Cooperative Fire Protection), and for FY2006, from FS National Forest System (Hazardous Fuels Reduction).
This table differs from the detailed tables in CRS Report RS21544, Wildfire Protection Funding, by Ross W. Gorte, because that
report rearranges data to distinguish funding for protecting federal lands, for assisting in nonfederal land protection, and for fire
research and other activities.
a. Emergency supplemental and contingent appropriations are included in agency totals.
b. Includes supplemental of $636.0 million for the FS and $189.0 million for the BLM ($825.0 million total) in P.L. 108-7 and
of $283.0 million for the FS and $36.0 million for the BLM ($319.0 million total) in P.L. 108-83.
c. Includes repayment of $299.2 million for the FS and $98.4 million for the BLM ($397.6 million total) of earlier borrowings
for fire suppression in P.L. 108-108, and a supplemental of $49.7 million for the FS in P.L. 108-199. Also includes $400.0
million for the FS and $100.0 million for the BLM ($500.0 million total), included in the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act for FY2005 (P.L. 108-287), for emergency firefighting in FY2004.
d. Includes emergency funding of $1.0 million for the FS in P.L. 108-324 and of $30.0 million for fuel reduction, hazard
mitigation, and rehabilitation in the San Bernardino (CA) NF transferred to the FS under P.L. 108-287. Excludes $10.0
million for a wildfire training facility in San Bernardino County, CA, transferred to the FS Capital account under P.L. 108-
287.
e. Includes fuel reduction funds. The FS has proposed to move fuel reduction funds from Other Operations to the National Forest
System in FY2006.
f. Fire research and fuel reduction funds are included under Other Operations. The BLM traditionally has included fire research
funding under Preparedness.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended FY2006 wildfire
suppression funding of $934.7 million, equal to the request and $456.7 million (33%)
less than FY2005 suppression funding, including emergency appropriations. The
decrease from FY2005 is greater for the FS (35%) than for the BLM (26%). The
requested, and House Committee recommended, level was based on an average fire
year, with no contingent or emergency funding ($524.1 million enacted for FY2005).
If the fire season is worse than average, the agencies have the authority to borrow
unobligated funds from any other account to pay for firefighting. Such borrowing
typically is repaid, commonly through subsequent emergency appropriations bills.
The House Committee recommended $963.9 million for fire preparedness for
FY2006, $15.0 million (2%) more than the request and $28.5 million (3%) more than
the FY2005 appropriation. The Administration’s requested increase was all for the
BLM ($13.9 million, 5%), while the House Committee also recommended an
increase ($14.5 million, 2%) for the FS.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended a total of $695.0 million
for FY2006 for other fire operations, $69.9 million (11%) more than the request and
$23.2 million (3%) more than the FY2005 appropriation. The Committee
recommended more than restoring the cuts proposed in nearly every FS account, and
restoring some of the funds for BLM programs proposed to be terminated. In
contrast, fuel reduction funding (under the President’s Healthy Forests Initiative and
the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, P.L. 108-148) would be increased to
$497.2 million, $5.0 million (1%) more than the request and $33.3 million (7%)
more than for FY2005. The recommended increase was greater for the FS (9%) than
for the BLM (5%). Also, the House Committee again rejected the Administration’s

---

CRS-48
proposed shift of FS fuel reduction funding from Wildfire Management to the
National Forest System.
State and Private Forestry. While funding for wildfires has been the center
of debate, the Administration proposed many controversial changes in State and
Private Forestry (S&PF) — programs that provide financial and technical assistance
to states and to private forest owners. The House Appropriations Committee
recommended different changes from FY2005 funding levels. The Committee
recommended total S&PF funding for FY2006 of $254.9 million, $1.5 million
(nearly 1%) more than the request and $86.7 million (25%) less than the $341.6
million appropriated for FY2005 (including $49.1 million of emergency S&PF
appropriations). The Administration proposed cuts in forest health management,
cooperative fire assistance, and international programs. The House Appropriations
Committee recommended restoring many of the proposed cuts, while substantially
cutting the Forest Legacy Program, for which the Administration had proposed a
large increase.
The FY2006 House Committee recommendation included $103.0 million for
forest health management (insect and disease control on federal and cooperative
[nonfederal] lands), $30.7 million (42%) more than the Administration requested and
$1.1 million (1%) more than the FY2005 level. In addition, funds for forest health
management are included in National Fire Plan Other Operations (see above). The
FY2006 House Committee recommendation for these funds totaled $25.0 million,
$13.4 million (116%) more than the request and $0.3 million (1%) more than the
FY2005 level.
For S&PF Cooperative Fire Assistance to states and volunteer fire departments,
the House Committee recommended $41.4 million, $14.6 million (54%) more than
the FY2006 request and $2.6 million (7%) more than for FY2005. In addition, funds
for cooperative fire assistance are included in National Fire Plan Other Operations
(see above). The FY2006 House Committee recommendation for such programs
totaled $49.0 million, $11.7 million (31%) more than the request and $0.9 million
(2%) more than the FY2005 level.
The FY2006 House Committee recommendation contained $103.6 million for
Cooperative Forestry programs (assistance for forestry activities on state and private
lands). This was $45.7 million (31%) less than the request and $41.8 million (29%)
less than the FY2005 level. Forest Legacy (for purchasing title or easements for
lands threatened with conversion to nonforest uses, such as for residences) was
recommended to be cut to $25.0 million, $55.0 million (69%) less than the request
and $32.1 million (56%) less than the FY2005 level. Forest Stewardship (for states
to assist private landowners) was recommended to increase to $37.4 million, $0.3
million (1%) more than the request and $5.1 million (16%) more than FY2005.
Urban and Community Forestry (financial and technical assistance to localities) was
recommended at $28.2 million, $0.7 million (3%) more than the request and $3.8
million (12%) less than FY2005. Resource inventory was recommended to rise
slightly, to $5.0 million, up $0.3 million (7%) from the request and up $42,000 (1%)
from FY2005. The Administration again proposed to terminate the Economic Action
Program (EAP; for rural community assistance, wood recycling, and Pacific

---

CRS-49
Northwest economic assistance); the House Committee recommended $8.0 million,
$11.1 million (58%) below the FY2005 funding of $19.0 million.
For international programs (technical forestry assistance to other nations), the
House Appropriations Committee recommended FY2006 funding of $6.9 million,
$1.9 million (38%) more than requested and $0.5 million (8%) more than the
FY2005 level.
Table 16. Appropriations for FS State & Private Forestry,
FY2005-FY2006
($ in millions)
FY2006
FY2005
FY2006
State and Private Forestry
House
Approp.
Request
Comm.
Forest Health Management
$101.9
$72.3
$103.0
— Federal Lands a
54.2
50.0
55.0
— Cooperative Lands a
47.6
22.3
48.0
Cooperative Fire Assistance a
38.8
26.8
41.4
— State Assistance a
32.9
20.9
35.4
— Volunteer Asst. a
5.9
5.9
6.0
Cooperative Forestry a
145.4
149.2
103.6
— Forest Stewardship
32.3
37.1
37.4
— Forest Legacy
57.1
80.0
25.0
— Urban & Community Forestry
32.0
27.5
28.2
— Economic Action (Program) a
19.0
0.0
8.0
— Forest Resource Info. & Analysis
5.0
4.7
5.0
International Programs
6.4
5.0
6.9
Emergency Appropriations
49.1
0.0
0.0
Total State & Private Forestry
$341.6
$253.4
$254.9
a. Excludes funding provided under the Wildland Fire Management account.
Infrastructure. The House Appropriations Committee recommended total
FY2006 funding of $468.3 million for FS Capital Improvement and Maintenance,
$87.5 million (23%) more than the request, $46.4 million (9%) less than regular
FY2005 funding of $514.7 million, and $107.3 million (19%) less than total FY2005
funding, including $60.8 million in emergency and supplemental funding. Compared
to the request, facilities funding would rise by $36.0 million (31%), road funding
would rise by $35.9 million (19%), and trails funding would rise by $12.2 million
(19%). Compared to FY2005 funding (including emergency funding), the
Committee recommendation would reduce facilities construction by $54.5 million
(42%), road construction by $34.1 million (31%), and trail construction by $8.3
million (20%), while maintenance funding for all three accounts would be essentially

---

CRS-50
the same as FY2005. In addition, the Committee recommended $13.0 million for
infrastructure improvement, to reduce the agency’s backlog of deferred maintenance,
estimated at $6.5 billion. This is $3.3 million (34%) more than the Administration
requested and $0.8 million (6%) less than appropriated for FY2005.
Land Acquisition. The House Appropriations Committee recommended
$15.0 million for FS Land Acquisition from the Land and Water Conservation Fund,
with $13.0 million for acquisition management and $2.0 million for land purchases
(for cash equalization payments and critical inholding acquisitions). This was
significantly less than the FY2006 request ($40.0 million, 62%) and the FY2005
appropriations ($46.0 million, 75%). The differences are entirely for land purchases.
(For more information, see the “Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)”
section in this report.)
Other Accounts. The FY2006 recommendation of the House Appropriations
Committee for FS research was $285.0 million, $0.4 million (0.1%) less than the
request and $8.6 million (3%) less than the FY2005 level. Fire research funding in
National Fire Plan Other Operations (see above) was recommended to rise to $29.7
million, $12.8 million (76%) more than the Administration’s request and $0.1 million
(0.4%) more than FY2005. National Forest System (NFS) appropriations was
recommended at $1.42 billion, $53.6 million more than requested (excluding the
proposed shift of fuel reduction funding [$281.0 million] from wildfire management
to NFS) and $31.0 million (2%) more than the FY2005 level. (Fuel reduction
funding is discussed under the National Fire Plan, above.) A large (54%) increase
was recommended for minerals management, because of a shift in responsibilities,
but the other accounts would be within 10% of the FY2005 funding.
For information on the Department of Agriculture, see its website at
[http://www.usda.gov/].
For further information on the U.S. Forest Service, see its website at
[http://www.fs.fed.us/].
CRS Report RL30755. Forest Fire/Wildfire Protection, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RL30647. The National Forest System Roadless Areas Initiative, by
Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Issue Brief IB10076. Public (BLM) Lands and National Forests, by Ross W.
Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent, coordinators.
CRS Report RS21544. Wildfire Protection Funding, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RS22024. Wildfire Protection in the 108th Congress, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RS21880. Wildfire Protection in the Wildland-Urban Interface, by Ross
W. Gorte.

---

CRS-51
Department of Health and Human Services:
Indian Health Service
The Indian Health Service (IHS) is responsible for providing comprehensive
medical and environmental health services for approximately 1.8 million American
Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN) who belong to 561 federally recognized tribes
located in 35 states. Health care is provided through a system of federal, tribal, and
urban Indian-operated programs and facilities. IHS provides direct health care
services through 34 hospitals, 59 health centers, 3 school health centers, 50 health
stations, and 5 residential treatment centers. Tribes and tribal groups, through IHS
contracts and compacts, operate another 14 hospitals, 179 health centers, 3 school
health centers, 297 health stations (including 180 Alaska Native village clinics), and
28 residential treatment centers. IHS, tribes, and tribal groups also operate 9 regional
youth substance abuse treatment centers and 2,252 units of residential quarters for
staff working in the clinics.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended $3.10 billion for the
FY2006 IHS appropriation, an increase of 4% from the FY2005 appropriation of
$2.99 billion. The Administration had proposed $3.05 billion for FY2006, an
increase of 2%. See Table 17 below. IHS funding is separated into two Indian
Health budget categories: Health Services, and Facilities. Of the total IHS
appropriation enacted for FY2005, 87% will be used for health services and 13% for
the health facilities program. For the FY2006 Health Services budget, the House
Committee recommendation and the Administration’s request are the same, but the
House Committee added $55.1 million to the Facilities budget over the
Administration’s request.
Table 17. Appropriations for the Indian Health Service,
FY2005-FY2006

($ in millions)
Percent
Change
FY2006
FY2005
FY2006
FY2005-
Indian Health Service
House
Approp.
Request
FY2006
Comm.
House
Comm.
Indian Health Services
Clinical Services
— Hospital and Health Clinic Programs
$1,289.4
$1,359.5
$1,359.5
5%
— Dental Health
109.0
119.5
119.5
10%
— Mental Health
55.1
59.3
59.3
8%
— Alcohol and Substance Abuse
139.1
145.3
145.3
5%
— Contract Care
480.3
507.0
507.0
6%
— Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund
17.8
18.0
18.0
1%
Subtotal, Clinical Services
2,090.6
2,208.7
2,208.7
6%
Preventive Health Services
— Public Health Nursing
45.0
49.7
49.7
10%

---

CRS-52
Percent
Change
FY2006
FY2005
FY2006
FY2005-
Indian Health Service
House
Approp.
Request
FY2006
Comm.
House
Comm.
— Health Education
12.4
13.8
13.8
11%
— Community Health Representatives
51.4
53.7
53.7
5%
— Immunization (Alaska)
1.6
1.6
1.6
5%
Subtotal, Preventive Health
110.4
118.9
118.9
8%
Other Services
— Urban Health Projects
31.8
33.2
33.2
4%
— Indian Health Professions
30.4
31.5
31.5
4%
— Tribal Management
2.3
2.4
2.4
4%
— Direct Operations
61.6
63.1
63.1
2%
— Self-Governance
5.6
5.8
5.8
4%
— Contract Support Costs
263.7
268.7
268.7
2%
Subtotal, Other Services
395.5
404.7
404.7
2%
Subtotal, Indian Health Services
2,596.49
2,732.3
2,732.3
5%
Indian Health Facilities
— Maintenance and Improvement
49.2
49.9
54.9
12%
— Sanitation Facilities Construction
91.8
93.5
93.5
2%
— Health Care Facilities Construction
88.6
3.3
50.1
-43%
— Facilities and Environmental Health
141.7
151.0
151.0
7%
Support
— Equipment
17.3
18.0
21.3
23%
Subtotal, Indian Health Facilities
388.6
315.7
370.8
-5%
Total Appropriations
$2,985.07
$3,047.97
$3,103.07
4%
Medicare/Medicaid Reimbursements
(598.7)
(648.2)
(648.2)
(8%)
Special Diabetes Program for Indians a
150.0
150.0
150.0
0%
a. The Special Diabetes Program for Indians has an authorization of $150 million for each of the
fiscal years FY2004 through FY2008 (P.L. 107-360) but the program is funded through the
General Treasury, not through the IHS appropriation. (See below)
Health Services. IHS Health Services are funded not only through
congressional appropriations, but also from money reimbursed from private health
insurance and federal programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children’s
Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Estimated total reimbursements are $598.7
million in FY2005 and $648.2 million in FY2006.
The IHS Health Services appropriation for FY2005 was $2.60 billion. The
Administration proposed and the House Appropriations Committee recommended
$2.73 billion for FY2006, an increase of 5%. The Services budget has several
subcategories: clinical services, preventive health services, and other services. For
FY2006, the House Committee concurred with the Administration’s requests in all
areas of Health Services.

---

CRS-53
The Clinical Services budget includes by far the most program funding. The
Clinical Services budget enacted for FY2005 was $2.09 billion and the amount
proposed by the Administration and recommended by the House Committee for
FY2006 is $2.21 billion, or 6% more. Clinical Services include primary care at IHS
and tribally run hospitals and clinics. Hospital and health clinic programs make up
62% of the Clinical Services budget. For FY2006, the recommended amount for
hospitals and clinic programs was $1.36 billion, a 5% increase over $1.29 billion in
FY2005. For other programs within Clinical Services in FY2006, it was
recommended that dental programs receive $119.5 million, mental health programs
$59.3 million, alcohol and substance abuse programs $145.3 million, and the
catastrophic health emergency fund $18.0 million. Contract care, another Clinical
Services budget item, refers to health services purchased from local and community
health care providers when IHS cannot provide medical care and specific services
through its own system. The recommended amount for FY2006 was $507.0 million,
or 6% more than the enacted appropriation for FY2005 of $480.3 million.

For Preventive Health Services, the House Committee recommendation and the
Administration’s request for FY2006 was $118.9 million, an 8% increase over the
$110.4 million for FY2005. Recommended funding for the programs within
preventive health services in FY2006 would be $49.7 million for public health
nursing, $13.8 million for health education in schools and communities, $1.6 million
for immunizations in Alaska, and $53.7 million for the tribally administered
community health representatives program that supports tribal community members
who work to prevent illness and disease in their communities.
For other health services, the Administration requested and House Committee
recommended $404.7 million for FY2006, a 2% increase over the FY2005 enacted
appropriation of $395.5 million. The largest item in this category is contract support
costs, with a proposed amount for FY2006 of $268.7 million. Contract support costs
are awarded to tribes for administering programs under contracts or compacts
authorized by the Indian Self-Determination Act (P.L. 93-638, as amended). They
pay for costs tribes incur for financial management, accounting, training, and
program start up. Most tribes and tribal organizations are participating in new and
expanded self-determination contracts and self-governing compacts. Recommended
program funding in this category for FY2006 was $31.5 million for health-care
scholarships, $2.4 million for tribal management grants, $33.2 million for urban
Indian health, $63.1 million for direct operations, and $5.8 million for self-
governance technical assistance.
Facilities. The IHS’s Facilities category includes money for the construction,
maintenance, and improvement of both health and sanitation facilities. While the
Administration’s proposal was $315.7 million, a 19% decrease from the total
FY2005 appropriation of $388.6 million, the House Committee recommended
$370.77 million, a 17% increase over the President’s request but a 5% reduction from
the FY2005 enacted appropriation. All of the Administration’s proposed decrease
was to be in construction of new health care facilities, with a reduction from $88.6
million for FY2005 to $3.3 million for FY2006, a 96% decrease. The proposed cuts
in health care facilities construction have been controversial. IHS stated that the
Administration’s proposal is a one-year moratorium and is consistent with an HHS-
wide focus on maintenance of existing facilities instead of construction of new ones.

---

CRS-54
The major national Indian health organization, the National Indian Health Board
(NIHB), opposes this one-year construction moratorium, warning that a one-year
pause would cause a setback from which it will take a decade to recover. The Board
proposed restoring facilities construction to the FY2004 level of more than $94
million. The House Appropriations Committee recommended $50.1 million for
facilities construction. In report language, the Committee stated that it restored funds
for Indian facility construction to the maximum extent possible.
Diabetes. Indians suffer from a disproportionately high rate of Type 2
diabetes. In fact, diabetes mortality is 4.3 times higher in the Indian population than
in the general U.S. population. In the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33),
Congress created two programs for diabetes: the IHS Special Diabetes Program for
Indians, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Special Research Program for
Type 1 Diabetes. The law required that the SCHIP appropriation for FY1998 through
FY2002 be reduced by $60 million each year, with $30 million allocated to the IHS
diabetes program and $30 million going to the NIH Type 1 research program. In
2000, the Benefits Improvement and Protection Act (part of P.L. 106-534) increased
funding for each of these diabetes programs and extended authority for grants to be
made under both. For each grant program, total funding was increased to $100
million for FY2001, FY2002, and FY2003. For FY2001 and FY2002, $30 million
of the $100 million came from the SCHIP program appropriation and $70 million
came from the general Treasury. In FY2003, the whole $100 million for each
program was drawn from the general Treasury out of funds not otherwise
appropriated.
In December 2002, Congress extended the funding for these special diabetes
programs, through amendments to the Public Health Service Act (P.L. 107-360),
authorizing $150 million for each of the programs each year for FY2004 through
FY2008. This funding from the general Treasury is separate from regular IHS and
NIH appropriations as noted in Table 17.
For further information on the Indian Health Service, see its website at
[http://www.ihs.gov/].
CRS Report RS22056. Major Indian Issues in the 109th Congress, by Roger Walke.
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation
The Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation (ONHIR) and its predecessor
were created pursuant to a 1974 act (P.L. 93-531, as amended) to resolve a lengthy
dispute between the Hopi and Navajo tribes involving lands originally set aside by
the federal government for a reservation in 1882. Pursuant to the 1974 act, the lands
were partitioned between the two tribes. Members of one tribe living on land
partitioned to the other tribe were to be relocated and provided new homes, and
bonuses, at federal expense. Relocation is to be voluntary.
ONHIR’s chief activities consist of land acquisition, housing acquisition or
construction, infrastructure construction, and post-move support, all for families
being relocated, as well as certification of families’ eligibility for relocation benefits.

---

CRS-55
Congress has been concerned, at times, about the speed of the relocation process and
about avoiding forced relocations or evictions.
For FY2005, ONHIR received an appropriation of $4.9 million, a 63% reduction
from FY2004, when it received $13.4 million. Congress reduced funding because
it anticipated that carryover funds from previous fiscal years would offset the
reduction in appropriations. ONHIR estimates it will use $18.9 million in carryover
funds in FY2005. For FY2006, the Administration proposed $8.6 million in
appropriations, a 74% increase from FY2005. ONHIR proposed using $10.4 million
in carryover funds in FY2006. The House Appropriations Committee’s FY2006
recommendation for ONHIR is the same as the Administration’s proposal.
Navajo-Hopi relocation began in 1977 and is not yet complete. ONHIR has a
backlog of relocatees who are approved for replacement homes but have not yet
received them. Most families subject to relocation were Navajo. An estimated 3,400
eligible Navajo families resided on land partitioned (or judicially confirmed) to the
Hopi, while only 26 eligible Hopi families lived on Navajo partitioned land,
according to ONHIR data. Moreover about 250 Navajo families — only some of
them among the 3,400 eligible families — signed “accommodation agreements” in
the late 1990s under P.L. 104-301 (a 1996 settlement of related Hopi-U.S. issues)
that allowed them to stay on Hopi land under Hopi law. About half of them,
however, may wish to opt out of these agreements and relocate using ONHIR
benefits, according to ONHIR.
Of the 26 Hopi families on Navajo partitioned land, 100% were relocated to
replacement homes by the end of FY2004, according to ONHIR. While 96% of the
Navajo families have completed relocation, ONHIR estimates that 130 Navajo
families were awaiting relocation as of the end of FY2004. Of these 130 remaining
Navajo families, 119 are not currently residing on Hopi partitioned land but are in
various stages of acquiring replacement housing (50 of the 119 families are currently
having homes built, or seeking homes; others are in earlier stages). Eleven of the 130
Navajo families are still residing on Hopi partitioned land, according to ONHIR.
Three of these 11 Navajo families are having homes built or seeking homes, but the
other eight families refuse to relocate or sign an accommodation agreement. ONHIR
and the U.S. Department of Justice are negotiating with the Hopi to allow the eight
families to stay on Hopi land, as autonomous families, in return for ONHIR’s
relocating off Hopi land those families who signed agreements but wish to opt out.
ONHIR estimated in its FY2006 budget justification that relocation moves for
currently eligible families will be completed by the end of FY2006. The addition of
Navajo families who have opted out of accommodation agreements, and Navajo
families who filed late applications or appeals but whom ONHIR proposes to
accommodate to avoid litigation — together estimated at 210 families — means that
all relocation moves would not be completed until the end of FY2008, according to
ONHIR. However, this schedule would depend on infrastructure needs and
relocatees’ decisions. Required post-move assistance to relocatees would necessitate
another two years of expenditures after the last relocation move (whether in FY2006
or FY2008), according to ONHIR. ONHIR contends that the government would be
vulnerable to litigation if the 210 families were not accommodated. Congress has at

---

CRS-56
times expressed impatience at the speed of relocation, and the proposed extension of
time might arise during debates on FY2006 appropriations.

A long-standing proviso in ONHIR appropriations language, retained for
FY2006 in both the Administration’s proposed budget and the House Appropriations
Committee’s recommendation, prohibits ONHIR from evicting any Navajo family
from Hopi partitioned lands unless a replacement home were provided. This
language appears to prevent ONHIR from forcibly relocating Navajo families in the
near future, because of ONHIR’s backlog of approved relocatees awaiting
replacement homes. As the backlog is reduced, however, forced eviction may
become an issue, if any remaining Navajo families refuse relocation and if the Hopi
Tribe were to exercise a right under P.L. 104-301 to begin legal action against the
United States for failure to give the Hopi Tribe “quiet possession” of all Hopi
partitioned lands. The agreement that ONHIR reports it is negotiating with the
Justice Department and the Hopi seeks to avoid this.
Smithsonian Institution
The Smithsonian Institution (SI) is a museum, education, and research complex
of 18 museums and galleries, the National Zoo, and 9 research facilities throughout
the United States and around the world, plus 138 affiliate museums. Nine of its
museums and galleries are located on the National Mall between the U.S. Capitol and
the Washington Monument. The SI is responsible for over 400 buildings with
approximately 8 million square feet of space. It is estimated to be over two-thirds
federally funded, and also is supported by various types of trust funds. A federal
commitment to fund the SI was established by legislation in 1846.
FY2006 Budget and Appropriations. For FY2006, the House
Appropriations Committee recommended $615.3 million for the Smithsonian
Institution, a slight increase over the Bush Administration budget of $615.0 million
and a slight increase from the enacted FY2005 level ($615.2 million). See Table 18
below. For Salaries and Expenses, the House Appropriations Committee would
provide $524.4 million, a 7% increase over the FY2005 amount of $489.0 million.
Salaries and Expenses cover administration of all of the museums and research
institutions that are part of the Smithsonian Institution. In addition, it includes
program support and outreach, and facilities services (security and maintenance).

Facilities Capital. For FY2006, the House Appropriations Committee and
the Administration sought $90.9 million for Facilities Capital, significantly (28%)
less than the $126.1 million enacted for FY2005. The House Committee would
provide $73.9 million for revitalization, $9.0 million for construction, and $8.0
million for facilities planning and design. Revitalization funds are for addressing
advanced deterioration in SI buildings, helping with routine maintenance and repair
in SI facilities, and making critical repairs.
National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI). The House
Appropriations Committee, like the FY2006 request, would provide $30.5 million
for operating resources for the National Museum of the American Indian. For
FY2005, Congress enacted $31.7 million. The estimated total cost of construction
for the NMAI was approximately $219.3 million. The groundbreaking ceremony for

---

CRS-57
the NMAI took place September 28, 1999, and the grand opening ceremony was
September 21, 2004, beginning with a celebration called the “First Americans
Festival.” Other groups, such as Latinos, have been seeking museum space on the
Mall.
National Museum of African American History and Culture. A new
National Museum of African American History and Culture (NMAAHC) has been
authorized within the Smithsonian Institution through P.L.108-184. The museum
will collect, preserve, study, and exhibit African American historical and cultural
material and will focus on specific periods of history, including the time of slavery,
Reconstruction, the Harlem Renaissance, and the civil rights movement. For
FY2006, the House Appropriations Committee supported $3.9 million for the
NMAAHC, the same as the FY2005 appropriation, but $1.2 million below the
Administration’s request of $5.1 million. The funding would provide for operating
resources, including for personnel for planning, site selection, and capital fund
raising. The opening of the National Museum of the American Indian brings with it
the question of space left on the Mall for the NMAAHC. The House Appropriations
Committee bill for FY2006 stipulated that the Smithsonian’s purchase of any
additional buildings would require initial consultation with the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations.
National Zoo. For FY2006, the House Appropriations Committee would
provide $20.2 million for salaries and expenses at the National Zoo, the same as the
FY2006 Administration request, and a sizeable increase over the $17.6 million
enacted for FY2005. Recently, Congress and the public have expressed increased
concern about the National Zoo’s facilities and the care and health of its animals.
The Smithsonian Institution has a plan to revitalize the zoo, to make the facilities
safer for the public and healthier for the animals. The Administration’s FY2006
request estimated $13.0 million (under the Facilities Capital account) to begin the
revitalization, to include renovation of the wetlands area of the bird exhibit that was
destroyed by fire ($8.4 million); new roofs, skylights, and facades at Rock Creek
($2.0 million); and an upgrade of critical infrastructure ($2.4 million), including to
install fire protection systems and upgrade the water, sewer, mechanical, electrical,
and plumbing systems. Site planning continues for several projects, including the
construction of the new elephant yard to provide ample space for the elephants (Asia
II). The new construction will help the Zoo come into compliance with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and American Zoo and Aquarium Association standards,
and will help to correct “infrastructure deficiencies” found throughout the National
Zoo. For FY2006, the House Appropriations Committee recommended the
redirection of $8 million under Facilities Capital from the wetland exhibit at the Zoo
to the Asia II exhibit project to allow the elephants to stay together in a family group
while the work is being completed.
Trust Funds. In addition to federal appropriations, the Smithsonian
Institution receives income from trust funds to expand its programs. The SI trust
funds include general trust funds, contributions from private sources, and government
grants and contracts from other agencies. General trust funds include investment
income and revenue from business ventures such as the Smithsonian magazine and
retail shops. There are also private donor-designated funds that typically specify the
purpose of funds. Government grants and contracts are provided by various

---

CRS-58
government agencies for projects specific to the Smithsonian Institution. For
FY2005, the trust funds available for operations were estimated at $254.9 million,
comprised of $54.9 million for general trust, $124.7 million for government grants
and contracts, and $75.3 million for donor-designated funds.

Of concern to Congress is the extent to which the Smithsonian Institution has
control when donor- and sponsor-designated funds put restrictions on the use of that
funding. There is concern that donor-designated funding may require a building to
be renamed for that individual or corporate donor, even if an appropriate name is
already being used. In addition, there is debate over whether companies who are
allowed to advertise at cultural events might in some way compromise the integrity
of the Smithsonian Institution. Congress has considered these issues as part of
appropriations debates in recent years.
Table 18. Appropriations for the Smithsonian Institution,
FY2005-FY2006
($ in thousands)
FY2006
FY2005
FY2006
Smithsonian Institution (SI)
House
Approp.
Request
Comm.
Salaries and Expenses
$489,035
$524,135
$524,381
Facilities Capital
— Revitalization
110,355
72,900
73,900
— Construction
7,879
9,000
9,000
— Facilities Planning and Design
7,889
9,000
8,000
Subtotal, Facilities Capital
126,123
90,900
90,900
Total Appropriations
$615,158
$615,035
$615,281
For further information on the Smithsonian Institution, see its website at
[http://www.si.edu/].
National Endowment for the Arts and
National Endowment for the Humanities
One of the primary vehicles for federal support for the arts and the humanities
is the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities, composed of the National
Endowment for the Arts (NEA); the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH);
and the Institute of Museum and Library Services with an Office of Museum
Services. The NEA and NEH authorization (P.L. 89-209; 20 U.S.C. §951) expired
at the end of FY1993, but the agencies have been operating on temporary authority
through appropriations law. The Institute of Museum and Library Services and the
Office of Museum Services were created by P.L. 104-208, and reauthorized by P.L.
108-81. They receive appropriations through acts for the Departments of Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies. For further

---

CRS-59
information on earlier IMLS appropriations, see CRS Report RL32303,
Appropriations for FY2005: Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, by
Paul M. Irwin.
Among the questions Congress continually considers is whether funding for the
arts and humanities is an appropriate federal role and responsibility. Some opponents
of federal arts funding argue that NEA and NEH should be abolished altogether.
Other opponents argue that culture can and does flourish on its own through private
support. Proponents of federal support for arts and humanities contend that the
federal government has had a long tradition of support for culture and that abolishing
NEA and NEH could curtail or eliminate programs that have national significance
and purpose, such as national touring theater and dance companies. Some
representatives of the private sector say that they would be unable to make up the
funding gap that would be left by the loss of federal funds for the arts.
NEA. NEA’s direct grant program for the arts currently supports approximately
1,600 grants. State arts agencies are now receiving over 40% of grant funds, with
1,000 communities participating nationwide, particularly from under-represented
areas that lack cultural facilities and programs. Since 1965, NEA has provided over
120,000 grants to all states.
For FY2006, the House Appropriations Committee would provide $121.3
million for NEA, the same amount as the Administration’s FY2006 request and the
FY2005 appropriation. NEA’s direct grants would be funded at $45.1 million. Both
the House Committee and the request proposed $8.0 million for the American
Masterpieces program, funded under NEA grants and state partnerships. This
national initiative includes touring programs, local presentations, and arts education
in the fields of dance, visual, arts and music. For FY2005, Congress enacted $2.0
million for American Masterpieces. The House Committee, like the Administration
request, would provide $14.9 million for the Challenge America Arts Fund, a
program of matching grants for arts education, outreach, and community arts
activities for rural and under-served areas. The FY2005 appropriation was $21.4
million. See Table 19 below.
Although there appears to be congressional support for the NEA, concern often
arises about previous questionable NEA grants when appropriations are considered.15
Congress continues to restate the language of NEA reforms in appropriations laws.
For example, both the FY2004 and FY2005 appropriations laws retained language
on funding priorities and restrictions on grants, including that no grant may be used
generally for seasonal support to a group, and no grants may be for individuals except
for literature fellowships, National Heritage fellowships, or American Jazz Master
15 The debate involved whether or not some of the grants given were for artwork that might
be deemed obscene, culminating in a 1998 Supreme Court decision (NEA v. Finley
(CA9,100F.3d 671)) that the NEA “can consider general standards of decency” when
judging grants for artistic merit and that the decency provision does not “inherently interfere
with First Amendment rights nor violate constitutional vagueness principles.” No NEA
projects have been judged obscene by the courts. Also, NEA eliminated grants to
individuals by arts discipline with some exceptions.

---

CRS-60
fellowships. The House Appropriations Committee recommended similar language.
NEH. The NEH generally supports grants for humanities education, research,
preservation and public humanities programs; the creation of regional humanities
centers; and development of humanities programs under the jurisdiction of the 56
state humanities councils. Since 1965, NEH has provided approximately 61,000
grants. NEH also supports a Challenge Grant program to stimulate and match private
donations in support of humanities institutions.
For NEH, for FY2006, the House Appropriation Committee would provide
$138.1 million, the same as the FY2006 request and the FY2005 appropriation. The
House Appropriations Committee and the FY2006 request would provide $15.5
million for matching grants and $122.6 million for grants and administration. See
Table 19 below. The House Appropriations Committee recommended $11.2 million
for the “We the People” initiative, the same as the FY2006 request and the FY2005
appropriation. These grants include model curriculum projects for schools to
improve course offerings in the humanities — American history, culture, and civics.
Table 19. Appropriations for Arts and Humanities,
FY2005-FY2006
($ in thousands)
FY2006
FY2005
FY2006
Arts and Humanities
House
Approp.
Request
Comm.
NEA
— Challenge America Arts Fund a
$21,427
$14,922
$14,922
— National Initiative: American
Masterpieces a
1,972
8,000
8,000
Subtotal Grants
99,452
98,148
98,148
Program support
1,270
1,470
1,470
Administration
20,542
21,646
21,646
Total, NEA
121,264
121,264
121,264
NEH
— NEH Grants and Administration
122,156
122,605
122,605
— NEH Matching Grants
15,898
15,449
15,449
Total, NEH
138,054
138,054
138,054
Total Appropriations NFAH
$259,318
$259,318
$259,318
a Included in the NEA total.
For further information on the National Endowment for the Arts, see its website
at [http://arts.endow.gov/].
For further information on the National Endowment for the Humanities, see its
website at [http://www.neh.gov/].

---

CRS-61
CRS Report RS20287. Arts and Humanities: Background on Funding, by
Susan Boren.
Cross-Cutting Topics
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)

Overview. The LWCF is authorized at $900 million annually through
FY2015. However, these funds may not be spent without an appropriation. The
LWCF is used for three purposes. First, the four principal federal land management
agencies — Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park
Service, and Forest Service — draw primarily on the LWCF to acquire lands. The
sections on each of those agencies earlier in this report identify funding levels and
other details for their land acquisition activities. Second, the LWCF funds
acquisition and recreational development by state and local governments through a
grant program administered by the NPS. Third, Administrations have requested, and
Congress has appropriated, money from the LWCF to fund some related activities
that do not involve land acquisition. This third use is a relatively recent addition,
starting with the FY1998 appropriation. Programs funded have varied from year to
year. Most of the appropriations for federal acquisitions generally are specified for
management units, such as a specific National Wildlife Refuge, while the state grant
program and appropriations for related activities are rarely earmarked.
Through FY2005, the total authorized amount that could have been appropriated
from the LWCF since its inception in FY1964 was $28.1 billion. Actual
appropriations have been $14.2 billion. Table 20 shows appropriations since
FY2003 and the Administration requests for FY2005 and FY2006. For the five years
ending in FY2001, appropriators had provided generally increasing amounts from the
fund for federal land acquisition. The total had more than quadrupled, rising from
a low of $138.0 million in FY1996 to $453.2 million in FY2001. However, since
then the appropriation for land acquisition has declined, to $164.3 million for
FY2005. The table also shows that in FY2005, the Administration requested a much
larger amount from the Fund for other programs than Congress provided, due in part
to different spending priorities and views on how the fund should be used, as well as
concerns over the budget deficit.

---

CRS-62
Table 20. Appropriations from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, FY2003-FY2006
($ in millions)
FY2006
Land and Water
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2005
FY2006
House
Conservation Fund
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Approp.
Request
Comm.
Federal Acquisition
— BLM
$33.2
$18.4
$24.0
$11.2
$13.4
$3.8
— FWS
72.9
43.1
45.0
37.0
41.0
14.9
— NPS
74.0
41.8
84.3
55.1
52.9
7.8
— FS
132.9
66.4
66.9
61.0
40.0
15.0
Subtotal, Federal Acquisition
313.0
169.7
220.2
164.3
147.3
41.5
Grants to States
97.4
93.8
93.8
91.2
1.6
1.6
Other Programs
166.5
433.2
586.2
203.4
531.7
185.3
Total Appropriations
$576.9
$696.7
$900.2
$458.9
$680.6
$228.4
Source: Data for FY2002 are from the Interior appropriations conference report (H.Rept. 107-234). Data
for FY2003 - FY2006 are from House and Senate Appropriations Committees’ documents. Data for
FY2006 (request) are from U.S. Department of the Interior, Fiscal Year 2006: The Interior Budget in Brief
(Washington, D.C.: February 2005).
Reductions of the magnitude that have occurred since FY2002 for federal land
acquisition and state grants were last seen in the early and mid 1990s as part of
efforts to address the federal budget deficit. Not only did the total for federal land
acquisition and grants to states (excluding other programs) decline in FY2003 and
again in FY2004 and FY2005, but each of the five component accounts (except NPS
from FY2004 to FY2005) also declined each year. Currently, the federal budget
deficit has drawn increased attention, as it did during the early and mid 1990s. Also,
there has been enhanced interest in funding unrelated national priorities, mostly tied
to the war on terrorism.
FY2006 Appropriations. The House Appropriations Committee
recommended $228.4 million for LWCF in FY2006. In report language, the
Committee explained that in general its budget recommendations reflect the need to
stay within a constrained allocation and that new land acquisition is a low priority.
Accordingly, the Committee’s recommendations generally mirror, or are reductions
from, the Administration’s request and FY2005 appropriations. Specifically, the
House Committee proposed $41.5 million for federal land acquisition — a decrease
of $105.8 million from Administration’s request and $122.8 million from FY2005
appropriations. The Committee did not provide funds for specified federal
acquisitions, as is typically the case. Also, the Committee included a provision to
rescind $30 million in annual contract authority under 16 U.S.C. 460l-10a, as in the
past, on the grounds that such authority has not been used in years.
As in the Administration request, the House Committee included $1.6 million
for administration of the stateside grant program, but did not include funding for new
state grants. The Administration did not seek funds for new state grants in FY2006,
on the grounds that large federal deficits require a focus on core federal

---

CRS-63
responsibilities, state and local parks have alternative sources of funding, and the
current program could not adequately measure performance or demonstrate results.
This is not a new phenomenon; the Clinton Administration, in FY2000 and several
preceding years, also proposed eliminating funding for the stateside program, and
Congresses concurred.
The House Appropriations Committee did not aggregate funds that would be
derived from LWCF for other programs. It appears from a review of bill and report
language that the Committee provided $185.3 million — $346.4 million less than the
Administration’s request — for purposes other than land acquisition and stateside
grants (other programs). The Administration’s request of $531.7 million for other
programs is the second largest such request in the history of the LWCF and included
$125.7 million for the Department of Interior’s Cooperative Conservation Grants.
The House Committee did not fund these grants through the LWCF. The
Administration’s request also included the Forest Service’s Forest Stewardship
Program ($37.1 million), Forest Legacy Program ($80.0 million), and Urban and
Community Forestry Program ($27.5 million); and the Fish and Wildlife Service’s
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants ($74.0 million), Landowner Incentive Grants ($40.0
million), Private Stewardship Grants ($10.0 million), Cooperative Endangered
Species Grants ($80.0 million), and North American Wetlands Conservation Fund
Grants ($49.9 million). The House Committee supported using LWCF funds for the
U.S. Forest Service’s Forest Legacy Program ($25.0 million); and the Fish and
Wildlife Service’s State and Tribal Wildlife Grants ($65.0 million), Landowner
Incentive Program ($23.7 million), Private Stewardship Grants ($7.4 million), and
Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (Species Recovery Land
Acquisition at $14.1 million and Habitat Conservation Program Land Acquisition at
$50.1 million).
Conservation Spending Category

Congress created the Conservation Spending Category (CSC) as an amendment
to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 in the FY2001
Interior appropriations law (P.L. 106-291). It is authorized for five years, and would
terminate at the end of FY2006, unless reauthorized. The CSC, which is also called
the Conservation Trust Fund by some, combines funding for more than two dozen
resource protection programs including the LWCF. (It also includes some coastal
and marine programs funded through Commerce Department appropriations). This
action was in response to both the Clinton Administration request for substantial
funding increases in these programs under its Lands Legacy Initiative, and
congressional interest in increasing conservation funding through legislation known
as the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA), which passed the House in the
106th Congress. The FY2001 Interior appropriations law authorized that total
spending for CSC would increase each year by $160.0 million, from $1.6 billion in
FY2001 (of which $1.2 billion would be through Interior appropriations laws) to $2.4

---

CRS-64
billion in FY2006. All CSC funding is subject to the appropriations process.16 The
appropriations history through FY2005 is as follows.
The FY2001 laws exceeded the target of $1.6 billion by appropriating a total of
$1.68 billion; $1.20 billion for Interior appropriations programs and $0.48 billion for
Commerce appropriations programs. (Totals for Interior and Commerce funding
were both increases from FY2000, when the CSC did not exist, with funding of $566
and $160 million, respectively.)
The FY2002 request totaled $1.54 billion for this group of programs, and
Congress appropriated $1.75 billion, thus almost reaching the target of $1.76 billion
for FY2002. The appropriation for the Interior portion was $1.32 billion, reaching
the authorized target amount.
The FY2003 request totaled $1.67 billion for this group of programs, a decrease
from FY2002 funding, and below the target of $1.92 billion for FY2003. Congress
appropriated a total of $1.51 billion. For the Interior portion, Congress provided
$1.03 billion, about $410 million less than the authorized target of $1.44 billion.
The FY2004 request totaled $1.33 billion, according to estimates compiled by
Interior and Commerce appropriations subcommittee staffs. This amount was below
the FY2004 target of $2.08 billion. For the Interior portion, the request was $1.00
billion and the target was $1.56 billion. The Administration had an alternative
estimate that increased the total FY2004 request to $1.22 billion for Interior
programs, but it was based on some different assumptions about which programs to
include. The total appropriation was not specified in congressional documents.
The FY2005 request from the Department of the Interior included $1.05 billion
for the CSC, an increase of $140 million over the FY2004 appropriation for the same
group of programs, according to the Department. However, this total did not include
requests from the Forest Service or Department of Commerce. Neither the Forest
Service nor the Department of Commerce used the CSC as a structure for organizing
or tabulating their requests. The total appropriated amount credited to the CSC in
FY2005 is unclear, as the only bill or accompanying committee report to identify
funding levels for the CSC was the House Appropriations Committee’s report. In
this report, the CSC is mentioned in the minority views, where Representatives Obey
and Dicks state that the bill would fund the CSC at $850 million below the $1.7
billion target for FY2005 (H.Rept. 108-542, p. 180-181). The report did not include
other CSC funding levels or broader discussions of the CSC. The Senate
Appropriations Committee’s report included a discussion of conservation funding
(S.Rept. 108-341, p. 5), but did not mention CSC. It stated that the committee
“remains concerned” about proposals to create “direct entitlement funding” for
selected conservation programs, thereby removing them from the annual oversight
of the appropriations process. It noted that the Committee continues to provide
funding for many of these programs.
16 How programs are categorized, or “scored,” matters; the Administration and the
Appropriations Committees have disagreed on whether all or portions of funding for some
programs should be credited to the CSC.

---

CRS-65
Neither the FY2006 request from DOI nor the recommendation of the House
Appropriations Committee appeared to delineate FY2006 funding for the CSC. Also,
it is not clear if Congress will use the CSC structure during further consideration of
FY2006 funding.

CRS Report RL30444. Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) (H.R. 701) and
a Related Initiative in the 106th Congress, by Jeffrey Zinn and M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Report RS20471. The Conservation Spending Category: Funding for Natural
Resource Protection, by Jeffrey Zinn.
CRS Report RS21503. Land and Water Conservation Fund: Current Status and
Issues, by Jeffrey Zinn.
Everglades Restoration
Altered natural flows of water by a series of canals, levees, and pumping
stations, combined with agricultural and urban development, are thought to be the
leading causes of environmental deterioration in South Florida. In 1996, Congress
authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to create a comprehensive plan to
restore, protect, and preserve the entire South Florida ecosystem, which includes the
Everglades (P.L. 104-303). A portion of this plan, the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan (CERP), was completed in 1999, and provides for federal
involvement in restoring the ecosystem. Congress authorized the Corps to implement
CERP in Title IV of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA 2000,
P.L. 106-541). While restoration activities in the South Florida ecosystem are
conducted under several federal laws, WRDA 2000 is considered the seminal law for
Everglades restoration.
Based on CERP and other previously authorized restoration projects, the federal
government, along with state, local, and tribal entities, is engaged in a collaborative
effort to restore the South Florida ecosystem. The principal objective of CERP is to
redirect and store “excess” freshwater currently being discharged to the ocean via
canals, and use it to restore the natural hydrological functions of the South Florida
ecosystem. CERP seeks to deliver sufficient water to the natural system without
impinging on the water needs of agricultural and urban areas. The federal
government is responsible for half the cost of implementing CERP, and the other half
is borne by the State of Florida, and to a lesser extent, local tribes and other
stakeholders. CERP consists of 68 projects that are expected to be implemented over
approximately 36 years, with an estimated total cost of $7.8 billion; the total federal
share is estimated at $3.9 billion.17 WRDA 2000 authorizes $1.4 billion (the federal
share is $700 million) for an initial set of projects under CERP.
Overview of Appropriations. Appropriations for restoration projects in the
South Florida ecosystem have been provided to various agencies as part of several
17 CERP is the first stage in a three-stage process to restore the Everglades. The estimated
total cost of the entire restoration effort in the Everglades (i.e., all three stages) is $14.8
billion.

---

CRS-66
annual appropriations bills. The Interior and Related Agencies appropriations laws
have provided funds to several DOI agencies for restoration projects. Specifically,
DOI conducts CERP and non-CERP activities in southern Florida through the
National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and
Bureau of Indian Affairs. For more information on Everglades funding, see CRS
Report RS22048, Everglades Restoration: The Federal Role in Funding, by Pervaze
A. Sheikh and Nicole T. Carter.
From FY1993-FY2005, federal appropriations for projects and services related
to the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem exceeded $2.3 billion dollars, and
state funding topped $3.6 billion.18 The average annual federal cost for restoration
activities in southern Florida in the next 10 years is expected to be approximately
$286 million per year.19 For FY2006, the Administration requested $220.0 million
for the Department of the Interior and the Army Corps of Engineers for restoration
efforts in the Everglades. Of this total, $76.6 million is to implement CERP.
FY2006 Funding. For DOI, the Administration requested $83.5 million for
CERP and non-CERP activities related to restoration in the South Florida ecosystem
for FY2006. Of this total, the NPS requested $62.7 million for land acquisition,
construction, and research activities; the FWS requested $12.5 million for land
acquisition, refuges, ecological services, and other activities; the USGS requested
$7.9 million for research, planning, and modeling; and the BIA requested $0.4
million for water projects on Seminole Tribal lands. For conducting activities
authorized by CERP, DOI requested $8.6 million for FY2006. See Table 21 below.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended a total of $84.0 million for
Everglades restoration for FY2006. The Committee’s recommendations for specific
agencies that conduct restoration in the Everglades are not available in bill or report
language. Funding for specific restoration activities included in Administration
requests generally is not known until after enactment of appropriations legislation.
However, some projects are specified in House Committee documents. For FY2006,
the Committee recommended funding the Modified Water Deliveries Project at $17.0
million. Project funding, according to the Committee, would come from a transfer
of unobligated balances in the Land Acquisition and State Assistance account for
Everglades National Park land acquisitions. The House Committee also
recommended $9.9 million for planning and interagency coordination in support of
Everglades restoration. Programs included in this funding were not specified and
therefore could not be related to the Administration's request.
18 These figures represent an estimated cost of all CERP and non-CERP related costs for
restoration in the South Florida ecosystem.
19 This figure is based on CERP and non-CERP related restoration activities in South
Florida.

---

CRS-67
Table 21. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration in the DOI
Budget, FY2005-FY2006
($ in thousands)
FY2006
FY2005
FY2006
Everglades Restoration in DOI
House
Approp.
Request
Comm.
National Park Service
— CERP
$5,213
$5,245
n/a
— Park Operations a 25,266
25,854
n/a
— Land Acquisition
0
0
n/a
— Everglades Acquisitions Management
1,500
1,400
n/a
— Modified Water Delivery
7,965
25,000
17,000
— Everglades Research
3,882
3,898
n/a
— South Florida Ecosystem Task Force
1,290
1,305
n/a
Subtotal, NPS
45,116
62,702
n/a
Fish and Wildlife Service
— CERP
3,304
3,351
n/a
— Land Acquisition
740
0
n/a
— Ecological Services
2,518
2,554
n/a
— Refuges and Wildlife
4,787
5,787
n/a
— Migratory Birds
0
103
n/a
— Law Enforcement
627
636
n/a
— Fisheries
99
100
n/a
Subtotal, FWS
12,075
12,531
n/a
U.S. Geological Survey
— Research, Planning and Coordination 7,738
7,738
n/a
— Biological Research
0
150
n/a
Subtotal, USGS
7,738
7,888
n/a
Bureau of Indian Affairs
— Seminole, Miccosukee Tribe Water
536
388
n/a
Studies and Restoration
Subtotal, BIA
536
388
n/a
Total Appropriations
$65,465
$83,509
$84,000
Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fiscal Year 2006, The Interior Budget in Brief (Washington,
DC: February 2005), and Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2005. N/a is not available.

a. This includes total funding for park operations in Everglades National Park, Dry Tortugas National
Park, Biscayne National Park, and Big Cypress National Preserve.
b. This reflects a transfer of $5.0 million to FWS for water quality monitoring and mitigating invasive
species.

---

CRS-68
The Administration’s FY2006 request for funding restoration activities in the
Everglades was $18.0 (28%) million above the FY2005 enacted level of $65.5
million. The primary increase was for the Modified Water Deliveries Project under
NPS, where $25.0 million was requested for constructing the restoration project —
an increase of approximately $17.0 million over the FY2005 enacted level. This
project is designed to improve water deliveries to Everglades National Park, and to
the extent possible, restore the natural hydrological conditions within the Park.20 The
completion of this project is required prior to the construction of certain projects
under CERP. In addition, the Corps requested $35.0 million for the Modified Water
Deliveries Project for FY2006. According to DOI, from 2007 to 2009, the Corps will
request an additional $89.0 million, and DOI $42.0 million, for the project.21 As
noted, the House Appropriations Committee recommended $17.0 million for the
project for FY2006.
A funding issue receiving broad attention is the level of commitment by the
federal government to implement restoration activities in the Everglades. Some
observers measure commitment by the frequency and number of projects authorized
under CERP, and the appropriations they receive. Because no restoration projects
have been authorized since WRDA 2000, these observers are concerned that federal
commitment to CERP implementation is waning. Others assert that the federal
commitment will be measurable by the amount of federal funding for construction,
expected when the first projects break ground in the next few years. Some state and
federal officials contend that federal funding will increase compared to state funding
as CERP projects move beyond design, into construction. Still others question
whether the federal government should maintain the current level of funding, or
increase its commitment, because of escalating costs and project delays.
In report language, the House Appropriations Committee expressed views on the
restoration of the South Florida ecosystem. The Committee noted that there are
challenges to restoration, but emphasized that they must be overcome and restoration
goals must be achieved. The Committee expressed concern that the restoration
initiative may not be achieving the primary federal interest — the restoration of the
Everglades. The Committee cited concerns expressed by stakeholders that a new
Florida initiative termed Acceler8 is focused too heavily on water storage projects
that do not provide anticipated natural benefits. The Committee directed the
Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of the Army, to submit
a report on the status of Everglades projects underway including on anticipated
environmental benefits, collaborative efforts, and any changes needed to be made in
project implementation priorities.
Also in report language, the House Appropriations Committee expressed
concern that additional non-federal lands may need to be acquired to fully implement
restoration activities. The Committee directed the Secretary of the Interior to provide
a detailed report identifying and prioritizing land acquisition activities. Further, the
20 For more information, see CRS Report RS21331, Everglades Restoration: Modified Water
Deliveries Project, by Pervaze A. Sheikh.
21 U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fiscal Year 2006: The Interior Budget in Brief (Washington,
DC: Feb. 2005).

---

CRS-69
Committee expressed satisfaction with the coordination of science programs, and
requested a report from DOI describing scientific research projects for Everglades
restoration to be funded by the NPS and the USGS with FY2006 appropriations.
Concerns Over Phosphorus Mitigation. The Consolidated
Appropriations Act for FY2005 conditions funding for the Modified Water
Deliveries Project based on meeting state water quality standards. It states that funds
appropriated in this act and any prior Acts for the Modified Water Deliveries Project
will be provided unless administrators of four federal departments/agencies
(Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of the Army, Administrator of the EPA, and the
Attorney General) indicate in their joint report (to be filed annually until December
31, 2006) that water entering the A.R.M. Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge and
Everglades National Park do not meet state water quality standards, and the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations respond in writing disapproving the
further expenditure of funds. This same provision also was enacted in the FY2004
Interior appropriations law, and is recommended by the House Appropriations
Committee for FY2006. In report language, the House Committee expressed that it
expects this joint report to be submitted on time in the future, as the report is
currently overdue.
These provisions were enacted based on concerns regarding a Florida state law
(Chapter 2003-12, enacted on May 20, 2003) that amended the Everglades Forever
Act of 1994 (Florida Statutes §373.4592) by authorizing a new plan to mitigate
phosphorus pollution in the Everglades. Phosphorus is one of the primary water
pollutants in the Everglades and a primary cause for ecosystem degradation. Some
Members of Congress expressed disapproval with the Florida laws.22 Provisions
conditioning funds on the achievement of water quality standards were not requested
in the Administration’s budget for FY2006. (For more information see CRS Report
RL32131, Phosphorus Mitigation in the Everglades, by Pervaze Sheikh and Barbara
Johnson.)
In report language, the House Appropriations Committee expressed concern over
efforts to improve water quality in the Everglades. The Committee noted that efforts
by the State of Florida to reduce phosphorus have not been successful and that the
state may not be fully achieving its obligations under a 1992 consent decree. The
Committee directed the FWS to keep the committee fully appraised of water quality
modeling and monitoring in the A.R.M. Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, and
to provide monitoring and modeling information in annual and quarterly reports of
the refuge.
For further information on Everglades Restoration, see the website of the South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program at [http://www.sfrestore.org] and the website
of the Corps of Engineers at [http://www.evergladesplan.org/].
22 Joint statement by Reps. C.W. Bill Young, David Hobson, Ralph Regula, Charles Taylor,
Clay Shaw, and Porter Goss, released by the House Committee on Appropriations, April 29,
2003.

---

CRS-70
CRS Report RS22048. Everglades Restoration: The Federal Role in Funding, by
Pervaze A. Sheikh and Nicole T. Carter.
CRS Report RS21331. Everglades Restoration: Modified Water Deliveries Project,
by Pervaze A. Sheikh.
CRS Report RS20702. South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, by Pervaze A. Sheikh and Nicole
T. Carter.
CRS Report RL32131. Phosphorus Mitigation in the Everglades, by Pervaze Sheikh
and Barbara Johnson.
Competitive Sourcing of Government Jobs
The Bush Administration’s Competitive Sourcing Initiative would subject
diverse commercial activities to public-private competition. The goal of this
government-wide effort, first outlined in 2001, is to save money through competition
between government and private businesses in areas where private businesses might
provide better commercial services, for instance law enforcement, maintenance, and
administration. The initiative has been controversial, with concerns including
whether it would save the government money and whether the private sector could
provide the same quality of service in certain areas.

For agencies funded by the Interior appropriations bill, concern has centered on
the National Park Service and the Forest Service. The House Appropriations
Committee bill placed a cap of $3.45 million on DOI competitive sourcing studies
during FY2006, and funds would not be available until a reprogramming proposal
is processed under revised reprogramming guidelines printed in H.Rept. 108-330.
The provision applies to FY2006 funds for DOI in the Committee’s bill or any other
act. The portion that would be allocated to the NPS was not specified. In the House
Committee bill, FS spending for competitive sourcing activities during FY2006
would be limited to no more than $2.5 million of the funds in the bill. In addition,
the House Committee bill specified that agencies include, in any reports to Congress
on competitive sourcing, information on the costs associated with sourcing studies
and related activities. The FY2004 and FY2005 Interior appropriations laws also
contained spending limits for competitive sourcing studies of agencies, as well as
other provisions on competitive sourcing.
For FY2006, the FS budget justification stated that the agency will conduct its
FY2005 studies within the $2.0 million cap for FY2005. The agency did not request
funds for competitive sourcing studies during FY2006, to focus on implementing
completed studies and analyzing study results. The FS did ask that the limitation on
funding for competitive sourcing be removed.23 For FY2006, the NPS requested
$956,000 for competitive sourcing activities, nearly the same as the agency received
for FY2005 ($957,000). The agency plans to examine a total of 955 full-time
23 U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Fiscal Year 2006 President’s Budget: Budget
Justification (Washington, DC: 2005), p. 14-16.

---

CRS-71
equivalent positions (FTEs), through a preliminary planning effort for 150 FTEs, four
standard studies for 549.5 FTEs, and six streamlined studies for 255.5 FTEs. (For
more information on competitive sourcing generally, see CRS Report RL32017,
Circular A-76 Revision 2003: Selected Issues, by L. Elaine Halchin, and CRS Report
RL32079, Federal Contracting of Commercial Activities: Competitive Sourcing
Targets, by L. Elaine Halchin.)

---

CRS-72
Table 22. Appropriations for Department of the Interior and Related
Agencies, FY2004-FY2006
($ in thousands)
FY2006
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
Bureau or Agency
House
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Comm.
Title I: Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
$1,893,233
$1,816,910
$1,759,042
$1,755,115
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1,308,405
1,332,591
1,322,894
1,306,168
National Park Service
2,258,581
2,365,683
2,249,275
2,228,963
U.S. Geological Survey
937,985
936,464
933,515
974,586
Minerals Management Service
170,297
173,826
167,422
159,682
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement
295,975
296,573
356,549
298,549
Bureau of Indian Affairs
2,300,814
2,295,702
2,187,469
2,317,976
Departmental Offices a 682,674
726,379
815,903
767,654
Total Title I
9,847,964
9,944,128
9,792,069
9,808,693
Title II: Environmental Protection Agency
8,365,817c 8,026,485
7,520,600
7,708,027
Title III: Related Agencies
U.S. Forest Service
4,939,899
4,746,208
4,065,000
4,247,358
Indian Health Service
2,921,715
2,985,066
3,047,966
3,103,072
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
78,309
79,842
80,289
80,289
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
73,034
76,041
76,024
76,024
Council on Environmental Quality and Office of
Environmental Quality
3,219
3,258
2,717
2,717
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
8,648
9,424
9,200
9,200
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation
13,366
4,930
8,601
8,601
Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native
Culture and Arts Development
6,173
5,916
6,300
6,300
Smithsonian Institution
596,279
615,158
615,035
615,281
National Gallery of Art
98,225
102,654
113,300
113,300
John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts
32,159
33,021
33,000
27,800
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
8,498
8,863
9,201
9,085
National Endowment for the Arts
120,972
121,264
121,264
121,264
National Endowment for the Humanities
135,310
138,054
138,054
138,054
Commission of Fine Arts
1,405
1,768
1,893
1,893
National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs
6,914
6,902
7,000
7,000
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
3,951
4,536
4,988
4,860
National Capital Planning Commission
7,635
7,888
8,344
8,177
U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum
39,505
40,858
43,233
41,880
Presidio Trust
20,445
19,722
20,000
20,000
White House Commission on the Natl. Moment of
Remembrance
—
248
250
250
Total Title III
9,115,661
9,011,621
8,411,659
8,642,405
Grand Total (in Bill) b
$27,329,442
$26,982,234 $25,724,328
$26,159,125
Source: House Appropriations Committee.

---

CRS-73
a. Departmental Offices includes Insular Affairs, the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT), and the Office of the
Special Trustee for American Indians.
b. Figures do not reflect scorekeeping adjustments.
c. Derived from the report of the House Appropriations Committee on H.R. 5041 (H.Rept. 108-674).

---

CRS-74
For Additional Reading
Title I: Department of the Interior
CRS Report RL32373. Abandoned Mine Land Fund Reauthorization: Selected
Issues. By Robert L. Bamberger.
CRS Report RL30444. Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) (H.R. 701) and
a Related Initiative in the 106th Congress, by Jeffrey Zinn and M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Issue Brief IB10144. Endangered Species Act in the 109th Congress:
Conflicting Values and Difficult Choices, by Eugene H. Buck, M. Lynne Corn,
Pervaze Sheikh, Pamela Baldwin, and Robert Meltz.
CRS Report RS21331. Everglades Restoration: Modified Water Deliveries Project,
by Pervaze A. Sheikh.
CRS Report RS21402. Federal Lands, “Disclaimers of Interest,”and R.S. 2477, by
Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Report RL31621. Florida Everglades Restoration: Background on
Implementation and Early Lessons, by Pervaze Sheikh.
CRS Report RL32244. Grazing Regulations and Policies: Changes by the Bureau
of Land Management, by Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report 96-123. Historic Preservation: Background and Funding, by Susan
Boren.
CRS Report RS21503. Land and Water Conservation Fund: Current Status and
Issues, by Jeffrey A. Zinn.
CRS Report RS22056. Major Indian Issues in the 109th Congress, by Roger Walke.
CRS Issue Brief IB89130. Mining on Federal Lands, by Marc Humphries.
CRS Report RS21157. Multinational Species Conservation Fund, by M. Lynne Corn
and Pervaze A. Sheikh.
CRS Report RS20902. National Monument Issues, by Carol Hardy Vincent.

CRS Issue Brief IB10145. National Park Management, coordinated by Carol Hardy
Vincent.
CRS Report RL32699. Natural Resources: Selected Issues for the 109th Congress,
coordinated by Nicole Carter and Carol Hardy Vincent.

CRS Report RL32315. Oil and Gas Exploration and Development on Public Lands,
by Marc Humphries.

---

CRS-75
CRS Report RL31392. PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified, by
M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Report RS20702. South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, by Nicole T. Carter and Pervaze
A. Sheikh.
Land Management Agencies Generally
CRS Issue Brief IB10076. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lands and National
Forests, by Ross W. Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent, coordinators.
CRS Report RS20471. The Conservation Spending Category: Funding for Natural
Resource Protection, by Jeffrey A. Zinn.
CRS Report RS20002. Federal Land and Resource Management: A Primer, by Ross
W. Gorte.
CRS Report RL32393. Federal Land Management Agencies: Background on Land
and Resources Management, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report RL30335. Federal Land Management Agencies’ Permanently
Appropriated Accounts, by Ross W. Gorte, M. Lynne Corn, and Carol Hardy
Vincent.
CRS Report RL30126. Federal Land Ownership: Constitutional Authority; the
History of Acquisition, Disposal, and Retention; and Current Acquisition and
Disposal Authorities, by Ross W. Gorte and Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Report RL32131. Phosphorus Mitigation in the Everglades, by Pervaze Sheikh
and Barbara Johnson.
CRS Issue Brief IB10141, Recreation on Federal Lands, coordinated by Kori Calvert
and Carol Hardy Vincent.
Title II: Environmental Protection Agency
CRS Report RL30798. Environmental Laws: Summaries of Statutes Administered
by the Environmental Protection Agency, coordinated by Susan Fletcher.
CRS Report RL32856. Environmental Protection Agency: Appropriations for
FY2006, by Robert Esworthy and David Bearden.
CRS Report RL32441. Environmental Protection Agency: Appropriations for
FY2005, by David Bearden and Robert Esworthy.
CRS Report RS22064. Environmental Protection Agency: Highlights of the
President’s FY2006 Request, by David Bearden and Robert Esworthy.

---

CRS-76
CRS Issue Brief IB10146. Environmental Protection Issues in the 109th Congress,
coordinated by Susan Fletcher and Margaret Isler.
Title III: Related Agencies
CRS Report RS20287. Arts and Humanities: Background on Funding, by Susan
Boren.
CRS Report RL30755. Forest Fire/Wildfire Protection, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RS22056. Major Indian Issues in the 109th Congress, by Roger Walke.
CRS Report RL30647. The National Forest System Roadless Areas Initiative, by
Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Report RS21544. Wildfire Protection Funding, by Ross W. Gorte.

---